I don't really want to boost Cohen, but I also don't want to rip it off, so here it is, but I'll tell you what he said @emilyjanefox is the interviewer here.
More from Trump
💥💥💥Situation Update, Dec. 3rd – Trump invokes foreign interference provision of his 2018 executive order, authorizing military response to cyber warfare, see NSPM 13 💥💥💥 [M.Adams]
⁉️ ✅ Ask yourself this question: What was the purpose of yesterday’s White House speech about election fraud and vote-rigging?
✅ If you think it was all about Trump communicating to the people, think again. This speech was really about Trump communicating with Chris Miller
✅ and the DoD about foreign interference in the U.S. election while laying out the key national security justifications that are necessary to invoke what I’m calling the “national security option” for defending the United States against an attempted cyber warfare coup.
⭕️ Decoding President Trump’s Dec. 2nd speech:
https://t.co/G9kmUfVQzS
🇺🇸Consider what Trump said in yesterday’s speech. About 95% of this speech was filler. Only 5% really matters, as I detail below:
1. First, he lays out that he has a sworn oath to defend the United States
2. Constitution against the wartime “siege” that’s underway:
As President, I have no higher duty than to defend the laws and the constitution of the United States. That is why I am determined to protect our election system, which is now under coordinated assault and siege.
⁉️ ✅ Ask yourself this question: What was the purpose of yesterday’s White House speech about election fraud and vote-rigging?
✅ If you think it was all about Trump communicating to the people, think again. This speech was really about Trump communicating with Chris Miller
✅ and the DoD about foreign interference in the U.S. election while laying out the key national security justifications that are necessary to invoke what I’m calling the “national security option” for defending the United States against an attempted cyber warfare coup.
⭕️ Decoding President Trump’s Dec. 2nd speech:
https://t.co/G9kmUfVQzS
🇺🇸Consider what Trump said in yesterday’s speech. About 95% of this speech was filler. Only 5% really matters, as I detail below:
1. First, he lays out that he has a sworn oath to defend the United States
2. Constitution against the wartime “siege” that’s underway:
As President, I have no higher duty than to defend the laws and the constitution of the United States. That is why I am determined to protect our election system, which is now under coordinated assault and siege.
1. Yes, Trump will claim to intend to target GOP senators up for reelection in '22 (like he did to Thune with Kristi Noem) if they don't join in @HawleyMO's sedition on Jan. 6, but the fact is, it's not clear whether Trump will be successful in ANY of those efforts & voting yes
2. to hedge off these threats will also create fissures & fractures for these incumbents among other elements of their party that could complicate their renominations. Indeed, what worries me the most about the potential for the country to slip into @anneapplebaum territory is
3. that what should be robust and intense push back from the party establishment against actually ending democracy- bc that's what Trump's request would do, if it was granted, is fairly muted. What we SHOULD be seeing from the mainstream of the party is threats to strip committee
4. assignments, chairs, privileges, even reelection funds, if anyone gets involved in this bullshit- in the House & the Senate, and the fact that you don't see it is more than a story of McConnell & McCarthy being afraid of Trump & his base. Its a story of receptivity, of the
5. level of receptivity the congressional and party leadership is dealing with both within the rank and file membership of the party and within its donor class, and THAT, my friends, is why you find me so concerned. That, and my decision to finally pull @anneapplebaum's book
A lot of conversations today among Republican senators over move by @HawleyMO to challenge the certification of Biden\u2019s Electoral College victory. Small groups of Rs were huddling on & off the floor trying to game out the politics of what will happen Jan. 6
— John Bresnahan (@bresreports) January 1, 2021
2. to hedge off these threats will also create fissures & fractures for these incumbents among other elements of their party that could complicate their renominations. Indeed, what worries me the most about the potential for the country to slip into @anneapplebaum territory is
3. that what should be robust and intense push back from the party establishment against actually ending democracy- bc that's what Trump's request would do, if it was granted, is fairly muted. What we SHOULD be seeing from the mainstream of the party is threats to strip committee
4. assignments, chairs, privileges, even reelection funds, if anyone gets involved in this bullshit- in the House & the Senate, and the fact that you don't see it is more than a story of McConnell & McCarthy being afraid of Trump & his base. Its a story of receptivity, of the
5. level of receptivity the congressional and party leadership is dealing with both within the rank and file membership of the party and within its donor class, and THAT, my friends, is why you find me so concerned. That, and my decision to finally pull @anneapplebaum's book
Good to see the paper of record highlighting this important national news story that we’ve been covering at @theintercept for the past eight months.
Going to provide some links and info for those who might be interested in reading more on the topic.
In June, a trove of hacked law enforcement documents was posted online. I went through hundreds of those files to look at how law enforcement was treating antifa/anarchists vs groups on the far right.
Part of the reason I did this was because we had already published reporting showing that the NYPD was using a curfew in response to the George Floyd protests to hand over demonstrators to the FBI for questioning. Antifa was a subject of the interviews.
You can find that original reporting here: https://t.co/7vD7QuNLZP
And in more depth here:
As expected, the analysis of the docs posted online showed extensive law enforcement emphasis on antifa/anarchists even amid detailed evidence of threats and action from far right groups, including the murder of law enforcement
Going to provide some links and info for those who might be interested in reading more on the topic.
In June, a trove of hacked law enforcement documents was posted online. I went through hundreds of those files to look at how law enforcement was treating antifa/anarchists vs groups on the far right.
Part of the reason I did this was because we had already published reporting showing that the NYPD was using a curfew in response to the George Floyd protests to hand over demonstrators to the FBI for questioning. Antifa was a subject of the interviews.
You can find that original reporting here: https://t.co/7vD7QuNLZP
And in more depth here:
As expected, the analysis of the docs posted online showed extensive law enforcement emphasis on antifa/anarchists even amid detailed evidence of threats and action from far right groups, including the murder of law enforcement
You May Also Like
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
