The solutions to those questions are in the article linked within the tweet you are screenshotting:

Which transactions is that this consumer speaking about?

Their txids are:

• 262025e73812fc68b6514ea366abf463147176c7867e5853f117aded58c30e0e
• c9b5719131bfeac6378749243731c5e70f1ce56deabb7006a2b6539710866420
• c6a668364f19df0f2977f8ad7d0a3a73c5e32b55b6a7c650cafa37a5ab4b19f2
• aa001ce6e262b8b9042645ecdec9c84e9e2ad06f56dff6dd5ae42005fdea8da9
• 1cb3d6bcc650c2891b68e7b205d601bcf5158e30e1926d0fd0c8385cb456b37b
• e49cdb6075c49b8fc37b3e922038e2a3205d75a9a1fb4b69f3568707594c2d3e

And the way is it lacking from blocks?

These transactions had been relayed on the community, seemed like they’d enough price to be included, however by some means weren’t included within the blocks that adopted.

Why cannot it simply get mined by one other pool?

They had been. These transactions aren’t censored from the community. They’re simply surprisingly lacking from particular blocks that would have included them. The article explains the way it concludes that in some of those circumstances, it seems seemingly that this was resulting from OFAC filtering. The truth that sure swimming pools seem like doing such filtering is on itself attention-grabbing (if the conclusions of the article’s writer are right), even when that is totally ineffective resulting from the truth that the identical transactions will simply be mined by others.