The new impeachment question and other commentary


Conservative: The New Impeachment Question

Democrats began impeachment discussions before President Trump even entered office, so it’s not surprising that “they are proposing to ­remove him from office after he leaves office,” notes the Washington Examiner’s Byron York. It would be a first in US history, so “there is no way to say with 100 percent confidence” if it’s kosher, since the Constitution clearly indicates that impeachment “in the case of a president is designed to remove that president from office,” with disqualifying him from holding future federal office only a “secondary purpose.” The most important thing Trump can do “is take Democrats to court” to ­resolve this “serious constitutional issue.”

Tech beat: Parler Won’t Be the Last

The Apple-Google suspension of Parler should worry all who care about free speech. Although many ­approve of it as the shutdown of a ­haven for alt-right hate speech, argues Amre Metwally at Slate, it’s part of a growing crackdown on social-media platforms by tech firms, centralizing “their power on the Internet” — and without evenly applying rules on what’s acceptable. Facebook, YouTube and Twitter have all played a part in radicalized violence; what’s expected of smaller platforms? “It’s only a matter of time before Big Tech is simply drawing the limits of permissible speech for other platforms, and if someone resists, then all Big Tech needs to do is pull them from the app store or deny them the requisite infrastructure to exist online.”

Media critic: Don’t Bet on Trump TV

Will President Trump become a media mogul, Politico’s Jack Shafer asks, building “his own impregnable forum where nobody can police his speech”? The answer: “Don’t bet on it.” The “business challenges to launching a TV channel or other high-profile media property seem ­beyond the talents, resources and patience of Trump and his crew.” Assuming “he can raise the hundreds of millions of dollars to stand up a competitive network,” he would have a tough time “getting AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and other major cable companies to carry” it. Even Oprah Winfrey, “far wealthier and much more appealing,” couldn’t turn “her personal franchise into a cable powerhouse.” And Trump won’t join any existing outlet that “only lets him pour vanilla on his faithful. He wants to dump hot sauce.” It seems Trump can no longer “swagger, defame and incite without suffering crippling repercussions.”

From the right: Big Basket of Deplorables

“Even Hillary Clinton consigned only half of” President Trump’s supporters to her “basket of deplorables,” remarks The Wall Journal’s William McGurn. Now there is “an effort to lump the 74 million Americans who voted for Trump with those who rampaged through the Capitol — thus rendering them ­unfit for polite society going forward.” Yes, “the thugs” should be punished, but “the people I know who attended” the rally beforehand “are decent, ordinary Americans who didn’t enter the Capitol and wouldn’t dream of disobeying a police officer.” A poll found “only 9 percent of Americans consider the rioters ‘concerned citizens’ and 5 percent call them ‘patriots.’ The ­remaining 90 percent includes millions of Trump voters.” Clinton thought half of Trump’s voters were “worthy of understanding and ­empathy.” Now that makes her “the moderate.”

Libertarian: US Beats Obama’s Climate Promise

At 2009’s Copenhagen climate conference, President Barack Obama pledged “to cut US greenhouse-gas emissions by 17 percent by the year 2020”; with emissions now 21 percent lower than 2005 levels, “we more than did it,” reports Reason’s Ronald Bailey. Per a report from the Rhodium Group consultancy, “the bulk of US emissions reductions between 2009 and 2019 stemmed from electric power generators switching from coal to natural gas,” while 2020’s reductions “were due to decreased economic activity” owing to the pandemic. But economic slowdowns cause massive suffering — a poor omen for President-elect Joe Biden’s plans “to set the US on a path toward net-zero GHG emissions by 2050.” Some “scenarios suggest that this goal is achievable, but the economic and political trade-offs will be fierce.”

— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board

.

Laisser un commentaire

Votre adresse de messagerie ne sera pas publiée. Les champs obligatoires sont indiqués avec *

*