Ok as a French Muslim, i think, i must to explain to EVERYONE what’s this exactly about the “Halal” ban slaughter (1/8)

READ AND RETWEET AS THOUGH THE LIFE OF YOUR NATION DEPENDS ON IT. WHICH IT DOES. Citizens, I am going to add to the picture with more information. I am not going to let this pass while keeping information to myself. I am going to walk you through 2 narratives.

A printing shop in Michigan prints ballots for Delaware County, Pennsylvania and as Lancashire County, Pennsylvania (this is normal). But along with the ballots it prints on contract and delivers to those counties, it prints some ballots that get diverted to Bethpage, New York.

There, a boiler room of folks fill in "Biden" (often without even voting downballot). The ballots (which are forensically legitimate, given that they come from the same print shop as the good ballots, ) then get trucked into Pennsylvania and mailed. Hundreds of thousands.

We have all of that documented. Texts, statements, affidavits, everything.

We also know that this same ballot printing company (and other firms in the same family) also print for Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Georgia.

1. Short thread - on the various claims we're seeing from Republican politicians over the last few days that the Democratic push for accountability is "divisive." Damn right it's divisive - that is what it has to be.

2. It is intended to enforce a clear division between those who accept and are committed to democracy and those who are willing to turn to violence when the vote doesn't turn out the way that they want it to.

3. One of the basic implications of Adam Przeworski's theoretic work is that democracy is made out of mutually reinforcing expectations, and those expectations are fragile. If some actors think they would be better off defecting from the democratic bargain, they will.

4. In other words: democracy and armed factionalism are far closer than we think, or we would like them to be. This means that it is incredibly important to police the boundaries between them. Allowing some to turn to violence can lead to expectation collapse and cascading ruin.

5. When we allow the divisions to become blurred, that means that we are running the perpetual risk of things getting fucked up. If a major faction turns to violence, and no-one responds, things can get really fucked up really, really fast.

1) Looks like Trump KNEW what the coup plotters were plotting on the 6th, so he arrived an hour late to the stage, and talked longer than he intended, before he asked MAGA to walk peacefully down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol.

He also didn't walk WITH them as he promised.

Here's a quick thread on the chronology leading up to today's vote in the Scottish Parliament on whether ministers should go to court to investigate the finances of Donald Trump's Scottish resorts via a legal mechanism known as an Unexplained Wealth Order.👇

Intrigue surrounding the source of Trump's finances here is by no means new. An editorial in @TheScotsman questioned where the money was coming from back in *2008*. But the UWO issue came to prominence last Feb during exchanges in the Scottish Parliament.

The issue returned to parliament last November, when First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said any consideration or application for an UWO were "properly matters for the Crown Office, not for the Scottish ministers."

This argument went against the explicit definition of who is able to apply for a UWO, as set out in the Criminal Finances Act 2017 / Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which states that "the Court of Session may, on an application made by the Scottish ministers, make an UWO"

The leading advocate, Aidan O'Neill QC, has also said Scottish ministers alone are responsible for decisions around UWOs, and that transferring responsibility to the Crown Office or Lord Advocate "does not and can not" change its legal responsibilities.

So I've been reporting a story about how you'd fix the impeachment process. It doesn't work for removal, as currently designed. Impeachment was built for a political system without parties. It fails in a system with polarized parties.

The one time it functioned as intended, confusingly, was the time it didn't happen: Richard Nixon wasn't impeached! But the impeachment process, which came at the low ebb of party polarization in American history, convinced his party to force him to resign.

Would Republicans force Nixon to resign today?

Oh, you're cute. Thank you. I needed that.

The problem of impeachment is pretty simple: Presidents are leaders of parties. Parties are tied to the political fortunes of presidents. You're asking a party to basically wreck its immediate political future for the good of the system.

This doesn't just have the effect of making impeachment ineffective as a remedy. It's worse than that. It makes impeachment dangerous to the president's party, and gives them a reason to defend him and either normalize or minimize his crimes. As we are seeing right now.