HTY1024/dockerfile
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
5c462d116e
dockerfile/examples/omnivore/content-fetch/readabilityjs/test/test-pages/economist/distiller.html

9 lines
3.5 KiB
HTML
Raw Blame History

This file contains invisible Unicode characters

This file contains invisible Unicode characters that are indistinguishable to humans but may be processed differently by a computer. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

<div><h2>
Some conservative legal scholars think so—but the idea is a long shot 
</h2><figure><img alt="Donald Trump speaks on the stage at South Dakota Republican party rally in Rapid City" decoding="async" sizes="(min-width: 960px) 700px, 95vw" srcset="https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=360,quality=80,format=auto/content-assets/images/20230923_BLP505.jpg 360w, https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=384,quality=80,format=auto/content-assets/images/20230923_BLP505.jpg 384w, https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=480,quality=80,format=auto/content-assets/images/20230923_BLP505.jpg 480w, https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=600,quality=80,format=auto/content-assets/images/20230923_BLP505.jpg 600w, https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=834,quality=80,format=auto/content-assets/images/20230923_BLP505.jpg 834w, https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=960,quality=80,format=auto/content-assets/images/20230923_BLP505.jpg 960w, https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1096,quality=80,format=auto/content-assets/images/20230923_BLP505.jpg 1096w, https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1280,quality=80,format=auto/content-assets/images/20230923_BLP505.jpg 1280w, https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1424,quality=80,format=auto/content-assets/images/20230923_BLP505.jpg 1424w" src="https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1424,quality=80,format=auto/content-assets/images/20230923_BLP505.jpg"/><figcaption>image: Reuters</figcaption></figure><div>
<time datetime="2023-09-20T13:06:41.886Z">Sep 20th 2023</time>
</div><p>
<span>D</span></p><small>ONALD TRUMP’S</small><p> campaign for re-election is dogged with <a href="https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2022/10/05/how-much-legal-jeopardy-is-donald-trump-in">legal woes</a>. The former president faces the prospect of <a href="https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2023/09/06/a-primer-on-trumps-criminal-trials">four criminal trials</a> on felony charges, which will overlap with the Republican primary season and the general-election campaign. But another type of legal trouble could further complicate his return to the White House.
</p><p>
America’s constitution—which Mr Trump swore to uphold on January 20th 2017—includes a provision barring people who have taken such an oath from holding federal office if they have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the country or “given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof”. This language, found in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, was ratified after the civil war to prevent former Confederate rebels from having a hand in running the country they had tried to saw in half. The disqualification clause has seen something of a renaissance. A year ago, Couy Griffin, then a county commissioner in New Mexico, was removed from office by a state judge for engaging in insurrection  at the Capitol on January 6th. But could this constitutional provision really thwart Mr Trump’s quest for a second presidential term?
</p></div>
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink