I'm struggling with:
"He can delay or cancel elections - legally" (maybe ~§70302/contempt funds?)
"Protests can be tracked and criminalized" (maybe ~§80161 gas/oil lease protest fees?)
"Media? Gutted.", "Your VPN? Tracked." (no idea)
"Your vote? Suppressed." (SAVE Act, sure. But H.R.1?)

I agree RE: the no-contempt clause. Hope the Byrd Rule takes care of it, but it's gross to make it this far.

I've seen that copypasta a lot lately. Is there a version with sources for each claim? ~Half the claims align with H.R.1 and its amendment, but others don't obviously connect.

Yes! More of this.

Wrong is wrong, no matter which team's jacket you're wearing or how public the action is. Brazenly confident wrongs are still wrong. And frankly, those are the low-hanging fruit that should be quickest to address.

Thank you for pushing back against this farce of an "efficiency" meeting. You are recognized. You are recognized.

Congrats on the 1K! It's frustrating when politicians show selective outrage or contradict themselves. For example, tonight I saw a few WI congressmen tweeting that "no one is above the law" regarding Dugan's indictment - but they're silent on Trump. Can I do something to encourage consistency?

Almost like their concern wasn't the "emails" so much as the "her".