This is the one quote cited in the impeachment article to demonstrate Trump's "incitement" of the mob. It's an unremarkable line that he could've used in about a thousand different contexts over the past five years
Trump also said in the speech, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." I've said for months that Trump's fraud theories were garbage, but so is this newly-invented "incitement" doctrine
Of course not a word from the @ACLU about the speech-chilling ramifications of this impeachment -- nor would you expect any, given their full transformation into an anti-Trump left/liberal advocacy org. Still six days left to squeeze that for all it's worth
The more I think about it, the more absurd/hilarious it is that THIS quote from Trump is the one finally determined to have been beyond the pale. There have been days when he's tweeted about 25 crazier things
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
From an unprecedented corporate censorship purge, to a "snap" impeachment that effectively criminalizes ordinary political speech, this past week has been a 9/11-style frenzy. And if you raise any objections, you are denounced as "with the terrorists"
One theme of the past week. Trump is obviously neutered, defeated, humiliated. His enemies are still determined to hold him up as an "imminent threat," however, to inure the public to the civil liberties-undermining radicalism of what they are doing
And @ryangrim apparently doesn't understand that this kind of wild exaggeration about the events of Wednesday is exactly what's going to be cited to justify the new domestic War on Terror
Should be obvious: if you tell the public through dramatized propagandistic repetition that something extreme happened which did not in fact happen, the public is going to be more willing to accept whatever extreme remedial counter-measures are proposed
Discussing live momentarily, assuming the purge hasn't been completed yet:
People keep screaming at me, "THIS ISN'T CENSORSHIP!" Ok, instead if you want you can call it "a coordinated political purge simultaneously executed by the internet's primary communications platforms." That's fine too
Senate Dems on Barbara Boxer's objection, Jan. 2005
Hillary: "I commend the senator from California for raising the objection"
Ted Kennedy: "I commend and thank our friend for giving us this opportunity"
Harry Reid: "I applaud my friend"
Dick Durbin: "I thank her for doing it"
Perhaps Amy Klobuchar should ask her Dem colleagues why they participated in a "coup attempt" in 2005 🙄
FYI: Obama, just three days after he'd assumed office, also used the opportunity to lament that so many American voters have doubts as to "whether our processes are fair and just"
Read Hawley's statement carefully -- he's not saying he'll ultimately vote against certification of any state's results, just that he'll support a motion to object in order to initiate debate over "critical issues." It's procedurally possible to object, and still vote to certify
It looks like what he's signaling is that he'll object to the results of PA (enabling him to rail entirely against Dems, as opposed to GA or AZ) which will then initiate an hour of debate. Would have to separately object to multiple states in order to affect the final outcome
So just to be clear. Supporting a motion to object to one state simply initiates an hour of debate related to the certification of results for that state. Hawley doesn't say he won't vote to certify any state. Just that he wants to "raise critical issues" before certification
If Trump does forge a role as some kind of "shadow president" after leaving office, it will be a natural extension of his basic worldview: he has never subscribed to cliched, bipartisan "American Exceptionalism" dogma. Which drives a lot of people crazy unherd.com/2020/12/enter-…
"Obama is the real shadow president!" some commenters proclaim. The way I define "shadow president" here is a former president who overtly makes a competing claim to the presidency. Which Trump is likely to do. Obama wields power, but Trump's situation would be unique in history
Trump's lack of fidelity to dogmatic "American Exceptionalism" is in some ways the prime mover of his presidency. Explains his popularity, because this dogma has long been used as a justification for unpopular policies. Also explains the rage he provokes from "institutionalists"