I fail to see how having a "community-approach" to censure is so much better than a corporate approach. foxnews.com/politics/twitt… Majoritarian limits on free speech are nothing new. Indeed, that is the point of free speech protections. You do not need to protect popular speech.
My main concern is still Twitter's expanding censorship of material deemed misleading. The use of community input will be part of this broader effort to identify material deemed misinformation and remove it.
...Birdwatch will encourage groups to organize objections to tweets and build the case for removals, flags, or warnings by Twitter. Who is watching the birdwatchers? These people already have their own Twitter accounts to offer opposing viewpoints.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If Democrats are going to wait a couple months to submit articles of impeachment to the Senate, why not have a real inquiry and hearing? businessinsider.com/house-may-wait… This is reminiscent of the prior impeachment that was delayed for weeks after saying that time was of the essence.
...If there is time for a Senate submission, there is time for a House inquiry. jonathanturley.org/2020/01/06/how… There could be evidence to support impeachment on incitement, but it will require an inquiry looking at conduct before and after Trump's speech.
Author Franz Kafka once wrote, “My guiding principle is this: Guilt is never to be doubted.” Congressional Democrats appear close to adopting that Kafkaesque standard into the Constitution as they prepare for a second impeachment of President Trump... thehill.com/opinion/judici…
...In seeking his removal for “incitement,” Democrats would gut not only the impeachment standard but free speech, all in a mad rush to remove Trump just days before the end of his term...
...The damage caused by the rioting was enormous, but it will pale in comparison to the damage from the new precedent of a “snap impeachment” for speech protected under the 1st Amendment. It would do to the Constitution what the rioters did to the Capitol: Leave it in tatters.
I am perplexed by Speaker Pelosi's suggestion that military officers can bar the Commander in Chief from exercising his constitutional authority under Article II. nypost.com/2021/01/08/pel…
...I know of no authority by which the nuclear codes can be withheld from the President absent a declaration under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment. Absent such a declaration, such an action would be grounds for the removal of any military officer...
...The same is true for the exercise of other executive privileges and powers. It would be akin to Trump asking the House clerk not to accept any bills or carry out legislative functions at Pelosi's request...
Pence has issued a letter defying the President and will not "send back" electoral votes. He is correct in his reading of the constitutional and federal law. He has no such authority. jonathanturley.org/2021/01/06/sho…
Pence's decision is a profile of courage. He shares Trump's criticism of the election process but he is fulfilling his oath to uphold the Constitution. President Trump told him "to do the right thing." He just did.
Mitch McConnell is now adding his voice in another profile of courage in opposing the challenge. He is refusing to be "a national board of election on steroids" and insists that they must defend the constitutional process to avoid a "death spiral" for democracy.
Martha MacCallum is doing a great interview Raffensperger, who said that he did not record the call but evaded the key details on taping and timing of the release. I was surprised by the evasive aspects of the interview by someone who has been both credible and unfairly attacked.
...MacCallum pressed him on why release the tape just a day before the election and Raffensperger deflected the questions. He did indicate that he was a party to the release the tape. He indicated that the release was a type of retaliation or response to Trump...
Many of us criticized Pres. Trump for this statement and his past attacks on Raffensperger. However, this response seemed calculated to cause maximum harm. Yet, the blowback will be felt by the Senate candidates. When pressed on that impact, Raffensperger had a curious response.
Chuck Todd just cut off Sen. Johnson who was raising media bias by saying "I have had enough of this." Johnson was arguing for the creation of a Commission to look at the election which Todd is rejected as entirely unnecessary despite millions who view the election as rigged.
...Todd dismissed a review of the election as akin to holding a hearing on the "moon landing." After an election with an unprecedented reliance on new systems and overwhelming mail in voting, it is hard to see the principled opposition to such a commission.
...The challenge to the electoral votes will fail as did the prior Democratic challenges. However, there is value to having an commission to look at this election and the underlying allegations. I usually oppose such commissions but this is one time where there is a clear value.