(1) The position Ronna McDaniel and the GOP leadership are taking on this issue is ridiculous.
Dems aren't going to back down from this impeachment attempt, and asking them to do so just makes the situation worse for Americans beyond the Beltway.
(2) I've been trying to figure which policy area is top priority for me: foreign policy or "law and order."
I can't decide. But the GOP, which I support, isn't doing a great job at the moment of being the law and order party. The Ds never do, but that's beside the point here.
(3) The world is stuck with the effects of a Democrat-controlled exec branch in the US for the next 4 years at least, and not a great chance of loosening their grip on Capitol Hill within that time frame, either.
What an unmitigated disaster for freedom & security everywhere.
(4) Ronna is right to the extent that yes, Ds were always going to look for a chance to impeach Trump whether as a current or former POTUS.
But he personally handed them a very good reason to do it this time. Many Americans on BOTH sides want him investigated, at a minimum.
(5) The most hardline populist Trump supporters won't hear a word said against him. But there's a group of American conservatives that I think are larger than the group of hardliners, who have questions about the whole post election period like I have. They deserve answers.
(6) Because the damage done during that 10 or so weeks was immense. Damage to the lives of those American voters (security, economic etc), to the likelihood of winning back majorities any time soon, and to the very freedom on which everything else depends.
(7) Whether or not a Senate impeachment trial for a former President is "constitutional', the public needs to know as much as possible and appropriate (security-wise) about President Trump's communications and decisions in the months before 1/6. A President has immense power.
(8) I'd actually rather see an investigation and proceedings outside of the impeachment process, but whatever. Ds have every right to do this if they want to. Conservatives don't trust the DOJ and FBI to be politically neutral, but that is the system we are stuck with for now.
(9) Most conservatives don't particularly trust Ronna Romney McDaniel either, truth be told. She's part of the establishment machine & is probably quite pleased at the media coverage her opinion piece has generated.
I want everyone investigated: Ronna, McConnell, Pelosi etc.
(10) At a minimum, McConnell and Pelosi had a duty to tell Trump that security at the Capitol would certainly be inadequate. (USCP ultimately report to them.)
We could ALL see that before the day began. Trump failed to send the DC National Guard. He had a duty to do that.
(11) Here's a challenge for those of you wanting to reply to my threads about holding everyone accountable, including those we like.
Try to reply without making excuses for them. Hold them to the same kind of standard a good employer holds an employee too.
(12) This gets to the very heart of why I have grown to love the USA so much, especially since becoming a conservative in 2016.
You are the employer of your government.
When I was getting my pol sci degree they never taught me much about that. Isn't it ironic?
(13) The same people who so readily shout "Congress do your job!" seem awfully silent when it comes to reviewing the work of their other employees living further along Pennsylvania Ave.
He was an exceptionally accomplished conservative POTUS. Until that last 10 or so weeks.
(14) Jobs Not Mobs was a genius campaign slogan and perfectly encapsulated the choice in 2018.
We can't use it now, because a much larger mob was allowed to form, at a place and time that (all our "leaders" knew full well) would permit a riot injuring cops & others.
7 deaths.
(15) 5 of those deaths directly resulted from the rioting, 2 were solely due to medical events.
I don't care that *some* of the rioters were planted there by the left.
If you were being morally consistent you'd say the same.
(16) I say let the public judge. To do that, y'all need more information.
While Trump and his most ardent supporters keep making excuses, you're not going to get it.
Both sides don't trust the other. Part of the solution is more sunshine-disinfectant. More public info.
(17) Whether that comes via an impeachment trial, or some other judicial process, is immaterial to me.
Complaining about the method Ds are using doesn't exactly help the defense case. The trial will be public. Let's hear the evidence and arguments of each side.
Law and order.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This pic of a health provider treating a patient at this time
WITHOUT PROPER PPE
should be the issue the public focuses on iso pt's choice to use Gorilla Glue. The mask is not N95 rated. No eye protection, gown, or hair covering. An example of why we can't have nice things!
I'm sick of seeing examples of health providers not using proper PPE.
IDC where you live, if Covid is in your community, then anyone going to any healthcare facility should use PPE correctly.
You are at high risk of spreading the virus to vulnerable people if you don't.
I'm also sick of people on all sides politicizing the pandemic.
Fucking grow up already.
I am at risk of Covid complications that could kill me or at least cause huge disruption and distress in my life, which I do not need anytime, including right now.
"The "Imminent lawless action" standard was established by the SCOTUS. Under this test, speech is not protected by 1A if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent & likely."
Intent is the key part of this...
(2) Trump defenders are going to say he didn't have intent, and that this could never be proven.
But often, it can be. Intent can be inferred from actions or omissions. And I think there are plenty, over several weeks. Not just the speech at the Ellipse that day.
(3) Some of Trumps Dec/Jan actions or omissions are publicly known. Others are not, as yet.
A proper investigation may reveal crucial evidence. That needs to happen ASAP.
If that's the relevant SCOTUS test, then IMO it may well be met.
(1) It's not the Presidential Seal, it's a drawing that is similar to it.
Yes, a former POTUS can sign off as President [Name.] They all do it.
He can call his office whatever he wants. It's still legally the OotFP.
The real issue is that...
(2) The one point in the body of Trump's letter that he should have emphasized more is the SAG-AFTRA's woeful record on tolerating convicted criminals, incl. child sex offenders.
"Your disciplinary failures are even more egregious."
He skimmed over that, and should not have.
(3) Writing the letter at all just looks like sour grapes. That's a fact. If you saw someone else do this, you'd call it that.
I've seen no sign yet that Pres Trump has resumed the more disciplined, effective style that made all but the final months of his presidency a success.
(1) Dems are thrilled about this bc they believe Dominion will win the suit. IDC much about Lindell or his claims, but I do know that if you're not careful what you say, you can walk right into legal liability & end up with no credibility &, often, no money. Hope it was worth it.
(2) And now I will provide context and background, bc there's never enough space in one tweet to do that.
I realize Mike Lindell is making claims about the election fraud that all sensible people can see happened. The nature of the fraud is that there were multiple parts to it.
(3) I agree that a large number of those fraud methods occurred in certain states (and in some cases, potentially in all states.) It's become very difficult to find reliable, accurate, sufficiently detailed information on all these cases.
(2) On 3/15/19 in Christchurch NZ 51 innocent members of the public were shot & killed by an Australian male whose behavior & beliefs are not that dissimilar to what we've seen by some who unlawfully entered the Capitol on 1/6/21.
Maybe that's why my view differs from others.
(3) I am on the side of every person who was lawfully in the Capitol that day. Not just the politicians: the cops, the staff, and anyone else who wasn't there with the intent of threatening politicians to vote a certain way OR ELSE.