(Staff Writer) This Twitter thread strikes me as a repetition of what has been obvious for over a month, but since I am told what I consider obvious is often considered nothing of the sort, I’ll post it here.
Vox Popoli
Vox Popoli: Supreme Court Now Has Option on PA
(Staff Writer) Pretty soon we should learn if the Supreme Court will decide if it wants to decide the presidential election or not:
This Is Why They Say There Is No Evidence
(Vox Popoli) Because they’re desperately trying to destroy all of it. If, at this point, you still don’t understand that #bidenlost, you’re simply not paying attention.
Vox Popoli: Unconstitutionality Has a Time Limit?
(Vox Popoli) Or so the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declares: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Saturday rebuffed a long-shot election challenge Saturday from one of President Trump’s top boosters in Congress, balking at his suggestion that it throw out every ballot cast by mail or designate the state’s legislature to decide who won the state.
The Threat of Section 230, Big Tech: “We want to own it all but we want immunity, and the right to blame you, if we get in trouble.”
(Justin Deschamps) The following post by Vox Day offers a view on section 230 that strikes at the heart of the issue. Simply put, the norm when it comes to rights of use and ownership in the internet world is that “we the website/service provider/social media company want immunity from prosecution and use of your information while retaining all the ownership benefits thereof.”
An Analysis of the Powell Filing in GA
(Vox Popoli) An experienced attorney analyzes Sidney Powell’s legal filing in GA concerning the electoral fraud aided and abetted by GA politicians and election officials. The 104-page PDF complaint can be found here. Note that she also filed a lawsuit in MI, which is not analyzed here.
Biden Campaign Got an Advanced Copy of Sidney Powell Lawsuits, Alleged Insider Claims, Staffers “Lost Their Shit.”
(Vox Popoli) We will probably know tomorrow. That being said, I found it interesting that the poster referred to something that most non-lawyers get completely wrong, which is the one thing that makes this post on /pol/ potentially credible. See if there is anything that sticks out to you as unlikely, and then I’ll explain what I noticed.