1) Please don’t put words in my mouth unless you quote them in context. You play very fast and lose with your version of what I said, which does not equate to what I actually posted.I hope you saw Rep (D) Ro Khanna's essay in WSJ this week in which he said:
"Twitter’s suppression violated the First Amendment principles Brennan articulated in Sullivan. Twitter banned links to the story and suspended accounts that shared it, including President Trump’s press secretary and the New York Post itself—arguing that the story violated company policy because it contained information obtained through illegal means. Under the same logic, they’d have to suspend any account that posted the Pentagon Papers, which is protected by New York Times Co. v. U.S. (1971), or the story of Mr. Trump’s leaked tax returns."
Btw, he offered no support in his essay for your view that investigating a president for selling influence is not important because voters don't care. Admittedly, I really wasn't expecting him to endorse your view because he appears to be a man of honor who believes in upholding the Constitution.
Opinion | Twitter’s Duty to Protect Free Speech
Censorship of the Hunter Biden story might have helped my party, but it was bad for our democracy.www.wsj.com
Thanks in advance for cutting out that disingenuous crap.
2) “…a man of honor who believes in upholding the Constitution” is so very preferable to a guy that wants to terminate the Constitution.