To @RepChrisPappas @RepAnnieKuster @RepJerryNadler @RepMGS @RepAdamSchiff @SpeakerPelosi
STOP wasting time on Partisan Impeachment Articles!
The 1 Charge you MUST make is criminal, indisputable & the language ensures a Senate conviction.
18 U.S.C. § 2384-Seditious Conspiracy
https://t.co/lyDmc5WLww
https://t.co/tmX6zk9U3o
Notice the "fight to StopTheSteal" language used on the Rally's website.
INDISPUTABLE!
https://t.co/GAeKQvNFQP
Note that the other conspirators include those that financed & helped organize this act; but they can't avoid the truth now. "It is what it is"
https://t.co/Q7b1lXD0HS
https://t.co/gtxP8X0Kw4
https://t.co/2jrmUlDujJ
.@RepublicanAGs: Are you just straight up LYING to reporters?
— Democratic AGs (@DemocraticAGs) January 8, 2021
How can you say RAGA/RLDF had no involvement in the rally turned deadly attack on the Capitol, when you were listed as a sponsor & paid for a robocall telling "patriots" to march to Capitol to "continue the fight"? pic.twitter.com/WWrEGdFbCL
Caught red-handed!
https://t.co/0KQPNNEYZ6
More from Culture
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x