The Daily (not really) Proof: Call for Maxine Waters investigation
I saw this today on Twitter:
The text is missing a "be"...should be investigated. When I clicked the link, the text that opened looked correct.
I thought that was odd; I assumed the text would have been linked or pulled automatically and identically. I know what you're thinking - that's not odd, this SBHopper guy is odd. That's not not true.
Here's how the article opened.
"Judicial Watch sent a hand-delivered letter Monday to the chairman and co-chairman of the House Office of Congressional Ethics calling for an investigation into whether Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., violated House ethics rules by encouraging violence against Trump administration Cabinet members."
- hand-delivered letter vs. letter. My guess is the author included the information about the letter being hand-delivered for a bit of extra dramatic flair. Aren't most letters hand delivered? (Newman!)
According to the article, Judicial Watch objected to Waters' comments at a rally.
"Waters addressed a rally in Los Angeles on Saturday and told a crowd: “If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them! And you tell them that they are not welcome, anymore, anywhere.”"
"Rep. Waters seems to be violation of House rules, specifically a rule that states: “A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.” (House Rule 23, clause 1.)"
- "seems to be violation"...add in, in violation of.
- I had to look up creditably. Not sure I've ever seen it used.
"Waters’ incitement for violence, assault and riot sets a dangerous precedent, and the House should act swiftly to disavow her. Given the grave risk to the public safety and the rule of law caused by Waters’ remarks, expulsion from the House should be on the table."
Verdict: It's an Opinion piece, but it seems more like a signal boost for Judicial Watch. I don't fault people for not agreeing with Waters' call for action, but the idea that it's a call for violence and mob action is a giant stretch. It also pales in comparison to this Trump statement about Clinton and guns during the election:
"“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”" (From the New York Times)