I want to point out that anyone can read a twitter account without following it or even being on twitter in the first place. I have "followed" your twitter since early 2017, checking it daily. On that note, I am excited about this new venue not the least for it allowing me to directly thank you for all your hard work-- it has help keep me (and many others) informed and sane over the past four years.
Seth, you never know, you might be on a @jack Twitter list even with a non-follow. You are great with your threads and replies. I think you set the platform standard, honestly. When people ask for an unroll, I always wonder why. Thanks, Seth!
I read all of your threads last thing every night and again the next day. I’ve also read your books, which are astonishingly well written and informative. This day by day information is most welcome given the nature of recent events. Keep up the good work you do for your country.
This new platform is great to be able to read your writings more in-depth. I enjoyed the entire article. Of special poignancy is the section about Jack from twitter. I am happy that you feel your writing meets the interests and needs of the founder of twitter. Your writing certainly is an important part of my following of the national political process.
Thank you, Seth, for all that you do. And thanks for letting me know that Biden's National Security Advisor is now one of your Twitter followers. There has been so many times that I have commented to my housemate, also a follower of yours, that I need to submit a particular tweet of yours to the FBI tip line. Now I know that someone in power will also be paying attention to your informative tweets. Keep doing your thing... our country needs you.
Congratulations! I follow and have all the Proof books. Your analysis has been spot on in each case. Question. What does the future Abraham accord look like to you? Will Ivanka and Jared live in Israel to avoid prosecution? Who will the new leader of the Palestinians be?
The NYTimes has an article about Jack and his decision to ban Trump from Twitter. Basically his lawyer told him to do it otherwise Trump's account would have stayed.
Note the timing of the ban. The Republicans had promised changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which would have relieved Twitter of liability associated with content. That changed the minute Democrats flipped Georgia and gained control of the Senate. Jack, for whatever reason, chose Trump over the law, until he couldn't.
Your statement "When Schiff asked her in real time whether the president’s words had been intimidating to her as a federal witness, she answered in the affirmative" is not accurate. The transcript (Day 2 at 01:19:37) shows Schiff asking Yovanovich: "What effect do you think that has on other witnesses’ willingness to come forward and expose wrongdoing?" Yovanovich answers: "Well, it’s very intimidating" and later, "I think the effect is to be intimidating." Schiff did not ask her whether she was intimidated because it was Schiff who had brought Trump's words to her attention, not another source, and because Trump's intimidation of Yovanovich would be implicit. Damn good lawyering.
I have read your messages for several years and appreciate the in-depth analysis you provide. Honestly, between you and Heather Cox Richardson, you've both pulled me back from the edge on more than one occasion.
I want to point out that anyone can read a twitter account without following it or even being on twitter in the first place. I have "followed" your twitter since early 2017, checking it daily. On that note, I am excited about this new venue not the least for it allowing me to directly thank you for all your hard work-- it has help keep me (and many others) informed and sane over the past four years.
Seth, you never know, you might be on a @jack Twitter list even with a non-follow. You are great with your threads and replies. I think you set the platform standard, honestly. When people ask for an unroll, I always wonder why. Thanks, Seth!
I read all of your threads last thing every night and again the next day. I’ve also read your books, which are astonishingly well written and informative. This day by day information is most welcome given the nature of recent events. Keep up the good work you do for your country.
This new platform is great to be able to read your writings more in-depth. I enjoyed the entire article. Of special poignancy is the section about Jack from twitter. I am happy that you feel your writing meets the interests and needs of the founder of twitter. Your writing certainly is an important part of my following of the national political process.
Thank you, Seth, for all that you do. And thanks for letting me know that Biden's National Security Advisor is now one of your Twitter followers. There has been so many times that I have commented to my housemate, also a follower of yours, that I need to submit a particular tweet of yours to the FBI tip line. Now I know that someone in power will also be paying attention to your informative tweets. Keep doing your thing... our country needs you.
Congratulations! I follow and have all the Proof books. Your analysis has been spot on in each case. Question. What does the future Abraham accord look like to you? Will Ivanka and Jared live in Israel to avoid prosecution? Who will the new leader of the Palestinians be?
The NYTimes has an article about Jack and his decision to ban Trump from Twitter. Basically his lawyer told him to do it otherwise Trump's account would have stayed.
Note the timing of the ban. The Republicans had promised changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which would have relieved Twitter of liability associated with content. That changed the minute Democrats flipped Georgia and gained control of the Senate. Jack, for whatever reason, chose Trump over the law, until he couldn't.
Thank you.
Your statement "When Schiff asked her in real time whether the president’s words had been intimidating to her as a federal witness, she answered in the affirmative" is not accurate. The transcript (Day 2 at 01:19:37) shows Schiff asking Yovanovich: "What effect do you think that has on other witnesses’ willingness to come forward and expose wrongdoing?" Yovanovich answers: "Well, it’s very intimidating" and later, "I think the effect is to be intimidating." Schiff did not ask her whether she was intimidated because it was Schiff who had brought Trump's words to her attention, not another source, and because Trump's intimidation of Yovanovich would be implicit. Damn good lawyering.
I am happy, and relieved, actually, that you have impressively influential followers.
I have read your messages for several years and appreciate the in-depth analysis you provide. Honestly, between you and Heather Cox Richardson, you've both pulled me back from the edge on more than one occasion.
Thanks.