You have no idea how furious I am to agree with Robin McAlpine on this. Centrism is the Golden Mean Fallacy made manifest in politics: if one party says the sky's blue & the other says it's red, the centre concludes that the sky must clearly be purple.

Jacob Rees-Mogg has admitted the Tory leadership coup looks like being delayed to December - after the 'meaningful vote' on the PM's Brexit deal.

Speaking on his @ConHome 'Moggcast': "Some people don't want a leadership vote now, they would like it when the meaningful vote comes up and think that is the time to put in letters."

JRM: "I think the strength of feeling against the meaningful vote is much stronger than the number of letters that has gone in. If there are letters in, very few of those letters will be withdrawn - so the hurdle is much lower when the meaningful vote comes."

He tells @ConHome the apparent failure of the coup could be a blessing in disguise: "In a way it is better that there has been this delay, though I can't pretend that there has been some cunning plan, because we have allowed time for people to see the failures of the policy."

Full report on the delayed coup from @NatashaC on @TheSun now:

17 / TRUMP / RED LINE / FRANCE / 21

THREAD

Trump owned France back in 2017 and never stopped since.

Q is using France as a mirror for the show.

USA Revolution 1776

[+13]

FRANCE Revolution 1989

ENJOY THE SHOW 2021 PATRIOTS

#OldestAllies 🇫🇷🇺🇸

Pretending that voting for Trump or denying climate change or suggesting the solution to every problem is more guns is a legitimate point of view, worthy of respect is not "how America works." It is how it dies.

People in a free society are entitled to any point of view no matter how obviously wrong or outlandish or destructive provided they do not impose their views on others.

But suggesting that something ignorant or divorced from reality warrants the same kind of treatment in public debate as something based in fact or at least credible is absurd and when done on behalf of a society in public media or academic settings it is self-destructive.

We would not grant media coverage or much bandwidth at all to a group that argued that unicorns exist or that there was a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Yet views like denying climate change or basing policy decisions on sweeping, obvious lies, are just as unsound.

Somewhere, somehow, judgments must be made. Some behaviors are wrong and must be condemned. Someone must challenge lies and demand facts. Coddling people who embrace idiocies does not help them no matter how loudly they demand to be coddled.

Strongly endorse everything in this @OsitaNwanevu piece. One of the key mistakes I see among Dems, both online & in the real world, is thinking that people believe right-wing nonsense because they are unintelligent or uneducated.

In the area I know best, climate change, it's been found repeatedly that climate denialists & skeptics have, on average, MORE higher education than those who accept the science. They know MORE about climate science. They have, on average, HIGHER verbal intelligence.

What they do is adopt the conclusion that best serves their social tribe and then use their intelligence & education to build a case for it. It's called "motivated reasoning" & everyone is subject to it, very much including the smartest people.

1. @JonathanTurley
Trump has only been out of office and, therefore, no longer (purportedly) immunized from criminal prosecution for ~1 month. Also, because of R delay, Garland is still awaiting confirmation. Once Garland is AG, expect a thorough



2. investigation of Trump for inciting insurrection in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2383, together with other federal crimes. Once that investigation is completed, based on the information that is currently public, there is a good chance that Trump will be prosecuted for violating

3. 18 U.S.C. 2383, together with other federal crimes. Not absolutely guaranteed. But a very good chance. The only element of inciting insurrection that is open to credible dispute is Trump’s intent. Is there sufficient evidence that he intended his speech to incite imminent

4. lawlessness? As you know (or should know), criminal intent is invariably established by circumstantial evidence. That means prosecutors must analyze everything Trump did and said (and didn't do or say) before, during and after his incendiary speech.

5. That investigation takes time. Sometimes a lot of time to empanel a grand jury and begin issuing subpoenas and seeking warrants. The fact that Trump's previous crimes, including the 10 felonies outlined in Vol. II of Mueller's report, haven't been prosecuted is irrelevant.