Curtis retweeted
Have you ever noticed?
Europeans are racist Colonizers.
But…
Africans are poor Migrants.
Middle Easterners are poor Refugees.
Central Americans are poor Immigrants.
The only people ever demonized for migration are productive and civilized White Westerners.
Weird?!
Curtis retweeted
Michigan’s local tax votes shouldn’t happen when turnout is lowest. mackinac.org/blog/2026/michi…
Curtis retweeted
It was exactly one year ago today that I received a message from a high-ranking @CapitolPolice source telling me that former USCP officer - now @CIA employee - Shauni Kerkhoff's home was, at that very moment, being raided by the @FBI. I received that message at 2:43 p.m. on Nov. 7, 2025. @theblaze, then acting editor-in-chief, drove to Kerkhoff's address just after dark and witnessed both plainclothes and uniformed personnel at the residence. He captured the scene on video, then a local cop confronted him and told him to leave. We included this new development in our bombshell story the next morning.
The most interesting aspect of this event is that the timelines published by the government in the Brian Cole Jr. criminal case, and the law firm representing Kerkhoff in the civil case against me, contend the "consensual search" took place the day before, on Nov. 6. Though the government portrays the search as consensual, the lawsuit describes the search as a full-on raid.
"FBI agents with bomb dogs ransacked her Alexandria, Virginia home ... a caravan of FBI vehicles descended on their street and parked outside their house. The FBI brought a bomb-disposal truck and a helicopter, which hovered loudly overhead. Agents exited their vehicles with their guns drawn in full tactical gear. An agent called Mr. Dickert and commanded him to 'come out of the house unarmed with your dogs.' Mr. Dickert and Ms. Kerkhoff complied and stepped outside. Agents swept through the house, then reentered with bomb-sniffing dogs. They opened cabinets, rifled through drawers, and scattered Ms. Kerkhoff’s and Mr. Dickert’s belongings—all without obtaining Ms. Kerkhoff or Mr. Dickert’s consent. It suddenly occurred to Ms. Kerkhoff that they were not simply looking for a pair of shoes."
"Consensual" or "without consent" depends on which version of the story they are telling from filing to filing, but they are sticking to the November 6 date, even though we witnessed it on November 7. Not a single former federal agent I've consulted - from multiple agencies - can remember any single family home residential search lasting more than one day. (Some having participated in hundreds of raids over their careers.)
Something doesn't add up. If, according to both government and law firm accounts, Kerkhoff and Dickert were given notice of that "consensual search cum raid" on Nov. 6, and it didn't take place until the next day ... the 7th ... we are looking at cover-ups within cover-ups. Were there two searches? One just "looking for a pair of shoes" on the 6th, and then the full "raid" on the 7th, after she failed the polygraph on the evening of the 6th? Or did they tell her the day before - on the 6th - that they'd be dropping by the next day to "look for a pair of shoes?"
Nothing in any of the legal filings has cleared this up to my satisfaction yet. The criminal case and civil case filings say the raid took place on the 6th. We have eyewitnesses and video (with preserved original metadata) of the raid happening in progress on the 7th. One year ago today.
Tomorrow is the one-year anniversary of the "Big One." The story that started it all.
Curtis retweeted
This could have gone through day one of the 119th congess.
Curtis retweeted
It was a surreal moment at Brian Cole Jr court hearing on Wednesday. I even had to ask @RobGouveiaEsq if my ears had deceived me. Prosecutors openly stated they expected interference - from both @CIA and @CapitolPolice - in discovery requests by the defense. I mean … we already knew who we were up against in this fight, but that was a shocking admission.
I’ve told you for a solid year that the pipe bomb event was a “multi-agency conspiracy.” Can you count how many we’re up to thus far?
Curtis retweeted
Immigrant visas to the US have collapsed almost everywhere since Trump’s new policies, except for two places, per WSJ
Change in monthly US immigrant visas:
Canada: +142%
Mexico: +17%
Western Europe: -16%
Southeast Asia: -17%
Central America: -30%
East Asia: -33%
Caribbean: -53%
South America: -60%
South Asia: -63%
Australia & Oceania: -73%
Middle East: -81%
Eastern Europe: -84%
Africa: -89%
Central Asia: -99%
Curtis retweeted
I looked into this case years ago. Peter had premature triplets, they couldn’t breastfeed, needed baby formula. He had to import from Europe, he saw a need for others. Built a business. Got prosecuted. Because he wouldn’t pay for a pardon, he had to take a plea deal. MAHA!
Curtis retweeted
I paid $6.6 million in legal and fines and faced prison, and suffered for 5 years as my wife and kids thought i would be in prison.
For organic baby formula from Europe.
A victimless, fraud-less crime.
Yet, fraudsters who paid received pardons.
What happened?
😢
Curtis retweeted
Now that all the funded accounts are passing around "the chart," here's a more complete view that shows you what has happened.
Democrats got near 2024 turnout (mirroring special election and primary turnout). Republicans did not.
And Independents, while down, swung massively against Republicans. And to top it off, Republicans defected more than normal.
Doesn't look like fraud now, does it?
Curtis retweeted
I know weaponization up close. POTUS is right.
🚨 TRUMP ORDERS DOJ INVESTIGATION INTO DEMOCRATS OVER ALLEGED THREATS AND “EXTORTION”!
President Trump accuses Democratic leaders of threatening Republican officials, donors and supporters with impeachment, imprisonment and political retaliation.
“THIS IS WEAPONIZATION AND LAWFARE AT ANOTHER LEVEL!”
Trump specifically names Sen. Elissa Slotkin and alleges Democrats have sent threatening letters to innocent people.
“THE IMPRISONMENT SHOULD BE AGAINST THESE EXTORTIONISTS!”
TRUMP: “I AM ORDERING THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO LOOK INTO THIS CRIMINAL ACT, IMMEDIATELY!”
Curtis retweeted
I'm going to explain to you how my daughter analyzes the data... she looks at registered voter turnout during early voting in the beginning drilling down to the exact neighborhood in many cases, and then she tracks through to election day and compares party turnout and past elections, etc.
She does not determine whether the votes are legitimate. Lots of comments and DMs about the cheating. It sure looks like cheating.
But she has no way to determine if a vote was submitted legally or illegally. I'm sure there are ways to audit all this, but that is not what she does and she does not have access to that data.
What she was able to determine early on is that a lot Democrats were turning out... a lot. And independents were behaving identically to Democrats in how low propensity voters were showing up.
Curtis retweeted
The early voting analysis showed a 15 point shift to the blue, consistently, everywhere, when in-person voting starting.
At no point did any of the early vote analysts call out fraud. They were coming up with theories for high propensities voting on Election Day, something I disagreed with strongly behind the scenes.
I’m not ruling out the possibility of fraud, but the results were consistent with what early vote showed.
Curtis retweeted
No.
The "if Republicans turned out, they could have won" narrative is demonstrably false.
The Democrat vote was near-impossible-to-impossible. What you are demanding is an impossible Republican vote to have beaten it.
Republicans had average midterm turnout compared to their presidential year vote -- the second highest in history -- which is a decent turnout.
The crossover vote was also typical. 6% in 2026. 5% in 2024. We did not cross over.
It is the Democrat vote that was an extreme outlier.
It has not happened in more than 80 years.
The incumbent party with the presidency -- in this case the Republicans -- has never matched its presidential turnout a single time during midterms in American history.
Never once even back through the 19th century, as far as I have been able to tell -- and possibly never in the full 250 years of American history.
So, the "if Republicans turned out, they could have won" narrative is only true if you believe that the Republicans should have done something that has never been done, ever.
Then sure.
This position is mainstream among talking heads.
But it is an insane position.
Independents and the coalition stayed home. When you add 2024 to the mix it paints a clearer picture: Trump didn't get the same turnout he got in the presidential run and that was the only way he was going to beat the Dems. That is why he told people imaging he is on the ballot. The problem is people don't like what he has been doing. These 20mm people didn't vote.
Curtis retweeted
I ran the numbers.
With the exception of Ken Paxton*, Texas Republican midterm statewide candidates slightly outperformed historical expectations.
Democrats UNPRECEDENTEDLY outperformed them.
Prior to 2026, it was rare for a statewide race candidate to outperform the presidential candidate of two years prior.
In 2026, EVERY SINGLE STATEWIDE CANDIDATE obtained more raw votes than Kamala Harris.
This has never happened before.
Methods.
I asked: What average % of the presidential vote does each Texas statewide race candidate get in the midterms, for each party?
Then I compared what each candidate was expected to get, based on historical trends since 1992**, to what they actually got in 2026.
The present figure is after adjusting for which party had a president in office; midterm turnout is on average higher for parties who lost the presidency.
The unadjusted version is in the next, threaded post, for completeness.
* Paxton would have lost even if he had performed at slightly above historical expectation, as other Republican candidates had, as you can see in the right-hand figure.
** Texas and national politics worked very differently before the 1990s, with many conservatives voting Republican for president and Democrat for state office. They are not comparable.
Curtis retweeted
Wow. “In 2026, EVERY SINGLE STATEWIDE CANDIDATE obtained more raw votes than Kamala Harris.”
I ran the numbers.
With the exception of Ken Paxton*, Texas Republican midterm statewide candidates slightly outperformed historical expectations.
Democrats UNPRECEDENTEDLY outperformed them.
Prior to 2026, it was rare for a statewide race candidate to outperform the presidential candidate of two years prior.
In 2026, EVERY SINGLE STATEWIDE CANDIDATE obtained more raw votes than Kamala Harris.
This has never happened before.
Methods.
I asked: What average % of the presidential vote does each Texas statewide race candidate get in the midterms, for each party?
Then I compared what each candidate was expected to get, based on historical trends since 1992**, to what they actually got in 2026.
The present figure is after adjusting for which party had a president in office; midterm turnout is on average higher for parties who lost the presidency.
The unadjusted version is in the next, threaded post, for completeness.
* Paxton would have lost even if he had performed at slightly above historical expectation, as other Republican candidates had, as you can see in the right-hand figure.
** Texas and national politics worked very differently before the 1990s, with many conservatives voting Republican for president and Democrat for state office. They are not comparable.