BC FOR LATER READ

Saved by @CodyyyGardner

$Thomas Wood \U0001f30a$

Thomas Wood 🌊
@twoodiac 4 years, 4 months ago 530 views

Save to PDF Share See On Twitter

The evidence is mounting that what we witnessed yesterday was an attempted coup (related terms are “insurrection” and “sedition”). 1/10

But it is important to note that the bad actors involved in the events can be sent to jail (for up to twenty years) for something that falls short of an attempted coup and is easier to prove in court: obstruction of justice. 2/10

The relevant federal statute is 18 U.S.C. § 1512--a statute, you might recall, that figures prominently in the Mueller Report. 3/10

Bill Barr, who wanted to construe the statute narrowly, contested Mueller’s interpretation of the statute. There is a lengthy reply to Barr’s construction (which I think might have been written by Michael Dreeben) in the Report. 4/10

The Report establishes conclusively that Barr’s interpretation violates every known principle of statutory construction, and it is fun to read the Report and see Barr get *destroyed* on this point. 5/10

That is relevant and important here because under the terms of the statute (construed as it must be), the plotters and actors in the assault on the Capitol yesterday committed OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, 6/10

because it is abundantly clear that the purpose of the assault was to disrupt, delay, and otherwise prevent the certification of the Electoral College ballots by Congress. Anyone intending to accomplish that can be charged and convicted for up to 20 years in prison. 7/10

Prosecutors shouldn’t have any difficulty showing that Giuliani (probably with the full awareness of Trump, which would make him an accessory to the crime) and bad actors in the Capitol Police and House “Freedom” Caucus are legally liable under the OOJ statute. 8/10

Here is the statute in relevant part: 9/10

Immediately prosecute, impeach, and remove under 18 U.S.C. § 1512, where the violation is easier to prove. Prosecuting all the plotters and actors for an attempted coup is also essential, but it can come later. 10/10

More from Thomas Wood 🌊

$Thomas Wood \U0001f30a$

Thomas Wood 🌊
@twoodiac

As I have pointed out in a previous posting, many of the rioters found to their dismay and bewilderment that there was no plan, at least that they could discern, for the mob to carry out that day. 1/63

The only thing they knew is that there had been a call to action--and to a large extent to arms as well--to disrupt the certification of Biden’s electoral college win. 2/63

According to Ali Alexander (formerly known as Ali Akbar) the idea was to show up so angry and in such overwhelming numbers that it would “change the hearts and the minds of Republicans who were in that body, hearing our loud roar from outside.” 3/63

(In fact, there is mounting evidence that Ali and other organizers of the event intended for the rioters to get INSIDE the fenced-in perimeter and even the building itself, which would in themselves have been unlawful actions--but that is a subject for another thread.) 4/63

Ali’s description might well fit the motives of many in the mob that assembled on January 6. But the more interesting and important question is: What did Trump and the activists and event organizers expect (or a least hope) that the *members of Congress* would do that day? 5/63

$Thomas Wood \U0001f30a$

Thomas Wood 🌊
@twoodiac

It was a foregone conclusion that Trump would lose the TX case, but why did he say “This is the big one?” 1/9

We will be INTERVENING in the Texas (plus many other states) case. This is the big one. Our Country needs a victory!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 9, 2020

Because the TX case rested on the proposition that a national election can be nullified and “overturned” (a term Trump actually used in a tweet) on the grounds that it does not satisfy conditions determined by the incumbent president 2/9

and the states governed by that president’s political party--
(e..g., no votes by voters receiving mail-in ballots who do not request those ballots shall be deemed legitimate.) 3/9

This litigation was intended to nullify all the votes in all 50 states, and would have called for a new election. It challenged election procedures, not just election results. And it did not require any proof of fraud or undercounts or overcounts. 4/9

In other words, no national election can be legitimate that fails to reelect the incumbent president--in this case of course, Donald J. Trump, the Supreme Leader of the *real* America. 5/9

Advertisement

$Thomas Wood \U0001f30a$

Thomas Wood 🌊
@twoodiac

There were at least two insurrectionist plans that day.

As I’ve written previously, one of the plans was simply to either take Pence hostage or to assassinate him. 1/28

That was the more extreme plot, and it is an interesting question whether and to what extent Trump, Giuliani, some WH aides, and some nationalist insurrection members of Congress knew of the plan and either facilitated it or condoned it. 2/28

But there was another plan, less violent and extreme, but equally seditious, which we know was supported by a number of extremist members of Congress. It was also the plan that Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani publicly espoused. 3/28

That plan was simply to ensure somehow, by force or by intimidation, that the certification of the election by Congress failed or fell short on January 6--the constitutionally mandated date for the final and determinative certification of the election. 4/28

The principal target here was VP MIke Pence. Pence had already announced publicly that he would not throw the election in the way that Trump had demanded because he lacked the statutory and constitutional authority to do so (which was, of course, perfectly true). 5/28

$Thomas Wood \U0001f30a$

Thomas Wood 🌊
@twoodiac

Biden saying that Rs “beat the living hell out of us” in downballot races across the country is significant, because (1) he said it to an audience that didn’t really want to hear it and https://t.co/FM7OwUgWYH 1/8

(2) because he wouldn’t have said it unless it was based on conclusive internal polling. 2/8

It is also encouraging if it *is* the correct analysis of Ds’ disappointing-- even calamitous--electoral outcomes in downballot races.

It is encouraging because it is easily remediable with better messaging. 3/8

In fact, Biden made it clear during the election that he did not favor actually defunding the police: that he only favored reforming the police, and specified policies to do that. But he didn’t say it loud enough, and downballot D politicians didn’t either. 4/8

(The R messaging over “defunding the police” seems to have worked to protect R politicians in downballot races, but wasn’t enough to get Trump himself reelected over the repugnance Ds and Independents felt for him.) 5/8

$Thomas Wood \U0001f30a$

Thomas Wood 🌊
@twoodiac

The most important remaining nomination for Biden to announce is the most important one he will ever make: for Attorney General of the United States. 1/8

If Biden nominates Sally Yates, it will be a pretty clear signal that the D voices who believe that Trump and his enablers must be held accountable for a uniquely lawless presidency have carried the day. 2/8

Since I’m hoping Biden will nominate Yates, it is encouraging that Biden has waited so long to announce his selection for AG. (It is going to come now after the Electoral College formalizes Biden’s election on Monday.) 3/8

(Trump’s outrageous attempt to overturn the 2020 election--“overturn” being a term Trump actually used in a tweet--has probably made it more likely that Biden will take a hard line on all this. He certainly should.) 4/8

If Yates is nominated, the writing will be clearly on the wall for Trump, who in its wake would probably make a deal with Pence involving his resignation some time before inauguration day and a pardon for all his federal crimes. 5/8

More from For later read

John Hayward
@Doc_0

Time once again to emphasize the differences between totalitarianism, authoritarianism, and fascism. They're often used as synonyms but they are different, although they do tend to lead to each other. Order one, and the other two are usually delivered soon enough.

Totalitarianism is best understood as the politicization of everything. Every facet of life is infused with political meaning... and subjected to political control. There is little room for privacy or individualism. Every word and deed is seen as a political action.

Totalitarianism does *not* require authoritarian government, although it usually leads to such. You can be totalitarian without having any real government power at all, enforcing your political will through mob actions and corporate power. Examples from recent history abound.

Totalitarianism is the easiest of the three deadly "isms" to slide into, because it can easily be disguised with claims of its good intentions. Totalitarians usually claim to be motivated by the Greater Good. They claim to represent the interests of sympathetic victims.

Totalitarians claim that society is unjust and must be corrected by force. Before they gain the power to become authoritarians, they often assert the right to use force outside of the law because the government is corrupt or serves the interests of their ideological enemies.

Vigilant AFA
@AfaVigilant

One fascist to watch in 2021 is Joseph Charles "Oakman" Golinske of SE MI. He's been a Proud Boy for a couple years, but took a break recently from the group and promotes himself through the "Oak Nation" channel on Telegram.

Most people may be familiar with him as the tall guy in the Proud Boys bridge shot, from their August 17, 2019 attack on Portland, which featured an American Guard bus trying (and failing) to bludgeon antifascists with hammers.

He was also with his g/f at the time (Dominique Tota, left of Tarrio), and that's definitely a twitter account folks will want to block/report because he posts on it.

He's been plenty active at the pro-Covid/anti-mask/ReOpen protests in Lansing MI, seen here with Jerry Wayne and an effigy of Gretchen Whitmer, who his militia friends tried to kidnap and publicly execute.

Outside of the Proud Boys, his solo "career" with Oak Nation features the same misogyny, classism and gateway to far-right domestic terrorism the Proud Boys themselves feature. Here's him peddling oxychlorinque and bragging about harassing service workers.

Advertisement

$Billy Bostickson \U0001f3f4\U0001f441&\U0001f441 \U0001f193$

Billy Bostickson 🏴👁&👁 ...
@BillyBostickson

1. A little DRASTIC Project you may be able to help with?
We want to collate all references to DRASTIC in academic papers & media articles
Here are a few:
medium article by @emmecola
thorough report by @netpoette
@ColinDavdButler 's Paper
Please add any links to this thread. Tks!

2. More References
Papers by @MonaRahalkar and @BahulikarRahul
Papers by @Rossana38510044 and @ydeigin
Medium articles & papers by
@gdemaneuf & @Rdemaistre
Papers by @flavinkins (Daoyu Zhang)
Papers by "Anon" & "interneperson"
French News - le Monde
Can anyone remember any more?

3. More References
Papers & Blog Posts by @Harvard2H (Sirotkin & Sirotkin)
260 Questions for WHO collated by @billybostickson
If you find mentions of our individual names or "DRASTIC" in Papers or News, please forward here to this thread as links or screenshots.

Histoire du COVID-19 – chapitre 6 - Partie 2 : Pourquoi le séquençage complet du virus RaTG13 n'a pas été communiqué par Shi Zheng Li avant février 2020 ? https://t.co/MYEZZSAzaE

SARS-CoV-2: lab-origin hypothesis gains traction
BY ANNETTE GARTLAND ON OCTOBER 12, 2020
https://t.co/sPs1y8Herg

Umbereen S. Nehal, MD,...
@usnehal

I am done giving this doctor or team grace. I started with "We are tremendously grateful for all you are doing." He seemed irritated to speak to us. Literally I asked, "What is the likelihood our mom will die on current support, in the next 24 hours, so we can plan travel?"

He hammered us with how severe this was and that was. Yes, that is why I am asking the question. "We are asking you to be a thought partner so we can make responsible decisions as the family." I had had pre-conversations with doctor friends to understand the numbers and prognosis

He said "It would be illegal for me to tell you that she won't die, then she dies." Yes, that is why I said LIKELIHOOD - critical care docs deal in likelihoods. It so frustrating to be on this side and not get a fraction of the standard that I have been held to and hold myself to

Then I made the error of saying, "I'm a pediatrician, I literally do this work on family-centered, compassionate care." to which the charge nurse answered, "It is not the work we do. We keep people alive." End of life care IS your job. Planning IS your job. It's not just numbers

Compassion is not only a pediatric thing while critical care/end of life can proudly lack it. I've had more end of life conversations than I want to remember. My mom is not numbers. She is a human being. I am modulating my voice, complimenting you, leveraging my network.

Lauren Thoman
@LaurenThoman

I should mention, this is why I keep talking about this. Because I know so many people who legally CAN'T.

How do I know they have NDAs, if they can't talk legally about them? Because they trusted me with their secrets... after I said something. That's how they knew I was safe.

And if the environment at the org was toxic or abusive, it is not uncommon to not realize the extent of that toxicity/abuse until after you're out. But by the time you realize that you signed under duress and presumed good faith where none existed, you're out of options.
— Lauren Thoman (@LaurenThoman) February 16, 2021

Some of the people who have reached out to me privately have been sitting with the pain of what happened to them and the regret that they signed for YEARS. But at the time, it didn't seem like they had any other option BUT to sign.

I do not blame *anyone* for signing an NDA, especially when it's attached to a financial lifeline. When you feel like your family's wellbeing is at stake, you'll do anything -- even sign away your own voice -- to provide for them. That's not a "choice"; that's survival.

And yes, many of the people whose stories I now know were pressured into signing an NDA by my husband's ex-employer. Some of whom I *never* would have guessed. People I thought "left well." Turns out, they've just been *very* good at abiding by the terms of their NDA.

(And others who have reached out had similar experiences with other Christian orgs. Turns out abuse, and the use of NDAs to cover up that abuse, is rampant in a LOT of places.)

You May Also Like

Erik Torenberg
@eriktorenberg

1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:

Next level tactic when closing a sale, candidate, or investment:

Ask: \u201cWhat needs to be true for you to be all in?\u201d

You'll usually get an explicit answer that you might not get otherwise. It also holds them accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) February 27, 2018

2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.

GREG ISENBERG
@gregisenberg

Life is crazy. Today is a good day to stop and reflect

10 simple questions that CHANGED my life

(startup life, personal life)

Here they are:

Q: Can you really control that?

Smart people know what they can and cannot control

If you're living in the past, you're nostalgic
If you're living in the future, you're anxious
If you're living in the present, you're at peace

Q: Did you start today with a victory?

Starting every day with a victory sets you up to win

I don't care what it is:

- Make your bed
- Make a wonderful coffee
- Hug your wife or children

No such thing as a small win. It's a win!

You'll win more, if you start winning early

Q: What are you optimizing for?

#MFSA
1. Money
2. Freedom
3. Stability
4. Ability

The world rewards those who are focused

Perfectly prioritize

Are you being optimistic?

Guaranteed: more luck when you're optimistic

Advertisement

Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson

(THREAD) The Whitaker scandal is deepening, as it becomes clear that Sessions' Russia recusal was a coordinated sham and his firing an act of obstruction—and that his replacement is a White House plant inside the Mueller probe. I hope you'll retweet and read on for more details.

1/ From 2014-17 Whitaker worked for World Patent Marketing—which during his tenure defrauded consumers out of $26 million and was successfully prosecuted by the feds. His involvement in the scam confirmed he had loose morals and that the feds would never want to employ him again.

2/ Despite the seeming impossibility of a man with Whitaker's background getting a job at Justice ever again—he'd been found to have used his former title as a US attorney to fraudulently threaten consumers with valid complaints with criminal penalties—Whitaker found an opening.

3/ Within 60 days of parachuting out of World Patent Marketing as it was being fined $26 million by the feds, Whitaker was working for CNN and telling a fellow attorney panelist that his purpose in working for CNN was to get noticed by one man—Donald Trump—and thereby get a job.

4/ Whitaker spent his time at CNN making ludicrous statements about the Mueller probe: there was no obstruction or collusion, he said; Mueller had no authority to look into any aspect of Trump's finances or to subpoena him, he said. All the while, he hoped Trump was watching him.

$Michael King \U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8$

Michael King 🇺🇸...
@8MichaelKing

Ever notice how the top niches are centered around health, wealth, and relationships?

There's a deep-rooted psychological (and biological) reason why.

And today, I'm gonna to explain all of it so you can start profiting off of this knowledge 💰💰

*Now, this thread is going to be long and in depth. Make sure to favorite the top tweet now so you can come back to it later.

So. Down to the very core of every living being (humans, dolphins, bacteria, aliens), there are only two drivers:
1. To survive
2. To reproduce

Right off the bat, we know that sex is a primary driver to human behavior.

This would also mean that each gender has its own insecurities regarding sex.

Men have a subconscious fear that their woman will leave them for someone more successful

Women have a fear that their man will leave them for someone younger & better-looking

We can conclude that men are attracted to looks, and women are attracted to status.

This is human nature down to its very core.

Crazy, blue-haired feminists will try to argue and say otherwise.

But, 50 years of feminism DOES NOT OVERRIDE millions of years of evolutionary biology.

Here's a quick visualization exercise so you can see how true all this is...

$Vibhu Vashisth \U0001f1ee\U0001f1f3$

Vibhu Vashisth 🇮🇳...
@VIBHU_Tweet

Did you know?

Rani Bhabani was the Queen of Natore, Bengal or 'Natorer Rani' as she was famously called. She made great contributions in Tarapith & renovated Benaras.

In Varanasi, Durga Kund Mandir was constructed by Rani Bhabani in the 18th century.

Born in Chhatimgram village, Bogra District,Her father's name was Atmaram Choudhury.Bhabani was married off to Raja Ramkanta Moitra,the then zamindar of Rajshahi.After his death, Bhabani became the zamindar, and started being referred to as Rani.She was known as Ardhabangeshwari.

A woman as a zamindar was extremely rare in those days, but Rani Bhabani managed the vast Rajshahi zamindari most efficiently and effectively for over four decades.
Maharani Bhavani was very pious in her personal life. She passed her life in a strict disciplined way.

She conducted the administrative work skillfully. As a Maharani she was an impartial judge. Rani Bhavani had a very hard time during the fag end of her life. The Zamindari (estate) incurred serious loss due to the change of the revenue policy of the company.

In spite of being the owner of a large Zamindari (estate), she had to depend on the stipend of the government in the later part of her life. The amount of this stipend gradually decreased and became Rs. 1000/- only in the end.