Thread by @juliettekayyem

Ok, people, I heard you. The column is factually wrong:
1)Cotton MISQUOTES US Constitution. And not just any misquote. He quotes it as saying the constitution requires feds "to protect each of them (states) from domestic violence." Constitution, anyone? The real one says: 1/

“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.” 2/

Now maybe the column could have been corrected with the appropriate ellipses, but you can't make that argument with a straight face. The omissions, not acknowledged in the column, change the meaning of the Constitution. If Cotton had acknowledge it, or been forced to use 3/

the direct quote, he wouldn't have an argument. The Constitution requires a state to seek that federal protection. Now, the Insurrection Act may provide some backing for Cotton but even he knows that's a leap. Without the lie, he has no constitutional argument. 4/

And the lie isn't just bad fact checking; the lie makes it seem that his argument is just in the range of history and law, like it's just any old day here in forcing the military against its citizens, like the Founding Framers totally meant for this to be. The facts are wrong. 5/

There's more.
2)Cotton says antifa has infiltrated protests; NYTimes has reported otherwise. Arrests of right wing extremists completely ignored though the arrest was a news alert.
3)Cotton says protesters escalated violence. Times reported that it is often police who did so.6/

4)Cotton says protestors and looters are "thrill seeking rich." No proof; like he just made this one up (these last three examples were highlighted by Times reporters covering the protests in complaint to management). 7/

Anyway, I obviously think it is important that in this moment, when Trump has already utilized military might against lawful protestors and is threatening the use of the military in ways no where close to what the Insurrection Act envisioned, journalism and commentary matter. 8/

And it would be different if Cotton were interviewed, required to defend the position against questioning (perhaps by Times reporters). But that's not what happened here. 9/

Media should allow the voices of those who support Trump's interpretation, but they must (as any of us who have been honored to publish a Times oped) do so in a way that doesn't misstate facts, many disproved by their own reporters. 10/

Let the Cottons of the world make their argument, but by requiring facts it would also require them to show how extreme their position is.
The page essentially got played by Cotton by not demanding that.
11/

I take this seriously. I have overseen a state's National Guard. I have worked with Pentagon my career. I have spent years at the line between civilian and military response. Military in homeland is not something to be casual about. And if you are, then get facts right. 12/

That many minority reporters felt that the column threatened them or gave license to violence isn't something to scoff as mere PC talk, the silencing of other sides. Maybe they know, just as surely as I do from different perch, that the use of the military in the homeland, 13/

justified by a series of lies, omissions and mischaracterizations in a column, wouldn't be a legitimate argument ABSENT those very lies, omissions, and mischaracterization.

So why did Cotton do it? We should listen to those minority reporters; they know exactly why. 14/14.