https://t.co/9MgwobVvYS
I know he\u2019s a blowhard, @greg_doucette, but this is inciting violence, no?
— ScubaVal #VoteGeorgiaVote (@MajikaZulJin) January 2, 2021
The audience has been standing by with itchy fingers. https://t.co/SpZ5XTNn7M
@greg_doucette Sedition finally? https://t.co/34vfNIPTPY
— grumpy_gator (@jonb13x) January 2, 2021
I know he\u2019s a blowhard, @greg_doucette, but this is inciting violence, no?
— ScubaVal #VoteGeorgiaVote (@MajikaZulJin) January 2, 2021
The audience has been standing by with itchy fingers. https://t.co/SpZ5XTNn7M
Um, this doesn\u2019t satisfy all four elements?
— Alex (@arg11) January 2, 2021
Overturning the election would be a lawless action, wouldn't it?
— Harley Quinn (@HarleyVicQuinn) January 2, 2021
And what Trump is trying to get Pence and Congressional Republicans to do on January 6 is imminent, isn't it?
I would think this qualifies. But you're the expert.
It has to look like the group that planned to kidnap the governor of MI? They had the four elements?
— Marquis Lafayette: "Constitutional" "Lawyer" (@RenegadeSci) January 2, 2021
Which part doesn't it meet? My layman's understanding would suggest it does, so I'm wondering where the disconnect is
— Max FKA LastGeeksDying (@Titanmatrix) January 2, 2021
This needs to be prosecuted. In any reasonable estimation, statements intended to cause this kind of action any time in the near future should be considered "imminent." I consider the next 3 weeks to be in the "imminent" timeframe.
— GrahamIsThisCat (@GrahamThis) January 2, 2021
I think I'm done following apologists for terrorism.
— GrahamIsThisCat (@GrahamThis) January 2, 2021
Can we at least say Gohmert is \u201cflirting\u201d with incitement? We saw how the Proud Boys pounced on Trump saying \u201cstand back and stand by\u201d. I worry Gohmert\u2019s words will lead to violence on the streets. If that happens and they sing his praises will that qualify as incitement? THX!
— Rebel Pony (@Corri_Girl) January 2, 2021
...wait, really? So if I said something that's otherwise incitement, but staple "in 30 days" onto the end, it's no longer incitement because it's not imminent?
— Fen-nic Hartley \U0001f51e (@nichartley) January 2, 2021
We have a few new people here since our December 2019 event, so let's start things off with some background \U0001f62c
— T. Greg "'Constitutional Lawyer'" Doucette (@greg_doucette) December 4, 2020
So if the house had a Republican majority\u2014which it may well in 2022, especially given the gerrymandering and structural minority bias\u2014would they legally be able to stop the transition in 2024 of a Democratic president-elect? https://t.co/L2o4ZVdfXO
— zeynep tufekci (@zeynep) January 2, 2021
Historically, why is this sort of outcome allowed to be a thing? Maybe it's a failure in my imagination, but why would congress be allowed such power?
— Pogman42 (@Pogman42) January 3, 2021
It\u2019s just weird to me that we\u2019re able to elect senators and congressman themselves without this level of confusion but the electors create some kind of unique challenge requiring resolution by congress in some instances
— Bryan Duva (@duva60) January 3, 2021
What about the NPVIC? https://t.co/arg8V3QPih
— Phil Traum (@TraumPhil) January 3, 2021
@greg_doucette What's the likelihood and desirability of a new constitutional amendment which says that presidents cannot pardon anybody in the last 100 days of each term?
— Evergreen JM \U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8 \U0001f310 (@ElectronJ2) December 24, 2020
What's the chances we ever see a Constitutional Amendment in our lifetimes, at this rate?
— Jeremy (@11JustBreathe11) December 24, 2020
This one maybe: https://t.co/apWQyLD2i3
— Evergreen JM \U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8 \U0001f310 (@ElectronJ2) December 24, 2020
If you could unilaterally add an amendment, what would it be?
— KJJBAA (@KJJBAA) December 24, 2020
Yes Wyoming rule. No on 3 senators. The senate is broken now that CA has 39M people and Wyoming has 500k. Adding more senators doesn\u2019t fix that. Need to add some semblance of balance.
— Bryan Duva (@duva60) December 24, 2020
What would the legal result of the proposed objections by the six Senators (need House & Senate) be?
— Alexa O'Brien (@alexadobrien) January 2, 2021
And if they do manage it Pelosi takes over? Is that right?
— Phil Wheatley \u26bd\ufe0f (@philski68) January 3, 2021
Cruz\u2019s call for a ten day audit/election committee... there no legal authority for this to even occur correct?
— Justin Rakowski (@JustinRakowski) January 3, 2021
The mRNA sequences used for Moderna mRNA-1273 & Pfizer BNT162b2 mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 (Direct link in Word Format). WHO International Nonproprietary Name Program # 11889 "Messenger RNA encoding the full-length SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein"https://t.co/zTb7B0Apic pic.twitter.com/8tZxAZWI5S
— Roland Baker (@RolandBakerIII) December 24, 2020
Moderna's mRNA-1273 & Pfizer's BNT162b2 consist of mRNA 3821 nucleotides long encoding *all* 1273 amino acids of the Spike including a 2 Proline-stabilized RBD and this includes the NTD (blue in monomer, dark gray in trimer attached to antibodies). AA 64, 66, 187, 213, 214 red. pic.twitter.com/4MX1ByAsrR
— Roland Baker (@RolandBakerIII) December 19, 2020
News: NIH-Moderna investigational COVID-19 vaccine shows promise in mouse studies https://t.co/7JYuUyZT45
— NIH (@NIH) August 5, 2020