The news broke today that Twitter has permanently banned President Trump.
The liberal brigades have predictably emerged to justify Twitter's move. But of all the arguments used to support the banning, this from "NBC News presidential historian" Michael Beschloss could be the most recklessly contemptible.
On Friday night's The Beat with Ari Melber, the host was riffing on how Trump exploited Twitter to get elected and drew the equivalent of massive campaign spending with his tweeting. He suggested this was a "signal day" in the "blunting" of Trump's message, and asked for Beschloss's historical/hysterical judgment.
MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: It [Twitter] has been an enormous weapon for him, which he’s abused, and abused, and abused.
And the problem is two things. Number one, Twitter is instant. So, if he wants to have a sudden impact on people, or to move the stock market. Maybe he’s got friends who are investing in certain stocks that will benefit. Maybe they'll give him a kickback! I don't know if any of that is true. But it allows a president to do things like that in a way that we haven't had a medium before make it so easy.
So that's the standard for "historian" Beschloss, Ari Melber and NBC News? Float utterly evidence-free, brazen speculation, accusing President Trump of crimes, while acknowledging that the accuser doesn't know if "any of that is true?" Melber didn't utter a peep of protest. Beschloss kept yapping about how "We're now coming to see that social media are not just neutral conveyor belts, they're just like publishers. They have to exercise some judgment."
Duly noted! So why is MSNBC lecturing about fact-free communicating after this "Trump might take kickbacks" junk? Just like Scarborough's "Trump might commit treason" gunk?