2. Shapiro's core argument is that House Republicans opposed impeachment because they saw it as a Democratic plot to undermine them — and, moreover, that they were right (or at least justified) in thinking that.
3. This logic has a glaring logical flaw: as
@jonathanchait points out, Democrats couldn't use impeachment to tie Republicans to Trump *if they voted for it*
https://t.co/DPoeiX167z
4. The problem goes deeper than that. The evidence that Shapiro uses to argue that Republicans are justified is that Democrats and liberal commentators have argued that the Capitol Hill riot vindicates their positions on *issues other than impeachment*
5. Of course they'd say that — they're Democrats! You can debate the validity of these claims, but that says nothing about the purpose of pursuing impeachment. There's just no real connection between Shapiro's argument and the evidence offered for it.
6. Next, Shapiro argues that Democrats want to blame all Republicans and Trump voters for the riot — and will use this as a pretext for "repression" for conservatives everywhere.
7. This is a dodge. It positions the argument that the GOP bears some responsibility is necessarily unreasonable and evil. That a party that made Trump its leader and backed him for four years is axiomatically innocent, and saying otherwise is the real problem.
8. Shapiro's "evidence" for this claim that Democrats want to "repress" the GOP? That corporations — not Democrats, *corporations* — punished outlets and politicians who either tolerated violent rhetoric or encouraged the election fraud delusion.
9. These were targeted actions against specific groups, not the entire Republican party. And yet Shapiro sees this evidence of a conspiracy to repress the entire GOP!
So you see the real argument here: it's not just impeachment, but any consequences, that are illegitimate.
10. Now, here's the next section. Virtually every claim in this is either dishonest or false.
In 2018, Abrams didn't try to overturn the election, telling supporters that "the law currently allows no further viable remedy" for an election she felt (justifiably!) was unfair.
11. Raskin's objections were pro forma and without support from a Senate member, so they didn't trigger debate. And the reputable First Amendment lawyers I've spoken to say there is a real case that Trump did incitement; Shapiro links out to a piece by Andy McCarthy, a crank.
12. Here's the last substantive section, which is really a con. Shapiro is arguing for "neutral standards" to "unite the country" while quite literally arguing for division — that Republicans are justified in seeing Democrats as evil and opposing impeachment to spite them.
13. But this is Shapiro's shtick. Out of one side of his mouth, he positions himself as a high-minded intellectual. Out of the other side, he offers up the most divisive conservative red meat imaginable. Some examples I compiled a bit ago:
14. So the real problem with today's Playbook isn't Ben Shapiro's identity. It's that the piece itself is poorly reasoned and outright dishonesty in a way that was predictable given his past work — and that no editor fixed the piece. It's just below decent journalistic standards.
15. Coda: there is an argument that Playbook is helping its more left-leaning readers understand the right better by publishing this. That's false, for reasons
@AsteadWesley, @AdamSerwer, and
@cjane87 explain here:
16. Coda II: this statement from Politico's EIC makes it worse, not better.
The logical and evidentiary flaws in the newsletter were glaring and obvious; if it was "very closely edited," then the editorial process failed.
https://t.co/FNa8UlSO4S
