This is a good piece on fissures within the GOP but I think it mischaracterizes the Trump presidency as “populist” & repeats a story about how conservatives & the GOP expelled the far-right in the mid-1960s that is actually far more complicated. /1

A story ...

In 1994, I was teaching U.S. history and American government at Oak Ridge HS in El Dorado Hills, California.

I had three bright students who were my TAs. The 20th anniversary of Richard Nixon's resignation was a few months away. I decided to have ... 1/

my students -- Sherilyn Peek, Aaron Leahy and Nicole Poimiroo -- take on an extra project. They contacted dozens of people who were in some way involved with the Watergate saga. Politicians, lawyers, political appointees, journalists and others. 2/

They spent weeks, before the internet existed, tracking down addresses. Then they sent a short letter that asked the recipients to respond to one question: What should America learn from Watergate?

Before long, responses started to show up in my mailbox at school. 3/

Archibald Cox replied, and I'm especially struck by this sentence: "...we should be reminded of the corrupt influence of great power, especially when the power is in the hands of someone who is willing to resort to any tactics, however wrong, to retain and increase his power."4/

Richard Kleindienst wrote his response by hand ... "Our Constitution worked! The federal judiciary worked. The Congress and a free press worked. That our Constitution works is the magic of America." 5/

"How the Avengers would respond to the Capitol riot" (a thread)

CAPTAIN AMERICA - tells Falcon, "I fought Nazis once before. They're extremely dangerous." They then see the guy scaling the Capitol wall fall into the shrubs. Falcon: "You sure these are the same Nazis?"

IRON MAN - lands by the guy carrying the podium. Says, "Mind if I borrow this?" then tosses it to Hulk, who swings it like a bat at the mob. Guy: "Hey, that's MY podium!" Iron Man: "Actually it's the Speaker's. And technically, it's a lectern." Then punches him through a wall.

BLACK WIDOW - enters hotel room where Jack Dorsey is tied up. Rips duct tape off his mouth. Jack: "I'll do anything you want!" BW: "Disable POTUS's Twitter. NOW!" Jack fumbles with his phone. "Done. Anything else?" BW: "Yeah. Trim your beard for God's sake." *tosses him clippers*

HULK - grabs a selfie stick from one of the guys and beats him over the head with it. Deeming it too small, he grabs another guy's Confederate flag and takes out a whole swath of rioters. He then tosses the flag to Cap, who uses it as a javelin to impale a fleeing Ted Cruz.

HAWKEYE - hears Iron Man in his earpiece say, "Looks like Orange Julius is tweeting from another account." Hawkeye: "On it." He locks in on Trump through the White House window and fires an arrow, knocking the phone out of Trump's hands. Hawkeye: "Damn that felt good."

I've been seeing a lot of discussion around the dosage gaps recommended by government for the Astra/Oxford & Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines. My thoughts on the potential benefits & risks of such an approach, and the need for much greater transparency around these decisions. Thread.

The UK govt announced recently that both the Oxford & BioNTech vaccines would be now administered with a gap of between 4-12 weeks (so prioritise administration of first dose, given limited resources).

What is the basis of this?

The basis that's been discussed seems to be that
1) the first dose is likely to confer some degree of protection against disease, so better to roll this out as fast as possible, and
2) that for Oxford/Astra efficacy may be higher when the gap between doses is greater.

I discuss some of the technical details around the Oxford trial below for those interested in these. If you'd just like a summary of this, please skip to the summary tweet titled 'SUMMARY'.

What does published evidence show? The Astra/Oxford data are a bit messy because of protocol changes during the trial. This is because the trial was originally planned as a single dose trial, but a booster dose was added when developers realised that this would likely help.

Dems are correct in not calling witnesses, which is obvious when you think this through. First, the case has been made. Any GOPr or delusional Trump fan who doesnt accept that - or care - never will. The country knows/sees what happened. 2nd, if dems called witnesses.../1

...it will add next to nothing. Statements are being admitted into the record from some witnesses. Third, & most important, the GQP is a monstrosity that only cares about power. Once the witness door opens, they'll turn the trial into a farce, calling anyone and everyone.../2

...to muddy up the case. Since their entire case is whataboutism, they will try to call Obama, Hillary Clinton, Holder, Waters, and on and on. If the presiding officer holds the testimony irrelevant before allowing it, there will be weeks of rage about cover-ups, etc. The.../3

...actual case - already strongly proven by the House Managers, even using the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt - will get buried as the days and weeks pass with hundreds of irrelevant witnesses are fought over. Finally, bringing those witnesses.../4

...could interfere with a possibly more important proceeding if it happens: The criminal prosecution of Trump by District of Columbia for inciting a riot, which is a crime in DC. As in the Oliver North case, the public Congressional testimony of North led a court to throw.../5

SPOILS OF WAR

#2allthosewhothoughtIwascrazy:

"When I see Harris & her husband, I see us. Will more BW begin to see the same potential 4 romantic love w/white men? Harris' next 4 yrs in the WH could help provide an answer. The power of Harris'

Black men, you are officially expendable, at least have the media tell you. And black women, to hell w/black men. White people will reward you handsomely following Harris' lead. Never forget this country was founded on breaking up black families. I predicted this would happen.

Make Michelle Obama white & Barack Obama's campaign doesn't sniff an ounce of support from black women. The reason being was that the picture of an intact black family in power was a beautiful sight for black women & fulfilled their greatest dreams. There is nothing wrong w/this.

There is nothing wrong w/wanting to see black people in love together in power. It's a beautiful sight, but what of Harris? If the Obama's marriage communicated to black people the power of black love in power, what does Kamala Harris' marriage to a white man communicate?

That black men are expendable & that 2 rise in a white world, black men are baggage that U need 2 discard. Think I'm off kilter w/this? Consider the fact that many black women in powerful positions either say little of or attribute little of their success 2 their black fathers.