So Dominion sued Rudy for defamation. How are they ever going to allege actual malice?

Let's talk about this North Dakota attempt to legislate around Section 230 and create a civil right of action for users censored by social media sites. CC @mmasnick

Forget, for a moment, that this law, if it passed would immediately be deemed void as preempted by Section 230 (Federal law is supreme over state law where they conflict, and this would create an express conflict). This bill is a really good example of why this stuff is hard

Here's the key provision of the bill. The various highlighting on these versions shows areas we'll touch on

First of all, let's look at the last of those images. There's no question that this would target conduct immune under federal law - and, in fact, if 230 were repealed nobody could ever be liable under this law (since it only reaches immune conduct). So it's incredibly stupid.

But again, put that aside. Let's look at the substance.

First of all, who gets to decide whether content fits into these highlighted categories? Do they actually think that the government will get to decide what counts as "otherwise objectionable"?

Dear Texas: When your argument is that election procedures were adopted in violation of the Electors clause, the only evidence you need to "marshal" is "what election procedures were adopted and how"

You don't need weeks, a magnifying glass, and Melissa Carone

Also, why is there no other forum? You couldn't have sued in Federal court in Georgia or PA in advance of the election because ...?

Oh, right. No standing. That's still a problem

Also, Texas? I feel like you should take that up with ... Texas

I kind of feel like "look, what you meant by Purcell was let's just wait until after the election and then invalidate ALL the votes" isn't necessarily the *strongest* argument

Also, you don't just get to make up a new principle of constitutional and election law and just call it "a variant of" Purcell (or anything else).

You can tell it's made up by the total absence of any citation to ANY case, ANYWHERE, saying that

OK, let's start talking about the House's 80 page brief on impeachment. It really is an incredibly well-done piece of work. There are some things I'd do differently and some pieces I didn't love, but overall, it's very very good.

Again - this thread will happen in fits and starts. I'm swamped at work and this will come in 10-15 minute chunks as I take a break

Let's start by taking a look at the table of contents. After a 4-page intro (that's relatively long, don't love it), the brief spends a solid 30 pages walking through the facts underlying the impeachment - and, the subheadings tell us, tying in Trump's general refusal to accept

the election results with everything that followed. This is a strong rhetorical approach, but it comes with dangers: the President not only had a legal right to contest the election results, but the GOP Senators pretty much all backed that right, strongly.

It's going to be important to thread a needle of saying "this set the stage for what came after" without putting yourself in a place where you're trying to convince the Senate that the challenges themselves were impeachable. That won't fly

So after over a week Fake Ass was played and played good....@THEREALTRDJ
I said he was playing a game and he was the pawn in my game...
We all saw the Little Nigeria Fake running scared....The posts off him tagging law enforcement and other people was just laughable...hahaaa...

You see the Supposedly sicario was a real Sicario called Broly an easy Google image search could have found this...but Fake ass couldn't even do that...and he fell for it big time...lmfao

As the ineffable @BenardoDeLaPaz pointed out to me, @LLinWood is dropping major bombs all over the place. He points to this article from famous conservative upstart, Vox

Vox Day is quoting this article from the Anonymous Conservative.

Let's see Mr. Wood is

"A sealed document in a federal court in Maryland, sealed under National Security, documents how Nancy Pelosi, Rod Rosenstein, John Podesta, and John Brennan have tapes of John Roberts talking with Podesta about who would best replace Antonin Scalia, and...

"...they were recorded before Scalia died, and apparently had foreknowledge of his death. Roberts flew on Epstein’s plane because Epstein helped him acquire his children from Wales."

"Barack Obama is worth well over billion dollars, much inherited from his step-father who owned it in Halliburton stock."

In January, we wrote to @pritipatel on behalf of 31 claimants, several standing in for their deceased parents, calling for the Windrush Compensation Scheme to be taken away from the Home Office on account of its comprehensive failure: [1/35]

It wasn’t just that the Scheme *wasn’t working*; claimants had begun to get the sense that @ukhomeoffice was deliberately setting them up to fail, and being deliberately dishonest in its promises as to reform and meaningful change. [2/35]

On 14 Dec, @ukhomeoffice had announced a package of reforms to the Scheme. These reforms were said to be the fruit of the sincere efforts of HO staff in listening to the complaints victims and stakeholders had been making for well over a year. [3/35]

A big part of the “overhaul” was the promise of Preliminary Awards of £10k. These payments were to be ‘fast-tracked’ as a demonstration of the HO’s good faith. @pritipatel told Parliament they’d be rolled out beginning the week of 14 Dec. [4/35]

A promise of “fast-tracked” anything from @ukhomeoffice is inherently suspicious, unless the thing in question is some form of abuse of migrants, refugees or PoC. Claimants - who have in many cases been waiting since mid-late 2019 to hear back - were guarded. [5/35]

#AdamSmith, #WealthOfNations, and #CornLaws!
What more could you possibly want on a Saturday morning? (IV.v.b) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets

Yes, it’s the Digression Concerning the Corn Trade and Corn Laws! We can barely contain ourselves long enough to remind you that “corn” doesn’t mean 🌽 It means the principal cereal crop of a nation. (We keep saying so because we keep forgetting.) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets

#TLDR on #AdamSmith’s thoughts on the Corn Laws:

They’re bad. (IV.v.b.1) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets

Corn merchants can be broken down into four groups. Smith loves to break things down into groups.
1) Inland traders
2) Importers
3) Exporters
4) Transporters (IV.v.b.2) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets

If inland traders raise their prices higher than supply and demand will allow, they’ll discourage consumption beyond “thrift and good management.” People will go hungry and crops will rot.

That's bad. (IV.v.b.3) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets