Seriously people. Executive orders mean exactly nothing to what Trump legally can or can't do to fuck with the election results (which is zero). Stop letting idiots make you crazy

Goddamn it, Texas, I don't have time for this today.

Fine. Fine. A brief thread. (Yesterday I said I'd do a brief thread on the Michigan decision and finished an hour and a half later. Can't let this be that, today).

OK. Texas filed a motion for leave to file a complaint against PA, GA, MI and WI in the Supreme Court. Someone else can lawsplain to you how that works, or you can google the highlighted rules, but briefly, this is a thing they can theoretically do

There is a MASSIVE contradiction at the heart of this complaint, and its doomed for other reasons, too (standing, laches, abstention)

They have three theories for why they can sue:
1) Violation of the Electors Clause of the Constitution ("the Constitution gives state legislatures exclusive control of the manner of selecting electors and judicial action can't change it)
2) "Counties applied different rules"

And 3) "you didn't have as strict voter ID requirements as we'd like, and that's unconstitutional for reasons"

That's it. That's the case

Let's talk about this North Dakota attempt to legislate around Section 230 and create a civil right of action for users censored by social media sites. CC @mmasnick

Forget, for a moment, that this law, if it passed would immediately be deemed void as preempted by Section 230 (Federal law is supreme over state law where they conflict, and this would create an express conflict). This bill is a really good example of why this stuff is hard

Here's the key provision of the bill. The various highlighting on these versions shows areas we'll touch on

First of all, let's look at the last of those images. There's no question that this would target conduct immune under federal law - and, in fact, if 230 were repealed nobody could ever be liable under this law (since it only reaches immune conduct). So it's incredibly stupid.

But again, put that aside. Let's look at the substance.

First of all, who gets to decide whether content fits into these highlighted categories? Do they actually think that the government will get to decide what counts as "otherwise objectionable"?

Somebody asked me about this idiotic "PenceCard 2: Electric Boogaloo" article, and people, just stop worrying about this stuff.

The conspiracy wing of the GOP is going to keep pumping out these "Ten Neat Tricks to steal an election [number 8 will shock you!]" articles straight through the inauguration. (Yes - don't expect this to stop after the electoral votes are counted)

None of it is real. None of it has any legal basis. It's fantasy written by fantasists for coping MAGA-ites who find reality just too painful to accept. Ignore it.

This particular flavor of wishcasting was written by Ted Noel. Unless there are two "Ted Noel"s writing nonsense for the American Thinker, Noel is a doctor, not a lawyer or scholar, who nevertheless writes about legal issues

This actually makes me feel a bit better, because the thought that a *lawyer* could think that Pence had "plenary power" to discard state election certificates for any reason he chose is - even after watching Wood, Powell, Kaardal, and the rest - somehow too hard to contemplate

Will Trump play the #PenceCard December 23 (today)?
Thread: Absolutely not. The assertion that he will hurts our credibility and the cause because people who trust some accounts pushing it will be demoralized when it doesn’t happen. Let me explain:

2/ For this thread again, we will assume the Electoral Count Act of 1887 is Constitutional and binding. It very well may not be, but it doesn’t appear we have any court that will ever say so.

3/ The ECA is found in 3 USC 1-21. In secs 12 & 13, it requires that on the 4th Wed of Dec (that’s today) the President of the Senate (that’s Pence) to notify the states if he/she (or the Archivist) has not received a “certificate of vote and list” mentioned in sections 9 & 11.

4/ Sections 9 & 10 are merely administrative. Sec9 says that electors from the state make & sign six certificates of the votes w/ a lists for Pres & VP & attach a list of electors. Sec10 requires the electors to seal up the certificates & certify that the list of votes are inside

5/ The Pence Card is the idea that today, the VP can review & decide that the dem electors sent by AZ/NV/GA/PA/MI/WI don't meet the reqs of the ECA and/or the Const so, in effect, the VP hasn't received proper electors from the states & has a duty to notify them of that fact.

Much like the Gulf War, Trump's presidency never happened. Yes, there were soldiers in Kuwait, and there was a man named Donald Trump in the white house, but there was never a war, and there was never a presidency.

Trumpism was a bubble, and on Wednesday, it popped. In 2016, it felt like the beginning of a new American nationalism. Without Trump, that "movement" dies. Will those embers merely fade, or can the fire be rekindled?

If you want to transform the world, or your country, you cannot fuel your movement on discontent, nor on reasonableness. No, transformation can only be built on a foundation of extravagant hope

Gold toilets aside, Trump never had extravagance, in fact he had no content at all. He was the first fully post-modern president; what he did was so filtered through media that there's no effective difference between what happened and what the media says happened

We projected our dreams onto Donald Trump. A successful mass movement requires belief in an infallible leader or an irresistible doctrine. There is no mass movement without a little delusion (we call it a little delusion) "Reasonable" people can't effect big change

(THREAD) Independent journalists have already created a comprehensive list of impeachment trial witnesses who can *confirm* Team Trump helped plan the insurrection. Those witnesses can now be called. This thread lists the proof. Please RETWEET this widely.

(ARTICLE 2)

(ARTICLE 3)

(ARTICLE 4)

(ARTICLE 5)

I would like to see Democrats produce even one shred of evidence or just one example of President Donald Trump calling for violence. Just one. That's all.

Meanwhile, they can enjoy their own words calling for violence repeated back to them ...

“There will be blood in the streets” — USAG Loretta Lynch (D)

“Show me where it says that protests must be polite and peaceful.” — CNN's Chris Cuomo

“There needs to be unrest in the streets” — US Rep Ayanna Pressley (D)

“Protesters should not let up” — Sen. Kamala Harris (D)

“I just don't know why there aren't uprisings all over this country. Maybe there should be.” — US House Spkr Nancy Pelosi (D)

“You get out and you create a crowd, and you push back on them, and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere!” — US Rep Maxine Waters (D)

“I will go and take Trump out tonight.” — US Rep Maxine Waters (D)

“When they go low, we kick 'em. That’s what this new Democratic Party is about.” — USAG Eric Holder (D)

“How do you resist the temptation to run up and wring her neck?” — MSNBC's Nicole Wallace on WH Press Sec. Sarah Sanders

“I'd like to punch him in the face.” — Robert De Niro on President Trump