About some of the assertions in this Republican letter justifying opposition to a democratic election and in favor of the very undemocratic mass disenfranchisement of millions upon millions of voters...a thread:

"America is a Republic whose leaders are chosen in democratic elections. Those elections, in turn, must comply with the Constitution and with federal and state law."
It is a Republic or is supposed to be. And in 2020 they did, as affirmed repeatedly in state and federal court
"When the voters fairly decide an election, pursuant to the rule of law, the losing candidate should acknowledge and respect the legitimacy of that election. And, if the voters choose to elect a new office-holder, our Nation should have a peaceful transfer of power." TRUE
"The election of 2020 like the election of 2016 was hard fought and, in many swing states, narrowly decided. The 2020 election, however, featured unprecedented allegations of voter fraud, violations and lax enforcement of election law, and other voting irregularities." see next
Several of the states Trump is talking about -- like Michigan and PA -- were closer in 2016. But then, the losing candidate conceded and didn't go on with false and flimsy fraud allegations. What is unprecedented is Trump's false allegations about voter fraud and the GOP buy-in
"Voter fraud has posed a persistent challenge in our elections although its breadth + scope are disputed. By any measure, the allegations of fraud and irregularities in the 2020 election exceed any in our lifetimes." They emanated from Trump+GOP, who haven't proven any in court
"Allegations aren't believed just by one candidate... Instead, they are widespread. Reuters/Ipsos polling, tragically, shows that 39% of Americans believe ‘the election was rigged.' That belief is held by Republicans (67%), Democrats (17%), and Independents (31%)." see next
As the saying goes, “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth” ...
"Some Members of Congress disagree with that assessment, as do many members of the media. Whether or not our elected officials or journalists believe it, that deep distrust of our democratic processes will not magically disappear. It should concern us all. And it poses an...
"...ongoing threat to the legitimacy of any subsequent administrations."
Basic logic would dictate that one way to stop that distrust would be to stop repeating false and disproven allegations about "voter fraud" that degrade trust in democracy
Also, as @DanBarryNYT put it: "Notice the careful, misleading language: 'Some members of Congress disagree...that the election was fraudulent as do many members of the media.' MOST members of Congress disagree; not some."
Letter continues: "Ideally, the courts would have heard evidence and resolved these claims of serious election fraud. Twice, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to do so; twice, the Court declined."
Several courts heard the "evidence,'' running the whole gamut of charges, and judges of all ideological leanings rejected that evidence as lacking credibility and substance. @nytnickc and @alanfeuer and I mentioned some of that in our story last weekend: https://t.co/RD0MPAhyk9
For more on what's at play in all of this, please check out my @nytmag piece from late September: https://t.co/ewJ2HRYvEZ

More from Politics

So let's see a show of hands: how many of you even knew Huber was digging into the Clinton Foundation? While he was assisting Horowitz in his digging into the FISC/Steele Dossier/Fusion GPS/Perkins Coie/DNC/Hillary campaign stuff?


I'm sure Huber is coming to DC *only* to discuss Clinton Foundation things with Meadows and his committee.

He for certain, like, won't be huddling with Horowitz or that new guy, Whitaker while he's in town. That would NEVER HAPPEN. [wink wink wink!] 😉

I just spent a year and a half telling you they will SHOW YOU what they are REALLY DOING when they are READY.

Not before.

No matter how much whining is done about it.

I'm exhausted but it's worth it.

Now you know why they're f**king TERRIFIED of Whitaker, the closer tapped by Trump to come in late for the hysterical fireworks that will ensue soon.

Look who's suddenly fund raising for his legal defen- er, I mean, ha ha - his reelection campaign!
OK. The Teams meeting that I unsuccessfully evaded (and which was actually a lot of fun and I'm really genuinely happy I was reminded to attend) is over, so let's take another swing at looking at the latest filings from in re Gondor.


As far as I can tell from the docket, this is the FOURTH attempt in a week to get a TRO; the question the judge will ask if they ever figure out how to get the judge's attention will be "couldn't you have served by now;" and this whole thing is a

The memorandum in support of this one is 9 pages, and should go pretty quick.

But they still haven't figured out widow/orphan issues.

https://t.co/l7EDatDudy


It appears that the opening of this particular filing is going to proceed on the theme of "we are big mad at @SollenbergerRC" which is totally something relevant when you are asking a District Court to temporarily annihilate the US Government on an ex parte basis.


Also, if they didn't want their case to be known as "in re Gondor" they really shouldn't have gone with the (non-literary) "Gondor has no king" quote.

You May Also Like

Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇

It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details):
https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha

I've read it so you needn't!

Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.

The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.

Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.