>>/179773/,  >>/179774/,  >>/179775/,  >>/179776/,  >>/179777/,  >>/179778/,  >>/179779/,  >>/179780/,  >>/179781/,  >>/179782/,  >>/179783/,  >>/179784/,  >>/179785/,  >>/179786/,  >>/179787/,  >>/179788/
DataRepublcan (small r) @DataRepublican - In a just world, Georgetown would be dismantled. 
It is the source of so many ills. Along with Columbia and George Washington.
https://x.com/DataRepublican/status/2039322794123759821

DataRepublican (small r) @DataRepublican - Hint 3, just to tie it all together: Ghislaine Maxwell's sister is in the Epstein files for representing this investment firm.
https://x.com/DataRepublican/status/2039321159624536459

DataRepublican (small r) @DataRepublican - Follow the money on NGP Van, which has a virtual monopoly on Democratic campaign + voter data. 
Hint: it's the same investment firm that bought out Neville Singham's Thoughtworks which kickstarted his whole US infiltration. 
Hint 2: Said investment firm was founded by Hillary Clinton's campaign finance guy, and China has a controlling stake in it.
https://x.com/DataRepublican/status/2039320081813893399

David Clements @theprofsrecord - More thoughts on Trump's EO.
At first blush, I thought it was rather benign.  That may be its greatest strength.  The Youngstown Steel case, which is the definitive case on war powers, holds that the President's powers are at their "zenith" when he works in tandem with Congress.  And that's what this EO does.  It takes existing law, some of it 20 years old, and shoves it down the throats of all the democrat lawyers.
While Trump still has the "Trump card" through his plenary authority under Article II to do way more, the restraint of this EO is like pitching the Supreme Court a soft ball, where they affirm long held legal standards.  
Much like the recent tariffs decision, where the Court struck down one provision, only to affirm several other routes for tariffs, with the President and Scott Bessent declaring victory by hiding their "real" power, I think a challenge to this EO may do the same.
It invokes Article II’s command that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” It frames non-citizen voting and unsecured mail-in ballots as violations of federal criminal statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 611, 1015; 52 U.S.C. §§ 20511, etc.). 
The federal government has a direct duty to prevent dilution of the citizen vote through fraud or ineligible participation. Directing agencies (DHS, SSA, USPS, DOJ) to share verified citizenship data and secure postal transmission of ballots is faithful execution of existing prohibitions on non-citizen voting, not new legislation. 
Courts have recognized broad presidential discretion in directing executive-branch enforcement priorities, especially for national interests like election integrity. Providing states with federal databases (SSA records + DHS SAVE) assists compliance with NVRA/HAVA list-maintenance requirements without commandeering state officials. 
This is narrower than earlier 2025 attempts to rewrite registration forms, which faced injunctions; the 2026 EO focuses more on data-sharing and USPS operations.
Also consider the Guarantee Clause (Art. IV, §4):  The EO cites the federal obligation to guarantee every state “a Republican Form of Government.” I would argue that widespread non-citizen voting or unverifiable mail-in processes undermines the republican character of elections by allowing ineligible votes to dilute lawful ones. This provides a constitutional hook for federal intervention to protect the integrity of the electoral process itself, beyond routine “manner” regulations.
In short, federal databases already exist for citizenship verification; the EO systematizes their use to fulfill HAVA/NVRA accuracy mandates. 
The irony of course is that the swamp used these systems to inflate numbers and commit massive fraud.
Now their toys are being used against them.  
https://x.com/theprofsrecord/status/2039363217273893014
 17