Much of Twitter is misunderstanding Bruce Castor’s speech at Trump’s impeachment trial because much of Twitter is absolutely NOT Bruce Castor’s audience.

This man is on it. He knows he only needs to keep *over 1/3 with him. Then more so, he needs the American nation on his side.

Honestly, Twitter misunderstanding what Bruce Castor is doing right now is like Twitter misunderstanding how Brexit & Trump won back then

“Why fear the people who were smart enough to pick you?” (*Listen*)
And yes, ditto for David Schoen. He knows who his audience is.

And he’s on target.
Two different audiences
1) Castor: public opinion
2) Schoen: the law
Oooooh, he held up the Red book. OUCH 😖😆
Schoen has landed multiple legal blows.
Schoen clearly came in after playing “Mama said knock you out” on loop
Schoen just knocked out Apollo Creed in Rocky II
Rasking just waived his 30 mins right to rebuttal to all that? Wow.
Early indicator:
56-44 voted to proceed.

So 44 voted not to proceed, which is more than 1/3 objectors needed to acquit, as an indicator.

More from Maajid أبو عمّار

Instead of attacking those of us raising it, why aren’t mainstream “liberal” journalists on here as outraged as we are about how many senior Democratic Party figures seem to have been compromised by Chinese spies?

Genocide is non-negotiable


See examples:

1) Dem Senator Feinstein’s staffer for 20 years outed as a Chinese spy

2) Dem Eric Swallwell caught in a female Chinese spy’s snare:

3) Dem Senator Boxer registers as a foreign agent for Chinese surveillance firm:

3) Dem Hunter Biden allegedly invests in Megvii, a firm accused of helping to round up Uyghurs using A+++ facial recognition technology
Texas is disputing US election results in 4 swing states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin & Georgia

Under Article III, US Supreme Court settles disputes between 2 or more states

Due to safe harbour, Trump’s remaining legal routes are narrow after

Brief analysis:
The Texas case is about the contested swing states’ executive & judicial branches VS their legislatures, on mail-in ballot rules

On Tuesday before safe harbour, SCOTUS rejected a similar lawsuit brought by Republican Rep. Mike Kelly

But a 3rd & eerily similar case has been with Justice Alito (as circuit judge for PA) & the Supreme Court since before the election. It’s about this very same executive & judiciary VS legislature dispute. That case, PA Republican Party vs Boockvar, may be decided in time, or not

The below is also worth noting:

There is also the issue of ‘safe harbour’ being said to only be “procedural”. This view rests on a reading of the Bush v Gore Supreme Court ruling.

The US Supreme Court has ducked hearing the case of Trump, Texas & 17 other states, on a procedural issue

They did not comment on any recent newsworthy fraud allegations

Trump still refuses to concede, so what are his remaining long shot legal routes?

Read my THREAD:

1) There is still this dormant PA Republican Party vs Boockvar US Supreme Court case, but it may remain dormant, since the Court already indicated yesterday that it (understandably?) simply doesn’t want the serious heat on this one

2) Mon Dec 14th Electoral College need to cast their votes alongside their states’ choice (the crux of the dispute)

Matters escalate if:
i) the Electoral College is tied

ii) “faithless” electors don’t vote for their state candidate

Note: in the key swing states, this is legal


iii) the House rejects some Electoral College votes, resulting in neither candidate receiving a majority.

3) If the above long shot occurs (aren’t we already in unprecedented times?) what happens next?

Under the 12th Amendment, when the House meets Jan 6th they can refuse to approve the Electoral College votes. They instead vote on a 1 vote per 1 state basis

Trump wins that vote.

More from Politics

This is partly what makes it impossible to have a constructive conversation nowadays. The stubborn refusal to accept that opposition to Trumpism and GOP nationalism is about more than simply holding different beliefs about things in and of itself. 👇

It's fine for people to hold different beliefs. But that doesn't mean all beliefs deserve equal treatment or tolerance and it doesn't mean intolerance of some beliefs makes a person intolerant of every belief which they don't share.

So if I said I don't think Trumpism deserves to be tolerated because it's just a fresh 21st century coat of cheap paint on a failed, dangerous 20th century ideology (fascism) that doesn't mean I'm intolerant of all beliefs with which I disagree. You'd think this would be obvious.

Another important facet. People who support fascist movements tend to give what they think are valid reasons for supporting them. That doesn't mean anyone is obliged to tolerate fascism or accept their proffered excuse.

Say you joined a neighborhood group that sets up community gardens and does roadside beautification projects. All good, right? Say one day you're having a meeting and you notice the President and exec board of this group are saying some bizarre things about certain neighbors.

You May Also Like

1/ Some initial thoughts on personal moats:

Like company moats, your personal moat should be a competitive advantage that is not only durable—it should also compound over time.

Characteristics of a personal moat below:

2/ Like a company moat, you want to build career capital while you sleep.

As Andrew Chen noted:

3/ You don’t want to build a competitive advantage that is fleeting or that will get commoditized

Things that might get commoditized over time (some longer than

4/ Before the arrival of recorded music, what used to be scarce was the actual music itself — required an in-person artist.

After recorded music, the music itself became abundant and what became scarce was curation, distribution, and self space.

5/ Similarly, in careers, what used to be (more) scarce were things like ideas, money, and exclusive relationships.

In the internet economy, what has become scarce are things like specific knowledge, rare & valuable skills, and great reputations.