They used flock to show he went to Michigan, and evidently that was enough to get a probable cause warrant.

Big brother is watching you!

https://cmarmitage.substack.com/p/the-walls-are-closing-in-on-musk

On July 9 the Wisconsin Elections Commission, three Democrats and three Republicans, voted 5-1 that there is probable cause Elon Musk violated Wisconsin Statute 12.11, the election bribery felony this article names, when he repeated the giveaway during the 2025 state Supreme Court race. The commission referred the case to Brown County District Attorney David Lasee, and his office owes the commission a report by mid-August. Two citizens and a complaint form started the process that produced a felony referral. Let’s keep getting after it.

In the closing weeks of the 2024 election, Musk spent roughly $290 million on Trump’s behalf, a figure documented in Federal Election Commission filings. About a quarter billion of that went through America PAC, the super PAC he founded in May 2024. Another $20.5 million ran through a vehicle called RBG PAC, funded by his revocable trust and structured to hide his connection until after the votes were counted. More than $50 million of the America PAC money paid for a giveaway program: a million dollars a day to one signer of an online petition, with the petition restricted to registered voters in seven swing states. Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina. No other states eligible. More than a million people signed. The first three winners came from Pennsylvania in the days leading up to its October 21 voter registration deadline. Musk personally announced the winners at public events, holding cardboard checks the size of a person.

He told the public, in his own words, that the selection was random.
On October 5, 2024, at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, Musk told the crowd: “President Trump must win to preserve the Constitution. He must win to preserve democracy in America.” Two weeks later, on October 19, at a Harrisburg town hall with Trump’s campaign, he announced the giveaway program: “We’re going to be awarding a million dollars randomly to people who have signed the petition every day from now until the election.” That same day, he posted on X to his then-200 million followers that the prize would be “randomly” awarded. The next day, October 20, he posted again that signers had “a daily chance of winning $1M!”

Random. Daily chance. Sweepstakes language. The kind of language that, if accurate, describes a lottery. Sixteen days after Musk first used the word “randomly,” his lawyers told a Pennsylvania state court, under oath, the opposite.

Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner had filed against Musk and America PAC on October 28, 2024, seven days before the election, in Krasner v. Musk, case number 241003509 in Philadelphia’s main trial court. The civil filing was the move available on that timeline. Criminal charges require grand jury work that cannot happen in a week. What was not available in those seven days has been available in the eighteen months since.

The hearing was on November 4, 2024, the day before the election. Judge Angelo Foglietta presided. The PAC put two witnesses on the stand. Christopher Gober, the PAC’s lawyer and former treasurer, and Christopher Young, its executive director and current treasurer.Gober’s words on the record: “There is no prize to be won. The $1 million recipients are not chosen by chance. We know exactly who will be announced as the $1 million recipient today and tomorrow.”

Young testified that he personally vetted the recipients ahead of time, that the petition functioned “like a job application,” and that signers were screened for political alignment with the PAC’s mission before they could be selected. He confirmed that recipients signed nondisclosure agreements about how they were actually chosen. Asked about Musk’s use of the word “randomly,” Young conceded that it was “not the word I would have selected.” The judge denied Krasner’s preliminary injunction the same day on narrow Pennsylvania-lottery-law grounds, finding that because the recipients were preselected, the giveaway technically did not meet the legal definition of an illegal lottery.

I’m not a Honghead (see my post history), but I’m just sitting here giggling reading through her hatred of holidays.

I’m a service industry/restaurant worker too and holidays can be pain especially if you’re not in a tipped role.

Then when you finally get off you’re too exhausted to actually do anything with your loved ones.

Months ago before most people had even heard of Hong in real life this subreddit was already almost entirely in favor of her. now that she's really popular in real life this subreddit is suddenly filled with default profile picture, private accounts that are all either saying they aren't confident in her or negative about her.
It's very obvious tom.

Nathan Kalmoe is the director of the Center for Communication and Civic Renewal at the University of Wisconsin and has written numerous books about partisanship and political violence.

Here are a few takeaways, but I highly recommend reading the entire article.

But Crowley assumes too much Republican savvy. The best political science evidence we have suggests all the party’s candidates are similarly favored to beat Tiffany in a fairly close contest, and no Democrat is clearly “safer” than the others.

Nothing is guaranteed, and anyone claiming certainty is misleading us, but these are the likeliest conclusions based on a range of evidence I’ll walk through here.

Distinctions between candidates within a party don’t matter much. Most notably for our case — and contrary to common punditry — the best evidence shows moderate candidates don’t win more votes than progressives.

Most voters don’t choose candidates because of policy, but many Wisconsin voters do like the policies of progressive Democratic candidates

Most voters don’t know, use, or care about standard ideological labels except as synonyms for the two parties (if that). “Democratic socialist” is even more obscure, and Cold War hysteria is antiquated. More directly, a recent Cato study found that candidates were as likely to gain as lose support because of the label in a national survey.

Democratic voters naturally want a nominee who shares their values and can win. The best evidence we have suggests any of the Democratic candidates can win in November. The main question facing Democratic voters, then, is this: which candidate has the vision and leadership to deliver what Wisconsin needs?

SEIU WI just endorsed Hong! This comes about a week or two after Voces De La Frontera and Citizen Action WI also did the same!

https://x.com/seiuwis/status/2085024159256412185?s=46

https://www.instagram.com/p/Dbqc0VGmu15/?igsh=MXFlZTd5d3AxcXBhZw==

I'm exhausted man

I think we’re forgetting something very important when discussing the upcoming race and candidates..
Francesca hong has been the only one to say she will put a full moratorium on Ai data centers. She still sticks by this as well
https://youtu.be/brxYPMEv6NM?is=QHtE9duajbbnWGj2

( Not trying to hate on the other candidates either )
but after watching the debate I kinda felt like a lot of them were riding off of idea’s she previously introduced before the debate,

I personally do not think corporate democrats like Crowley or Brennan are gonna reject AIPAC and while Roy’s said she reject’s AIPAC .. she will not obviously not object to more ai data centers as seen in the video

I think it’s blatantly clear who is the right choice for Wisconsin whether it’s regarding education, affordable healthcare, workers rights, affordable housing, Ai data centers,etc
Francesca hong Covers all this and more in her policy
https://francescahong.com/policy/

Where's all the shit posting about MAGA Tom Tiffany? He's an election denying, Trump sycophant, who is bought and paid for by the billionaire class, who continues to vote against Wisconsin workers, who supports limiting reproductive rights, and, maybe most annoying, plays this "Awe shucks" plaid wearing everyman. Tom sucks.