Does nobody else find it fascinating that Senator Dianne Feinstein\u2019s (D) staffer for 20 years has been outed as a Chinese spy
— Maajid \u0623\u0628\u0648 \u0639\u0645\u0651\u0627\u0631 (@MaajidNawaz) November 10, 2020
Feinstein\u2019s husband invests in Dominion, the software used to count the disputed ballots.
Surely, that\u2019s news, no?
CBS local:https://t.co/iJ8mUfYJKB
THREAD:
Instead of attacking those of us raising it, why aren’t mainstream “liberal” journalists on here as outraged as we are about how many senior Democratic Party figures seem to have been compromised by Chinese spies?
Genocide is non-negotiable
#TAGG 🧿
See examples:
.@SpeakerPelosi (D) has named Representative Eric Swallwell (D), who only last month was caught in a relationship with a Chinese spy https://t.co/Ikx38ELKaB as one of her impeachment managers against President Trump (https://t.co/Qb7CMtx6cW)
— Maajid \u0623\u0628\u0648 \u0639\u0645\u0651\u0627\u0631 (@MaajidNawaz) January 13, 2021
See how far the rot has spread
Scoop: Biden\u2019s inaugural committee will refund a donation from former Sen. Barbara Boxer after the California Democrat registered as a foreign agent for a Chinese surveillance firm accused of abetting the country\u2019s mass internment of Uighur Muslimshttps://t.co/smnSaRCcW9
— Axios (@axios) January 12, 2021
megvii, a company that hunter biden invests in supplies technology for \u201ca china-wide surveillance program called the skynet project, which uses more than 20m closed-circuit tv cameras to monitor citizens\u201d
— Maajid \u0623\u0628\u0648 \u0639\u0645\u0651\u0627\u0631 (@MaajidNawaz) September 29, 2020
thank you for your integrity @buzzfeedhttps://t.co/GEXaMbGnTu#TAGG \U0001f9ff pic.twitter.com/SNkvsZzkSU
More from Maajid أبو عمّار
Analysis
The US Supreme Court has ducked hearing the case of Trump, Texas & 17 other states, on a procedural issue
They did not comment on any recent newsworthy fraud allegations
Trump still refuses to concede, so what are his remaining long shot legal routes?
Read my THREAD:
1) There is still this dormant PA Republican Party vs Boockvar US Supreme Court case, but it may remain dormant, since the Court already indicated yesterday that it (understandably?) simply doesn’t want the serious heat on this one
2) Mon Dec 14th Electoral College need to cast their votes alongside their states’ choice (the crux of the dispute)
Matters escalate if:
i) the Electoral College is tied
ii) “faithless” electors don’t vote for their state candidate
Note: in the key swing states, this is legal
OR:
iii) the House rejects some Electoral College votes, resulting in neither candidate receiving a majority.
3) If the above long shot occurs (aren’t we already in unprecedented times?) what happens next?
Under the 12th Amendment, when the House meets Jan 6th they can refuse to approve the Electoral College votes. They instead vote on a 1 vote per 1 state basis
Trump wins that vote.
The US Supreme Court has ducked hearing the case of Trump, Texas & 17 other states, on a procedural issue
They did not comment on any recent newsworthy fraud allegations
Trump still refuses to concede, so what are his remaining long shot legal routes?
Read my THREAD:
....that, after careful study and consideration, think you got \u201cscrewed\u201d, something which will hurt them also. Many others likewise join the suit but, within a flash, it is thrown out and gone, without even looking at the many reasons it was brought. A Rigged Election, fight on!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2020
1) There is still this dormant PA Republican Party vs Boockvar US Supreme Court case, but it may remain dormant, since the Court already indicated yesterday that it (understandably?) simply doesn’t want the serious heat on this one
A pending Supreme Court judgement in the case of Boockvar decides Pennsylvania
— Maajid \u0623\u0628\u0648 \u0639\u0645\u0651\u0627\u0631 (@MaajidNawaz) November 11, 2020
That was not a fraud case. The number of votes is secondary
It is about auditing a temporary mail ballot ringfence, imposed till a constitutional case against alleged judicial activism in PA is heard https://t.co/ek8gkDibKZ
2) Mon Dec 14th Electoral College need to cast their votes alongside their states’ choice (the crux of the dispute)
Matters escalate if:
i) the Electoral College is tied
ii) “faithless” electors don’t vote for their state candidate
Note: in the key swing states, this is legal
It is important for election heads following this story to note that in Arizona, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Georgia the electoral college is *not legally obliged* to vote as their state did. If disputes about election integrity continue, what these electors think, will matter
— Maajid \u0623\u0628\u0648 \u0639\u0645\u0651\u0627\u0631 (@MaajidNawaz) November 13, 2020
OR:
iii) the House rejects some Electoral College votes, resulting in neither candidate receiving a majority.
3) If the above long shot occurs (aren’t we already in unprecedented times?) what happens next?
Under the 12th Amendment, when the House meets Jan 6th they can refuse to approve the Electoral College votes. They instead vote on a 1 vote per 1 state basis
Trump wins that vote.
BREAKING
China’s Elite Capture:
- Over 600 Chinese Communist Party (CCP) members at 19 branches of HSBC & Standard Chartered
- 123 CCP at Pfizer & AstraZeneca (coronavirus vaccines)
- Defence firms Airbus, Boeing & Rolls-Royce employed hundreds of
“In the nine months to September, 14 Chinese nationals were charged over alleged spying offences and the Trump administration last week changed its visa rules so members of the Chinese Communist Party and their families can stay or get travel documents for only a month.”
“Last week, John Ratcliffe, the US Director of National Security, warned that China posed the 'greatest threat to democracy and freedom' since the Second World War and was striving to dominate 'the planet economically, militarily and technologically'.”
it’s been 6 months since my 5 day hunger strike to highlight history’s most technologically sophisticated genocide in china (https://t.co/Vu8BVi2w4q)
yet still there’s not been a single mainstream UK newspaper frontpage on the Uyghur plight
never stop asking WHY?
Self-evident.
By @MichaelPSenger for @tabletmag
China’s Elite Capture:
- Over 600 Chinese Communist Party (CCP) members at 19 branches of HSBC & Standard Chartered
- 123 CCP at Pfizer & AstraZeneca (coronavirus vaccines)
- Defence firms Airbus, Boeing & Rolls-Royce employed hundreds of
“In the nine months to September, 14 Chinese nationals were charged over alleged spying offences and the Trump administration last week changed its visa rules so members of the Chinese Communist Party and their families can stay or get travel documents for only a month.”
“Last week, John Ratcliffe, the US Director of National Security, warned that China posed the 'greatest threat to democracy and freedom' since the Second World War and was striving to dominate 'the planet economically, militarily and technologically'.”
it’s been 6 months since my 5 day hunger strike to highlight history’s most technologically sophisticated genocide in china (https://t.co/Vu8BVi2w4q)
yet still there’s not been a single mainstream UK newspaper frontpage on the Uyghur plight
never stop asking WHY?
Self-evident.
By @MichaelPSenger for @tabletmag
Texas is disputing US election results in 4 swing states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin & Georgia
Under Article III, US Supreme Court settles disputes between 2 or more states
Due to safe harbour, Trump’s remaining legal routes are narrow after
Brief analysis:
The Texas case is about the contested swing states’ executive & judicial branches VS their legislatures, on mail-in ballot rules
On Tuesday before safe harbour, SCOTUS rejected a similar lawsuit brought by Republican Rep. Mike Kelly
But a 3rd & eerily similar case has been with Justice Alito (as circuit judge for PA) & the Supreme Court since before the election. It’s about this very same executive & judiciary VS legislature dispute. That case, PA Republican Party vs Boockvar, may be decided in time, or not
The below is also worth noting:
There is also the issue of ‘safe harbour’ being said to only be “procedural”. This view rests on a reading of the Bush v Gore Supreme Court ruling.
Under Article III, US Supreme Court settles disputes between 2 or more states
Due to safe harbour, Trump’s remaining legal routes are narrow after
Brief analysis:
The Texas case is about the contested swing states’ executive & judicial branches VS their legislatures, on mail-in ballot rules
On Tuesday before safe harbour, SCOTUS rejected a similar lawsuit brought by Republican Rep. Mike Kelly
But a 3rd & eerily similar case has been with Justice Alito (as circuit judge for PA) & the Supreme Court since before the election. It’s about this very same executive & judiciary VS legislature dispute. That case, PA Republican Party vs Boockvar, may be decided in time, or not
A pending Supreme Court judgement in the case of Boockvar decides Pennsylvania
— Maajid \u0623\u0628\u0648 \u0639\u0645\u0651\u0627\u0631 (@MaajidNawaz) November 11, 2020
That was not a fraud case. The number of votes is secondary
It is about auditing a temporary mail ballot ringfence, imposed till a constitutional case against alleged judicial activism in PA is heard https://t.co/ek8gkDibKZ
The below is also worth noting:
It is important for election heads following this story to note that in Arizona, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Georgia the electoral college is *not legally obliged* to vote as their state did. If disputes about election integrity continue, what these electors think, will matter
— Maajid \u0623\u0628\u0648 \u0639\u0645\u0651\u0627\u0631 (@MaajidNawaz) November 13, 2020
There is also the issue of ‘safe harbour’ being said to only be “procedural”. This view rests on a reading of the Bush v Gore Supreme Court ruling.
More from Journalism
WHO is Richard Sharp? The new Chairman of the BBC?
1. Sharp worked for JP Morgan for eight years, then worked for Goldman Sachs, 23 years, rising to chairman of its principal investment business in Europe, .He was Rishi Sunak's boss at Goldman Sachs! Conflict of Interest MUCH?
2. His Sister is, Dame Victoria Madeleine Sharp, DBE, QC , President of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in England and Wales. Sharp was called to the Bar, Inner Temple in 1979.
3. Richard Sharp, is a Donor (more than £400,000) to the Conservative Party!!! NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST, THERE THEN!!!
https://t.co/I3qtnK3FV0
4.
5.
1. Sharp worked for JP Morgan for eight years, then worked for Goldman Sachs, 23 years, rising to chairman of its principal investment business in Europe, .He was Rishi Sunak's boss at Goldman Sachs! Conflict of Interest MUCH?
2. His Sister is, Dame Victoria Madeleine Sharp, DBE, QC , President of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in England and Wales. Sharp was called to the Bar, Inner Temple in 1979.
3. Richard Sharp, is a Donor (more than £400,000) to the Conservative Party!!! NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST, THERE THEN!!!
https://t.co/I3qtnK3FV0
4.
5.
You May Also Like
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:
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.
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:
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) February 27, 2018
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.
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.
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
