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.
More from Legal
All six are associated with the far-right #OathKeepers militia.
THREAD 1/
Story: https://t.co/abZlcVyaR6
2/ On January 5th, Stone appeared at the Supreme Court, glad-handing and being driven in a go-kart. Later he attended a rally near the White House.
As the @nytimes team shows, his security entourage featured a host of #OathKeepers...
3/ In the morning of the 6th, Stone stood outside the Willard InterContinental hotel, again flanked by men associated with the #OathKeepers.
Some of them, like Rob Minuta, have been named in prior
NEW: Rob Minuta guarded Roger Stone Jan 6th...& was later seen at #Capitol siege..
— John Scott-Railton (@jsrailton) February 7, 2021
Now we know he has a history of escorting Trump allies like Flynn & Alex Jones. Also seen in December w/indicted Proud Boy #Spazzo.
THREAD
By @arawnsley
Link: https://t.co/8t38iOmgYP pic.twitter.com/dnRYZGuBCO
4/ Interesting detail: while scrutinizing the video of Roger Stone I spotted Rudy Giuliani exiting the same hotel.
Giuliani is accompanied by a man wearing the same outfit as Trump supporter John Eastman & other not-yet ID'd people.
Video source: https://t.co/Rure8TiQTp
5/ Now to the #Capitol: We see a several of Roger Stone's #OathKeeper guards amidst a larger group yelling at police. Video surfaced by the @CTExposers team.👇👇
https://t.co/NWsONDz0OA
Here's the footage of Roberto Minuta throwing a tantrum at the police, 1/6 at the east side of the Capitol (5:16 in the Youtube video link).
— Capitol Terrorists Exposers (@CTExposers) February 10, 2021
\u27a1\ufe0fhttps://t.co/rulMuaftCm pic.twitter.com/wz6A4zQLYT
Also, it's telling how much the horrible, illegal attacks on the Capitol have made establishment DC and its permanent bureaucracy quake in their boots.
U.S. State Department diplomats and staff have expressed outrage at Secretary of State Mike Pompeo\u2019s failure to acknowledge, much less protest, President Trump\u2019s role in inciting rioters who laid siege to the Capitol.https://t.co/NvjcKSpta9
— The New York Times (@nytimes) January 12, 2021
GP The bureaucrats have always assumed they were untouchable, unassailable, protected. They assumed things would never change and that people in the hinterlands could safely be ignored forever because they're backwards hick Jesus-loving gun clingers and too dumb to listen to.
GP Government's overall disregard for ordinary Americans from treating us like bottomless wallets to trying to force us to believe as they do to ignoring basic legal and constitutional restraints on their actions built resentment over time and DC was blind to it.
GP When the hicks from the sticks got Trump elected, DC fought back against Trump and by extension them with everything at its disposal. Media pushed made up crap to hamstring Trump. Biden and Obama secretly used government to torment and assail an incoming administration.
You May Also Like
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Please add your own.
2/ The Magic Question: "What would need to be true for you
1/\u201cWhat would need to be true for you to\u2026.X\u201d
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) December 4, 2018
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: https://t.co/Yo6jHbSit9
3/ On evaluating where someone’s head is at regarding a topic they are being wishy-washy about or delaying.
“Gun to the head—what would you decide now?”
“Fast forward 6 months after your sabbatical--how would you decide: what criteria is most important to you?”
4/ Other Q’s re: decisions:
“Putting aside a list of pros/cons, what’s the *one* reason you’re doing this?” “Why is that the most important reason?”
“What’s end-game here?”
“What does success look like in a world where you pick that path?”
5/ When listening, after empathizing, and wanting to help them make their own decisions without imposing your world view:
“What would the best version of yourself do”?