Short thread on impeachment witnesses:

First, let’s remember that this case had unusual and powerful evidence in the public record. If you are prosecuting a bank robbery and you have the surveillance camera footage, you don’t need witnesses to tell you what happened.

1/

Second, the only areas where witnesses could help was confirming what the circumstantial evidence already showed about Trump’s knowledge and intent, both before and after the riot. Mgrs did great job of using his own tweets to show his knowledge but witnesses could confirm.

2/

The case was really strong as is but new witness testimony would very likely become the sole focus of the media and the public. For that reason, it is especially important to avoid taking risks with witnesses a) who are adverse to you and b) whose testimony is unknown.

3/

Since the only witnesses that would be helpful are ones close to Trump, executive privilege would invariably be an issue. If a witness is not cooperative, s/he would likely fall back on EP to avoid testifying. Hashing that out would take months.

4/

The reality is that Trump has created a dynamic through the Ukraine whistleblower and Ukraine witnesses where his domestic terrorist supporters threaten violence against witnesses against him. This fear is real and it is a huge problem. This should be everyone’s focus.

5/

Documents dropped in US V #GhislaineMaxwell
45 pages plus exhibits which included redacted references, some of which we read out in today's podcast.

Table of contents gives a quick over view of her arguments - devoted to splice!

And those redacted references.
@lisapodcasts @pinkPeptobismol @bobby_capucci @tinkeringhalo10

Why redact Scott Borgerson's name we all know.
He is prepared to forfeit all if she disappears!

Two other US citizens have also offered $ - wonder if that was one of referees I spoke about in today's pod?

Today is our judicial review hearing over the Government contract awarded to friends of Dominic Cummings at Public First without competition.

We'll be tweeting live from 10.30am.

As a lifelong student of law, I am trained to check everything thrice and still leave myself wiggle room.

I am, therefore, surprised by people’s chutzpah in holding forth about (even specialised) matters about which they have zero knowledge or experience –or qualifications: +

I have been 'found short and marked up' by several assorted engineers ,chartered accountants & businessmen (in each case with 0 legal qualifications)* on the standard ‘England and Wales’ governing law clause-which has been boldly 'corrected' to 'UK law' , +

and in one case, believe it or not, the ‘kings’ law’(the Apostrophe too as placed!)

*Incidentally, besides professional legal qualifications and many years of International Project Finance legal experience, I have a distinction in Private International Law (that deals with+

governing law clauses) from one of England's top universities.

My English language skills have been found 'wanting' by the European CEO of a leading EPC Contractor who informed me : ‘The English no goood’ .+

This gentleman’s standard letter ‘in English’ consists of throwing in a few words and relying on the reader’s goodwill - to supply all connecting grammar. +

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]

American Law enforcement and military appears to be fully compromised at this time. At the rate things are developing, there may not be a peaceful transition of power on the 20th. Underestimating the threat we are facing will have dire consequences. #RemoveTheTraitors

Trump may already be a military dictator, we just haven't realized it yet, because we have not seen anything like this unfold on American soil, & we think things like this can't happen here, and happens only overseas. That is exact what they want us to believe. #RemoveTheTraitors

I remain unconvinced at this time about the loyalty of some of the troops already deployed at the Capitol and being national guard being mobilized at state capitols even. I remain concerns for the safety of Democratic lawmakers at DC and elected officials at all 50 states.

Meanwhile Trump supporters are playing dumb or sounding ridiculous in the narratives, I suspect intentionally because it makes it easier for the public dismiss the actual threat faced because the public believes they are incompetent and fools. #RemoveTheTraitors

I think at this time, that is what they want us to believe. It gives then a cover, & can carry on with their nefarious plans. The longer it goes without putting a stop to this, the harder it will be for the American people to stop what they are planning to do. #RemoveTheTraitors

Tonight we have dissents from both Sotomayor and Breyer in the last instance of the Supreme Court waving the matador's cape for Trump's machinery of death without so much as a word of reasoned justification

Trump's DOJ has moved with unseemly haste in order to preempt credible legal challenges, and the Court has happily gone along

"This is not justice"

The Supreme Court did not meet the standard required to grant cert before a judgment by the lower court

The actual reason for the extraordinary haste is that the people have chosen a president who opposes the death penalty, and the 6 bloodthirsty Republican-nominated justices want the executions to happen. But this is not a *legal* reason.

Today's Section 230 thread examines what is probably the biggest misconception about the law (and that's saying a lot): whether there is a distinction between "publishers" and "platforms." The short answer is no. The longer answer is No, absolutely not! I explain:

The argument goes like this: websites only receive Section 230 protections if they are "neutral platforms." If they begin to moderate/block/curate user content, they become "publishers" and lose their Section 230 protections. Because 230 only applies to "neutral platforms."

Before deconstructing why this argument is incorrect, it is important to note that we don't know exactly where it has come from. It really only surfaced in the public debate 1-2 yrs ago.

But many lawyers for platforms have been making this mistake since 230 was passed, and have advised their clients to not moderate, lest they lose 230 protections. I think this terrible advice has led to a lot of the garbage we're dealing with online today.

Here's why the "publisher/platform" distinction just isn't a thing under Section 230. A main reason that Congress passed 230 was in response to a badly reasoned 1995 NY state court opinion that found that Prodigy was liable for all of its users' posts because it moderated.

Entering 2021, our hearts are already broken.

That's exactly why we're ready to fight the good fight

And let me say this WADR in response to understandably heartbroken, frustrated and passionate people suggesting that I'm an easy touch, a RINO, naive, or insufficiently dedicated to conservatism: >

These remarks come up not only in response to my video saying that we must remember and live by the principles we say we're fighting for, but to my tweets saying that Lin Wood has lost touch with reality or that John Roberts is not being blackmailed. >

I've been a conservative activist since I was a teenager. The announcements for conservative events I was running were torn off the walls at Princeton in the 80's. Interviewers at law firms recommended that I not be extended an offer because the Federalist Society was Nazis. >

More recently I left one law firm partnership after being told I could not represent the Gab social media platform after it the representation been approved up and down the org chart and on the eve of filing.

People might say we were Nazis. >

I was raised as a Christian fundamentalist and used to write - in full belief - in support of basing society on the laws of the Torah (first five books) of the Bible.

I was taught that the Confederacy (the pro-slavery rebels of the southern US) were the “right” side. I remember my paternal grandfather (who was later convicted as a child molester) praising me for articles arguing as much. I remember my family flying a Confederate flag.

I once wrote supremacist, homophobic, Islamophobic, and even anti-Semitic blogs, arguing a religious nationalist ideology that was patriarchal, discriminatory, and outright offensive.

I was 17. 18. Early 20s. Back then, I wanted to join the US military. I thought every opinion I regurgitated was Gospel. I missed the part about “whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”

I once confused hatred for love.

.
💥NO VELVET GLOVES 💥
👉This is a message for Georgians. Everyone else can just move on along. It doesn't concern you.

I am a 50+ year resident and voter of Georgia and I am
going to take off the velvet gloves. After reading the