Why Secession Won't Work - A Thread:

1. It's an outdated idea from a time when the country didn't have every square inch occupied with entrenched infrastructure.

2. Every angry person who wants to secede is surrounded by millions of others that don't.

Kerala High Court resumes hearing of Bail Application of M Sivasankar, Former Principal Secretary of Kerala Chief Minister

Sivasankar is presently in ED's custody for alleged involvement in the Kerala Gold Smuggling case. He is also being investigated by the NIA and Customs Department.

Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta is arguing for Sivasankar.

He denies ED's allegations that Sivasankar contacted customs officials to clear the baggage alleged to be containing smuggled gold.

Gupta claims statement made by co-accused Swapna Suresh about Sivasankar's involvement are not credible as the same were made after her arrest.

Gupta points out that the correspondence between Sivasankar and Swapna does not disclose any knowledge on the latter's part.

He also tells Court that all of Swapna's statements categorically denied his client's involvement in gold smuggling, until before her arrest.

1/ I want to briefly tease out Cruz's statement, which will help set expectations about what might happen January 6:

2/ At its heart, the presser states, "we intend to vote on January 6 to reject the electors from disputed states as not ‘regularly given' and ‘lawfully certified' (the statutory requisite), unless & until that emergency 10-day audit is completed."

3/ How does a10-day emergency audit happen? Congress would need to enact a statute to amend the Electoral Count Act before January 6, when it's compelled by law to meet. That seems unlikely.

4/ Cruz et al. seem to hold a "thick" view of the Electoral Count Act, adhering to the "statutory requisite," which means that Congress would need to amend or adhere to the statute.

5/ A 10-day audit is impossible under the current statute. Objections to a state are limited to 2 hours' debate. Adjournments are fixed in the statute, too--no recess if you've hit five days:

Ok so first of all - Twitter/GDPR/what to do! So firstly, the court needs to make the order for Twitter to disclose the data, which they may not do as it’s a) disproportionate b) a waste of time c) complex involving international law d) ridiculous….

In addition, AH has already been told she cannot pursue this in the VA trial, so it’s a pointless exercise! I feel this approach re twitter is v much an “AH” idea; not advice from a lawyer… as it’s not going to accomplish anything and is a waste of time.

In any event; re GDPR - while the laws around GDPR are v strict, where it comes to information being disclosed in the course of legal proceedings, it is more tricky. The issue has been argued in other cases - esp re disclosure of UK/EU citizens’s info in US legal proceedings.

And in simple terms, the bottom line is, if the court orders it, it can be disclosed. The question then is, what to do about it. Well, you could kick up a stink, file a motion to quash it etc.. etc… but I’m not here to give any individuals legal advice.

However, while it might be tempting to create almighty hell over it, here’s a thought… you all know you are real people right? So you could all give AH what she wants & simply let her look utterly ridiculous! So she gets the info - then what?

Of all the things that confuse me (there are easily 3k this morning) this stumps me most: When did we decide that saving an 80-year-old's life is worth sacrificing a child's? Or that the value of their lives are exactly comparable? I could've sworn we'd agreed to something else.

We have special provisions for children. In court, they're treated differently. We've agreed they shouldn't have to work. They need public school (or so I thought). They cannot consent to sex. We have a set of laws that protects them.

I thought this was understood, and enacted by the thousands of examples we can gin up of adults running into traffic to save a child - not necessarily their own - or stopping a bullet. Remember those heroic teachers in Newtown in Parkland who shielded their students? That.

And we derided adults who USED children as shields, or failed to protect them. The mother who lets her husband beat her child because otherwise he'd turn on her. Society abjures such a person. The guard who hid instead of rushing the shooter in Parkland? Hated.

But now, with Covid is is simply disallowed to claim that we should prioritize, say, a 10-year-old school child over an 84-year-old in assisted living. Where the hell did this attitude come from and why does half of my social circle seem to believe it's right?