Kirk recently said on his podcast that those from Turning Point got back on their buses & left following the conclusion of the rally.”
.@CharlieKirk11’s “Turning Point Action was listed as a participant in [the] ... rally, which preceded the attack on Capitol Hill. Prior to the rally, in a tweet he later deleted, Kirk said the group wld be involved w/ sending over 80 buses...” 1/
Kirk recently said on his podcast that those from Turning Point got back on their buses & left following the conclusion of the rally.”
Here are some of the mainstream donor advised funds who contributed to Turning Point USA, a cosponsor of the protest that preceded the deadly attack on the Capitol.
— Eli Clifton (@EliClifton) January 11, 2021
They helped anonymize contributions for donors.
These numbers are just from each group's most recent tax filing.
when you brought 80 buses of people to an insurrection and want your audience of republican millionaires to forget it pic.twitter.com/phnvCVzJw9
— John Whitehouse (@existentialfish) January 11, 2021
How did 26-year-old Charlie Kirk go from living with his parents to a waterfront condo? Over a short period of time, his pay from the pro-Trump charity he co-founded rose to 300k. https://t.co/k9UO83awsi
— ProPublica (@propublica) January 13, 2021
More from Jennifer Cohn ✍🏻 📢
Even HR1 did not require that jurisdictions give all voters the option to mark their ballots by hand AT THE POLLS. The House has not even warned the public about the dangers of new touchscreen ballot marking devices. Pls do that NOW. TY.
— Jennifer Cohn \u270d\U0001f3fb \U0001f4e2 (@jennycohn1) April 24, 2019
Expert Report: https://t.co/I2EWvFIQEH pic.twitter.com/euekDq65mr
I have not looked at other aspects of HR1. It addresses more than election security. The #SAFEAct shld be the starting point for election security reform in my opinion. 2/
HR1 requires that all voters have the option to mark their ballots by hand. But it does not specify that, for jurisdictions with in person voting, the hand marked (pen & paper) option must be available for in person voting (vs it only being an option w/ vote by mail). 3/
HR1 may still be a good start. But it does not go nearly far enough on election security. Here are my suggestions for election security. Maybe these could be addressed in a later bill, but we shld keep them on our radar. 4/ https://t.co/mNdHrvwHcN
The key section is 1502. IMO, it shld add the following. “For jurisdictions that offer in person voting, the option to mark a paper ballot by hand must be offered at the in-person polling location; giving this option only for vote by mail won’t suffice for such jurisdictions.” 5/
It\u2019s official. The @NYSBOE rejected the certification of the ExpressVote XL.
— Common Cause NY (@commoncauseny) January 28, 2021
Now lawmakers should pass legislation that bans hybrid machines like the ExpressVote XL for good. https://t.co/hE83CTdgiJ
I’m still trying to find out @NYSBOE’s reasoning, but I know one problem was that the ExpressVote XL runs on Windows 7 and can only mark ballots in English. If the XL were a person, it would be a MAGA. 2/
The XL has other problems. It runs the barcode “paper ballot” back under the printout AFTER the voter reviews it, which experts say means it could be maliciously programmed to eff with the barcode that is the only part of the “paper ballot” counted as your vote. 3/
Unfortunately, Philadelphia did choose the ES&S ExpressVote XL all-in-one ballot marking device (BMD), ignoring expert advice. I wrote about that unfortunate decision here in 2019. 4/
Here, for @NYRBooks, I also discuss problems involving the ES&S ExpressVote XL in PA in 2019. ES&S lobbyists had secretly donated to the two decision makers who then chose this system in Philly in lieu of #HandMarkedPaperBallots (pen & paper). 5/
More from Politics
Hard pass. So long as Leader Pelosi remains the most progressive candidate for Speaker, she can count on my support.
The strange thing about the fight to displace Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House is that no one seems willing to run against her. https://t.co/VhBqf4KJom
— The New Yorker (@NewYorker) November 21, 2018
I agree that our party should, and must, evolve our leadership.
But changed leadership should reflect an actual, evolved mission; namely, an increased commitment to the middle + working class electorate that put us here.
Otherwise it’s a just new figure with the same problems.
I hope that we can move swiftly to conclude this discussion about party positions, so that we can spend more time discussing party priorities: voting rights, healthcare, wages, climate change, housing, cannabis legalization, good jobs, etc.
Michael van der Veen begins Trump's defense: "The article of impeachment now before the Senate is an unjust and blatantly unconstitutional act of political vengeance" pic.twitter.com/xRaZHEPIaC
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 12, 2021
Es wird argumentiert, dass Trump nur habe sicherstellen wollen, dass die Wahl fair abgelaufen sei. Die Verteidigung zeigt Clips einzelner Demokraten, die der Zertifizierung von Trumps Stimmen 2016 widersprechen. (Dass es 2016 keinen von Obama gesandten Mob aufs Kapitol gab?Egal!)
Die intellektuelle Unehrlichkeit ist so unfassbar, ich weiß kaum, wo ich hier überhaupt anfangen soll; so viele fucking Strohmänner auf einmal.
Die Verteidigung spielt random Clips, in denen Demokraten “fight” sagen, fast zehn Minuten lang. Weil Trump 20mal am 6. Januar “fight” gesagt hat. Dies ist kein Witz. Komisch, dass sonst die Folge nie war, dass ein Mob das Kapitol gestürmt hat und Pence hängen wollte
WATCH: Trump's defense plays nearly 10 minutes of clips showing Democrats using the word "fight," to defend Trump using the word "fight" about 20 times in his speech to supporters before the Capitol riot began https://t.co/YUg7sgxuDX pic.twitter.com/3eMNp7E2S2
— CBS News (@CBSNews) February 12, 2021
“Dieser Fall geht um politischen Hass” Ich mein, ja. “Die House Managers hassen Donald Trump.”
So close.