The Alabama duo—Mo Brooks and Tommy Tuberville—is one I suspect the FBI will want to investigate. At all stages of the insurrection it seems Trump was working with two Alabama Republicans to ensure the insurrection and the opposition to Biden's certification worked hand-in-glove.

It's official: US media has permitted Republicans to establish the meaning of "corroborating evidence" to include *only* eyewitness testimony or a confession—a definition "corroborating evidence" has never had in the history of the American criminal justice system. Thanks, media.

2/ Mind you, we have two *direct* (sworn) eyewitnesses to Kavanaugh committing multiple sexual assaults: Swetnick and Accuser #4, whose affidavits corroborate one another. But we also have multiple *contemporaneous disclosures* (as close to an eyewitness as it gets) for Ramirez.

3/ We also have 10 prior disclosures for Dr. Ford, all preceding Kavanaugh being nominated. This too is a form of corroborating evidence. And the testimonial evidence establishing that Kavanaugh lied under oath is now... legion. At least six to ten witnesses. Where was the media?

4/ To attorneys, the "no corroboration" claim is a *farce*. But it's been allowed to stand by the media because apparently there were too few analysts out there given the time or space to discuss what "corroboration" means in the US legal system. So we get a travesty of justice.

(THREAD) The Whitaker scandal is deepening, as it becomes clear that Sessions' Russia recusal was a coordinated sham and his firing an act of obstruction—and that his replacement is a White House plant inside the Mueller probe. I hope you'll retweet and read on for more details.

1/ From 2014-17 Whitaker worked for World Patent Marketing—which during his tenure defrauded consumers out of $26 million and was successfully prosecuted by the feds. His involvement in the scam confirmed he had loose morals and that the feds would never want to employ him again.

2/ Despite the seeming impossibility of a man with Whitaker's background getting a job at Justice ever again—he'd been found to have used his former title as a US attorney to fraudulently threaten consumers with valid complaints with criminal penalties—Whitaker found an opening.

3/ Within 60 days of parachuting out of World Patent Marketing as it was being fined $26 million by the feds, Whitaker was working for CNN and telling a fellow attorney panelist that his purpose in working for CNN was to get noticed by one man—Donald Trump—and thereby get a job.

4/ Whitaker spent his time at CNN making ludicrous statements about the Mueller probe: there was no obstruction or collusion, he said; Mueller had no authority to look into any aspect of Trump's finances or to subpoena him, he said. All the while, he hoped Trump was watching him.

@LambeJerry Question for you: On Monday, Congress announces it's going to vote to impeach a federal judge on Wednesday. The president of the United States decides to issue a preemptive pardon of the judge on Tuesday. According to you, there's no problem, right, as there was no impeachment?

My thinking on this is identical to that of a law professor at Northwestern University who published his opinion in the NYT. But that wasn't mentioned in your piece. It's also odd that you believe the impeachment exception has nothing *really* to do with separation of powers.

You couldn't possibly think the impeachment exception has anything to do with separation of powers, as according to you and the small number of attorneys you cited, the impeachment exception isn't *actually* about keeping the president from interfering in the impeachment process.

Per you, the impeachment exception to the Pardon Clause of the United States Constitution is just a *narrow administrative cutout* to make sure that a President doesn't cause the Congress to have...what, have wasted their time? I'd love to see an argument for that interpretation.

I've read the documents surrounding the creation of both the Pardon Clause and the impeachment exception. The framers were explicitly concerned about the sort of situation we have encountered now—which is entirely unlike the situation in Garland. Your legal analysis is facile.

(THREAD) The main problem with that @DanDrezner piece in the Post is that it's an international politics prof writing about the field in which I'm a professor—communications. No one in communications would *ever* compare the blogosphere to either Twitter or Substack. Here's why.

1/ Back in the mid-aughts, I was a Koufax Award-nominated political blogger (I don't know what Drezner was doing then; I first heard of him about a year ago). So I was into the blogosphere pretty deep, as I also ran a second high-traffic blog that was focused on the art world.

2/ The "blogosphere" was an outgrowth of MySpace and LiveJournal, inasmuch as in the heady early days of the internet people suddenly realized that they could engage in private diaristic writing—a very specific subgenre of writing—in the public square, and it was suddenly "okay."

3/ So the blogosphere as such had *nothing* to do with journalism, which needless to say was in a different state just 15 years ago (note: unlike Drezner, I also teach writing and journalism at the university level, so this thread is squarely "in my area," unlike his Post piece).

4/ The blogosphere was a manifestation of the transformation of the public-private binary at the dawn of the internet—and *also* connected to the "creative writing" explosion (what I did a PhD on); in the aughts, creative writing was the fastest-growing discipline *in the world*.

Today our organization unveiled a new policy plan to eliminate armed intimidation from politics by prohibiting guns at Capitol buildings and grounds, sensitive government facilities, polling and vote counting locations, and protests on public property.

We’re already working closely with our allies in state legislatures, and we saw a related bill passed in Michigan and similar bills introduced in Vermont, Washington, and Virginia. We expect more given the horror we’ve seen on our TV screens.

The chaos and violence that took place at the Capitol last week was horrifying, but not surprising. @MomsDemand volunteers have been confronted by these armed insurrectionists in our communities ever since I started Moms Demand Action in 2012.

At rallies and marches, inside restaurants and grocery stores, and even in statehouses and at gun bill hearings, our volunteers have gone toe-to-toe with gun extremists seeking to intimidate and silence them.

In Virginia, armed men with rifles strapped to their backs have stood in the back of small hearing rooms inside the General Assembly, while our volunteers are in chairs in front of them, facing forward. They say it feels like the men could open fire on their backs at any moment.

TW:/ Rape,Child Abuse,Violence
One Year & No Justice For Little Girl?,A Thread

For Some Reason,People Protest Against The "Safari" Rape In Maldives Went Worldwide. How About The 3 Year Old Girl Child? That's What The Rape Crisis In Maldives Begains.

#NoJusticeNoMaldives

The police, on 17th Jan 2020 , arrested two of three suspects accused of raping a two (Now Three) -year-old child in Southern Maldives.

The suspects were arrested in the afternoon, and were identified by the police only as a 62 (63) -year-old male and an 81 (82) -year-old male

Local residents who spoke to Sun confirm the men were the grandfather and great-grandfather of the victim.

The grandfather works as a muezzin at the island’s mosque, and had been previously accused of sexual abuse of children, said one local.

The child’s father had also been accused of involvement in the rape.

However, the police, in a statement on Friday, said that the suspects in the crime were two men, both of whom were now under arrest.

The rape had been reported to the authorities on 15th Jan 2020 after the child’s mother’s family found out about the crime when they questioned her after she complained of pain in her abdomen.

Law society published some guidance recently on e-signatures...https://t.co/g70MUWg6K0 - some thoughts and comments...

👁‍🗨 Witnessing...they conclude that witnesses have to be "physically present" and you cannot witness somebody by video link. Probably correct as a matter of case law. It's a shame they aren't more forceful in their urge for change here...

The point in witnessing has always been evidential. So that if one person claims they didn't actually sign a document, you have somebody you can call upon to attest evidence that they did or did not. Also adds some formality to the process to make people think

When you're using e-signature, people's email addresses are being put into a system. You also have IP addresses, geolocations, timestamps all recorded when people actually go on to sign the document. Doesn't this add quite a lot of evidential value?

Physical presence would help avoid a scenario where somebody gains access to somebody else's email account, signs a document and then gets somebody to witness. If that witness were virtual, they wouldn't see the mischief that has occurred...is this not quite a remote risk though?

@achpr_cadhp and its Chairperson is talking about all crises in #Africa, but no word so far on the genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity being committed in his backyard. (1/22)

#WarOnTigray
#TigrayGenocide

At a time when clear evidence of horrific acts of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and elements of genocide are emerging from #Tigray, the @SolomonADersso and
@achpr_cadhp are issuing statements on #Uganda and another crisis? (2/22)

#WarCrimes
#WarCrimesOnTigray

Silence by @achpr_cadhp constitutes not only an endorsement of the genocidal war waged against the people of #Tigray, but it also violates the core principle and provisions of the African Union Constitutive Act. (3/22)

@_AfricanUnion

As @AUC_MoussaFaki's utter failure to respect and ensure respect of basic human rights of #Tigrayans, which are grossly and systemically violated by #Amhara militia, Abiy’s #Ethiopian and Isaias's #Eritrean armed forces. (4/22)

The African Union's responsibility under the Constitutive Act Article 4 is clear that African Union is to intervene in a member state if necessarily deploying peace operation where the government or any other forces commit a crime against humanity, a war crime, (5/22)