>>3811981 (LB)

I seriously didn't expect this, but once I saw the resignation letter from last year and everyone talking about how Trump fired him, I realized what was going on. He campaigned with Trump. He was targeted, too.

It's amazing that everyone leaps to "fired" from a simple phrase (over a year ago) that said "at your request" (I don't have exact wording off-hand). People simply make assumptions about what the context of that statement is, then draw conclusions as if they're fact. It literally could mean "after you and I discussed the plan and my eventual resignation once prosecutions are ready to begin..." But no, it MUST mean "fired," because that's what they want it to be.

>>3812036

Nope. I've been reading his tweets and haven't seen anyone else saying anything similar. Newsom would get to appoint her successor, I'd imagine. Unless they hold special elections. Maybe that's what "Watch CA" means?

>>3812128

Tough call. I like him, but he falls for fake news on occasion. He seems to be more on target than off, so I certainly won't be surprised if he's correct here.

>>381225

And renewenergytv before being a solar pusher.

>>3812386

Oops, meant to reference >>3812255