It Is Long Past Time For Democrats To Start Pounding The Impeachment Drum
from the dormant-doormat dept
The big deal today is Democrats’ threatened capitulation to the GOP on the continuing resolution to keep the government open—but entirely on Trump’s terms, no matter who it bankrupts (hello, DC police and fire departments!). But the larger point made here stands, because the cowardice on display in this budget showdown is the cowardice that been keeping Democrats from doing what they should have been doing all along—finally saying NO to Trump—and enough is enough. If we’re going to survive it’s time for Democrats to start taking a stand. On the budget, on DOGE, on EVERYTHING.
Someone asked a ranking House Democrat several weeks ago whether they would float impeachment articles against Trump, to which the answer was something along the lines of, “Find me a few Republicans and I will.” I’m not sure which one it was—perhaps Raskin?—but the fact that it is so hard to locate the comment, and nothing else on the impeachment topic is readily surfacing either, indicates why it was the wrong answer, one now lost to the sands of time instead of serving as the opening volley of a serious campaign to do what needs to be done and finally remove Trump from the office he has been abusing from the moment he entered it.
Because the question is not whether impeachment can yet succeed (although in a sane Congress there would be no question). The question is whether and when Democrats are going to collectively put their foot down and finally say no to the lawless, unconstitutional sledgehammer Trump and his associates have been taking to our federal government and constitutional order. The question is how much are they going to allow to be destroyed—how many lives are they going to allow to be destroyed—before they finally say enough is enough. How much scientific discovery will be squandered, disease spread, expertise ignored, government services gutted, agencies dismantled, public servants fired, infrastructure vandalized, contracts breached, resources wasted, bigotry celebrated, voices censored, persecutions pursued, civil rights violated, human beings disappeared, rule of law upended, national security compromised, military readiness forfeited, veterans betrayed, allies attacked, alliances trashed, wars threatened, businesses bankrupted, taxes uncollected, corruption enabled, and economies crashed before the national Democratic party shows up to be the party against all these things.
So far some individual Democrats have been able to make a piecemeal show of displeasure or even resistance at particular Trump-generated disasters, but the national party as a whole has done little to suggest that it even understands the problem, let alone demonstrate willingness to do what it takes to actually solve it. It can’t be left up to the courts to fix—while the litigation has helped mitigate some of the damage Trump has caused, it only does a bit at a time, only after the damage has already accrued, and generally only because other people marshaled the resources together to bring these challenges. The only way to truly stem the seemingly endless tide of malfeasance is to cut it off at the source. But Democrats’ refusal to even talk about doing the one thing their own offices allow them to do to stop all the madness turns them into a party that stands for all these things they refuse to use their own power as elected representatives to meaningfully oppose.
By instead largely proceeding as though everything were normal politics as usual, the party has been telling the GOP, the nation, the world, and even Trump himself that everything is fine when everything is most definitely not fine. Their complicity makes the Democrats even worse than useless, because their passive, cowardly acquiescence, if not outright surrender, to Trump’s lawless power only enables and exacerbates the harm he causes by effectively giving it their blessing to continue. And it also hangs out to dry all those who would have been ready to stand against him, dissipating and demoralizing the civic resistance the country so desperately needs, plus essentially abandoning those who voted them into office at the moment when their leadership is the most needed to protect them.
The kindest view of the Democrats’ refusal to respond in the way the moment calls for is that they are waiting for something to happen before starting to pursue it, but it’s not clear what they are waiting for, or what could be worth the cost of the wait as daily Trump destroys more and more. And it is a serious miscalculation to wait. For one thing, it gives him a chance to inflict an amount of harm that may be irreversible, or at least prohibitively expensive to try. Worse, it gives him time to dig in so that even if impeachment does finally come to pass he will be in a position to try to resist removal. Impeachment with removal is of course a big deal—historically unprecedented in America—and perhaps it will take time for enough people to get used to the idea before it can happen. But this historical inertia is why it is important to start pounding the drum now, to start to get everyone acclimated to the idea, so that hopefully it can at last happen before it is too late.
And because the waiting misapprehends the political calculus. So far, Democrats seem to be pinning everything on the electorate being so disgusted with the GOP that it votes them all out in 2026, but Democrats don’t seem to be accounting for how disgusted everyone is getting with them for standing idly by, letting so much fall apart in the meantime. There is a ton of fear and outrage out there in the country, and a great deal of it is directed at Democrats for being so unwilling to lead through this moment as a united opposition. If Democrats are going to be able to count on anyone’s votes in 2026, or ever again, then they will need to start showing some respect for those who already elected them to be stewards of our republic and demonstrate that they are worthy of that trust. And finally, finally, take a stand.
There is only one way this crisis ends: with either the premature end of Trump’s presidency, or of America itself. Yet as long as the Democrats do nothing to advance the former through impeachment, they tell everyone that they are fine inviting the latter. But if that’s the fate they welcome then they have no business being in government either, and the public is starting to notice. It is bad enough that the GOP is unable to stand against Trump, but when both major parties are lost then so is our democracy. It is time for Democrats to finally wake up to reality of what is going on and get in the game to fix it.
In sum, removing Trump from office is the only cure for this disease, and if there is to still be a political way to achieve it there is no time to lose pursuing it. Even if the cancer cannot be excised right away it is still important to start laying the groundwork for it, and now, for several reasons.
For one thing, it would send a needed sign that Democrats at last understand the assignment. The argument here is also not that impeachment articles need to be formally introduced yet. The object is to get to the point where they viably can. Even just getting articles drafted to be displayed and discussed is an important start, because by putting impeachment on the table it tells everyone what we are working toward. And that messaging is important if we are going to get everyone needed on board so that it can finally actually happen.
For Congress, beginning to talk about impeachment begins the project of cultivating the political support it needs to pull it off. Even if there are not yet the votes for it, it starts the process of collecting them. As the political pressure builds it can then prod Republicans (plus wayward Democrats) to grow a spine and rethink their resistance to such a move. Indeed, it is even a carrot for those more malleable and moderate in the GOP frustrated by how Trump has angered their own constituencies, because all they would need to do, if they want the pain to stop, is just join the Democrats and finally get the impeachment done. With impeachment finally on the table everyone could now see a light at the end of the tunnel offering some relief from this mess. But with the GOP too enfeebled to resist Trump’s spell it will have to be up to the Democrats to provide the path forward.
For the public, when Democrats get busy on impeachment it means people can finally direct their energies toward the real danger to democracy and not have to keep expending so much effort pushing forward those recalcitrant leaders who should instead have been pulling everyone forward. By even just getting articles drafted for the public to read Democrats would be at last telling an outraged America that they are not alone in their appalled, terrified horror. It would also tell them that Democrats have their backs. Which matters because not only would it help organize needed resistance—right now the public is as splintered as Democrats have been, having to fight each Trump-made crisis separately, but what if we could all be united in pushing for the one thing that will get all of these horrors at last to stop—but because it would help generate the groundswell of support Democrats will need to ultimately uproot Trump. Already more of the public is ready to fight for our country than Democrats seem to realize, but we’re all in a holding pattern waiting to find out if the fight is finally on. Once impeachment becomes the project, we’ll all know that it is.
For the world, moving toward impeachment gives some indication that the cavalry might finally be coming. It might take a while to get here, but right now it looks like there is none being organized at all, and Democrats’ silence on this front has been speaking volumes. How other nations respond to the destructive force currently occupying the White House will vary depending on whether it appears to be something America itself wants. If the rest of the world sees the country as a victim of Trump’s tyranny our friends will stand by and help support us in our hour of difficulty, ready to greet us on the other side. But when submission to this malevolence instead appears to be what we are affirmatively choosing, what friend could possibly afford to remain by our side. Democrats’ refusal so far to meaningfully push back to save our democracy keeps conveying that we don’t think it’s worth fighting for anymore, not even for ourselves. The world is receiving that message loud and clear and will react accordingly. So if we don’t want to be treated as a pariah nation, Democrats need to start showing some sign that America is still in the democracy business by doing what it takes to preserve it.
And, for Trump, constructively threatening impeachment would send the message that the clock is ticking. While such information could in theory cause him to act more recklessly and autocratically to try to pre-emptively stop Congress from effecting his removal, doing nothing has itself been inviting him to keep upping his destructive game anyway by teaching him that he’s immune from all political consequences. But such a message is the last thing that Democrats should be sending. It is important to make Trump realize that by acting so aggressively he weakens his hold on the office he so desperately wants to keep. Too many Democrats have been, inexplicably, treating him like a business-as-usual president, but the more they want to return to politics as normal the more important that Trump start to face the normal sort of consequences that a rogue president is supposed to face. By shielding him from them we keep handing him the kingdom he thinks he rules, one where the top autocrat can act with impunity. If that’s not the system we want to live in, then it needs to stop being the system we are living in.

Filed Under: coup, democrats, donald trump, impeachment, not normal


Comments on “It Is Long Past Time For Democrats To Start Pounding The Impeachment Drum”
They do not have the votes.
If Democrats bring articles of impeachment in the House, every single one of them will be defeated.
Re: That's not what I said
I didn’t say they should be officially brought. But we need to start the process of getting them ready.
Re: Re:
But if they’re not officially brought, then how can Trump ever be impeached? Stop moving the goalposts, Cathy. It’s not a good look.
Re: Re: Re: Did you read the post?
I’m not moving the goalposts. You are just ignoring what I actually said.
You start preparing them now so that there can be a day when they can be officially pursued.
Re: Re: Re:2
No, you are ignoring what you said. From your response to David E. Nelson: “I didn’t say they should be officially brought.”
So I ask again: What is the good of getting Democrats to prepare to impeach Trump if they’re not expected to ever bring the articles of impeachment? Like I said, you attempted to move the goalposts.
Re: Re: Re:3
No, you are ignoring what Cathy said.
Literally: “You start preparing them now so that there can be a day when they can be officially pursued.”
If the Dems get the senate and the house in the midterms, impeachment could be pursued. Preparing now helps that cause. What don’t you understand and/or why are you being so obtuse?
Re: Re: Re:4
I don’t disagree the information shouldn’t be collated as a ticking time bomb and be more thorough and damning than the Steele Dossier.
But equally urgent is finding out which progressive wing of the party is both pragmatic and prudent enough to write Project 2032 articles just as quietly and prepare for the extremely likely outcome that all the mid-term elections will be rigged or corrupted by MAGA poll-watchers willing and able to take pardons for doing more brazen things to cheat or file bad faith lawsuits to try to gum up Congress until 2029.
The quote ‘using authoritarianism to fight fascism’ is very naieve.
The most aggressive wing of the Democratic Party and one or two of its most assertive donors should be laying the groundwork for seizing power and forcibly disbanding the GOP donors, propaganda/media networks and think tanks such as the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation with a rapid sweep that clears US domestic terrorists out of the government and forcibly reverts Citizen’s United along with donor transparency laws with teeth, and ready to ram those through before an exhausted judiciary can start taking up bad faith conservative lawsuits against a whiplash reversion of all conservative progress since 2010.
Until the Democratic Party is poised and ready to do at least this much, if not use Republican corruption to start stripping citizenship of its politicians and wealthy in retaliation, none of America’s allies or any other foreign country should consider it a superpower and should start ignoring it as a trade possibility until it does and authoritarian-left overcorrection pushing the GOP out of power permanently.
THEN it can organically cede power and start responding to criticism in good faith allowing new political part(ies) to form and filter their most dangerous right flank voters out of the party who helped cause this in the first place since the 90s.
Re: Re: Re:5
Yeah, so that fantasy isn’t going to happen. There’s no value in indulging in it.
Re: Re: Re:6
We live in interesting times.
There’s no needle to thread here, simply waiting two years will make the scenario I outlined readily apparent (because the mid-terms will not be free and fair and absolutely will be rigged in Russian sham election style)
It will either be as I described or a century of glorified slavery because the class warfare will have been won until and unless the previous allies and usual enemies start carving up the carcass, in some cases for reasons of US human rights violations.
Re: Re: Re:3
Both you and the other AC need to read more carefully:
The point is to get a draft out for the court of public opinion.
That is not the same as getting the House of Representatives to vote and pass them, but it is a necessary prior step.
Re: Re: Re:
You didn’t read the article.
“But this historical inertia is why it is important to start pounding the drum now, to start to get everyone acclimated to the idea, so that hopefully it can at last happen before it is too late.”
Re:
So what? Bring ’em anyway.
“We won’t win so we won’t even try” has not had a great record at getting wins!
Re: not always about the votes
Sometimes its just message.
Anyone else…. A N Y O N E else… would have already been called out for this tsunami of illegal behavior by now.
When will there be anyone as dedicated to protecting our democracy and there are those dedicated to destroying it?
Where are you Democrats????
Re: Re:
If it’s about sending a message, who is the message for?
Is it for the GOP majority which has circled the wagons around a rapist and convicted felon who has already been impeached twice and notably tried to overthrow the country live on national TV? Do you think they care if Democrats write “impeachment” on the header of a sheet of paper they won’t even dare to file as a motion in Congress? Most of them openly campaigned on the premise that all of the above were scandalous lies invented by the “mainstream media”. The message isn’t for them.
Is it for beleaguered Democrats to show yet more slacktivist “support” for ineffectual non-change? Is AOC going to write “Trump is a big meanie poo poo head!” on a napkin and pretend that means something? To what purpose?
Re: Re: Re:
If only he had been convicted in the trial that followed the first impeachment…
Re: Re: Re:
Well, if we’ve still got free and fair elections a year and a half from now, I suspect Democrats will get more turnout if they find their fucking spines.
Re: Re: Re:2
Neither party cares about Democracy at this point.
Democrats don’t have the votes so have decided to do nothing.
Republicans have decided that they will go along with anything as long as they aren’t in the crosshairs.
All should be primaried out and get some people who actually care.
Re: and they not willing to try to get them
lest people forget Jeffries fucking shrugged at the situation, Schumer went full Republican support, and no dems (literally only Bernie) refused to confirm Trump’s cabinet picks.
There’s maybe 5 Democrats who actually care about rule of law.
To quote the film “Dumb and Dumber”, as is appropriate for this presidency: I don’t think he’s gonna get that message, Cathy.
If they impeach Trump, don’t we just get Vance instead? Or am I too quick to comment?
Re:
I was wondering same.
https://www.usa.gov/impeachment. No US President has ever been successfully impeached so there are no examples to go on.
I am 99% sure Biden does not get a 3rd term, nor Kamala a second. The logical answer Is Vance, but for example Carney despite being the next potential PM is not a sitting MP, based on the past we can expect a immediate election and he may not even get elected.
Re: Re:
“The United States presidential line of succession is the order in which the vice president of the United States and other officers of the United States federal government assume the powers and duties of the U.S. presidency (or the office itself, in the instance of succession by the vice president) upon an elected president’s death, resignation, removal from office, or incapacity.”
So, Vance, if still in power, would become President. Otherwise, people further down the line would have Presidential powers without actually being President—which may seem like the same thing, but term limits would work a bit differently (if a Vice President gets promoted to President and serves at least two years as President, that counts as one Presidential term).
This raises some interesting loopholes: the Vice President can take over as President even if term limits would prevent them from being directly elected as such. One way for Trump to legally get a third term (and fourth, fifth…) would be to run as Vice President and have the elected President immediately resign. A more minor point is that a President-by-succession could presumably resign at 2 years minus 1 day, to preserve direct-election eligibility. All the more reason to impeach elected criminals and ban them from holding office; we can no longer assume such absurd-but-technically-legal ploys won’t actually happen.
Re: Re:
Biden only had one term as president and Kamala was only the vice president for one term. Impeachment definitely wouldn’t make either of them president, but if it did, it would be 2nd term for Biden or 1st for Kamala. But impeachment, like resignation, just shifts the presidency to the next in line, which in this case is Vance, who was elected vice president and would need to be impeached also to be ineligible to be president by default.
Re: Re: Re:
Only if they served at least 2 years. And even having served two terms only prevents someone from being elected as President; they can still serve as President an unlimited number of times via succession.
Re: Re: Re:2
The Biden Administration lasted 4 years…
That’s only a strict interpretation of the 22nd Amendment, not a recognition that the caselaw that would follow might be very different. If a president did get a third term via succession, it would likely involved either a significant crisis or a coup that would make the 22nd Amendment moot.
Re: Re: Re:3
Yeah, that was badly worded. It should’ve said because they served at least two years; just a clarification lest someone try to generalize that to other people.
Well, I’d say that’s where this presidency is going, except it’s where the presidency has already been. With impeachment proceedings, even.
Still, as much as they’ve been flouting the rules, they haven’t outright attacked or disobeyed the (current) Supreme Court. That leaves some room for hope. There’s still a pretense of being a democratic leader, rather than a military insurgent.
Re: Re: Re:4
A portion of Democratic donors and progressive politicians should be, quietly, skipping ahead to ‘if the mid-term elections are rigged and therefore there’s no free and fair 2028 election’ for a Project 2032, whose plans should also include if Trump is impeached and the GOP plays games with a Democratic congressional supermajority necessitating them impeaching all the day down the presidential line of succession.
Which would of course eat up an entire year of congressional business and probably set up constitutional crises such as GOP states and federal officers arresting congressional Democrats on trumped up charges in the event of a majority.
Need an actual plan for the temporary collapse of Democracy, as much as people on Techdirt hate it on principle and pound the table that the other extreme results in the same problems, we’re in such absurd times that we have to consider not only fascism to counter fascism but the entire involuntary disbanding of a modern American political party with over a century of history on crimes of domestic terrorism, and a forced resurrection of a new conservative party as a rapid-release pressure valve for the Democratic Party’s right wing back into normal order.
Re: Re:
Technically Trump was impeached twice. BUT just because you get impeached doesn’t mean you are REMOVED. That requires Part 2 of the process.
Re: Yes, but
Vance is bad too, but he doesn’t have the cult of personality that Trump does so I think a little less of an ability to do so much harm.
And we also could impeach him too. First, even!
Re: Re:
Good point! Vance also wouldn’t have nearly the same power over congress (aside from any couches in congress, of course.)
Re:
Only if Trump is convicted in the consequent trial, and we know how well that went the last time around.
Schumer is busy rallying support to hand Trump even more money and more of the government on a silver platter. What makes you think that he and the other geriatric leaders will even let anybody utter a word about impeachment to the public? They’ll just censure whoever does so like the cowards censured Al Green
Pointless discussion
It’s pointless. Impeachment is unlikely to even pass in the house, let alone convict in the Senate.
We did this last Trump term and what happened? Absolutely nothing; he was elected again.
Plus, it won’t change what’s happening. JD Vance is just as bad and will continue on the war path Trump started.
Speaker Johnson? I’m not sure if he’d change or not if we was thrust into the presidency or not. I suspect he’d continue to tow the line.
What does matter? Fighting cloture of the CR right now, but they want to cave and leave the government open because they’re afraid of the damage it can cause.
DOGE IS ALREADY DAMAGING THE GOVERNMENT! Shutting it down won’t make it worse, and might in fact slow them down, since DOGE will be stopped during the shutdown too.
Re:
I wish we had an edit button, even for 5 minutes.
Re:
It doesn’t mean it’s not worth trying. Lately, even Republicans have been criticizing some of Trump’s decisions. That will only intensify if the increasingly ridiculous and arbitrary tariff policies lead to widespread layoffs among American manufacturers. They’re already affecting company stock prices, and isolated product prices. And if the rest of the world decides to remove the USA from their supply chains, that trend is gonna be hard to reverse.
Re:
Maybe the minority party should just go home and not bother showing up for the two years they’re out of power. I mean, there’s no point in even talking about stuff that can’t pass, right? What are they even doing there?
He, uh, actually did lose an election after the first impeachment, Phoenix.
Re: Re:
They have, that’s the point. The “opposition party” is not opposing. A handful of representatives at most.
So? That gave him/his party 4 extra years to learn from the mistakes of the first term and plan for this complete gutting of the government. If he was immediately re-elected I don’t think he’d have been this successful.
Re:
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Everything this time is much worse, so there’s always a chance that enough senators see what a terrible mistake they made last time. It’s not that this is likely, but it’s defeatist to say nothing’s different this time.
If the votes were there for Trump then it’s likely the votes would be there for Vance too. He would’ve been sent a very strong message and doesn’t strike me as having the stones to step up and carry on the way Trump does.
Toe the line… 😉
Re: Re:
I’m not convinced.
I think elections are more about vibes than policy. There’s not a lot of difference between Trump and Vance on policy, but Trump’s got a cult of personality behind him, and Vance is a weirdo who nobody likes.
Sorry, but this is pointless
First, impeachment will never even get past the talking stage, let alone come up for a vote. Both The Atlantic and this site have articles talking about how politicians are afraid of Trunp’s mean tweets and they have no backbone to stand up to him.
Second, even a vote of impeachment won’t send Trump a message. He was impeached twice (though not removes from office), convicted of multiple felony crimes, yet he still became president.
He’s learned the lesson that he can do anything without any consequences.
Third, like other people are saying, if Trump is impeached, then Vance becomes president. I don’t know if any time in US history when the vice president was impeached and removed from office.
Would Vance be any different from Trump or would Trump just tell Vance what to.do?
Because again, we’re back to the original point that Trump will do whatever he wants because there are no consequences for him.
Re: Did you read the piece?
Me: [1800+ words about why it’s not pointless]
You: It’s pointless.
Re: Re:
To be entirely fair, John85851 wrote 157 words about why it is pointless.
Re:
hey, remember that time republicans were in the minority and they proposed a bunch of legislation that couldn’t possibly pass because they were in the minority and then they won the next election
Create Drafts
If Democrats just call for impeachment they wil look like fools. Instead, get lawyerly and start drafting multple articles of impeachment that are well documented and put into words that are clear to understand. They need to argue how they are consistent with the constitution. If the draft articles look solid then yes, throw them down on the steps of congress and tell the Republicans to act. Calling for impeachment on vague grounds serves no one and is a bad precedent and would backfire. Having solid and multiple articles can be strog and at the very least make the Republicans own Trump forever.
Re: That's what I was saying
I thought I was pretty clear – get busy talking it up and drafting it up. Even just doing THAT is meaningful and necessary if we’re going to get to the point where it can be pursued officially.
he should be impeached, but...
GOP control both house and senate. Articles of impeachment cannot even be started without at least a few republicans supporting it. To do so now would just make dems look even more foolish.
Re: Why on Earth not?
The idea that Democrats need permission from the GOP to start advocating for what they think is necessary is silly.
Especially when it’s that advocacy itself that may get the votes needed to be able to finally let them fly.
It’s absolutely wild how many people I’m seeing in the comments who think there’s no point in ever taking a policy position unless you have the votes to pass it.
What are you guys, Democratic strategists?
Does not resonate
I’m sorry, but the call for Democrats need to do something, ANYTHING!!!, resonates as much as a newspaper editorial decrying why the police don’t do more to stop crime. And for largely similar reasons:
1) The Democrats are in the business of elections. Full stop. The only thing they are going to focus and put energy into what they perceive to be helpful to that goal.
2) Their arrows in their quiver of options are limited. Drafting articles of impeachment is a shot that is not going anywhere in pursuit of goal number 1.
Re: Found your alt...
Senator Schumer, don’t you have a vote to go tank?
Re:
You know who perceived voting with the opposing party and ignoring her constituents in pursuit of votes from moderates as helpful to that goal?
Kyrsten Sinema.
Re:
I don’t expect the Democrats to surprise me by being brave, much less ballsy, but that’s not going to stop me from demanding that they do just that.
Re: If that's their idea of business they need to find another job
The Democrats are in the business of elections. Full stop. The only thing they are going to focus and put energy into what they perceive to be helpful to that goal.
Cool, perhaps you can explain how ‘doing nothing’ and/or ‘throwing in with the republicans’ is currently working out for them on that front and how the plan outlined in this article would somehow be worse than their current strategy.
'Do something!' 'Okay here's something.' 'No not that, something else!'
Democrats have always been spineless cowards as a party, but this last month or so has really highlighted how dangerous that is as if there was ever a time for them to grow some spines and stand up against tyranny it started on election day.
As for the article I’m equal parts amused and disgusted by all the ‘What’s the point?’ counter-comments. Do they have the votes to successful impeach convicted felon Trump? No. But laying the groundwork by documenting all the reasons convicted felon Trump should be removed so they can point to that as the public gets increasingly screwed over by the ongoing disaster would sure as hell do more to put pressure on republicans to flip and turn on their cult leader than anything the democrats are doing currently, and it would be using what limited political power they do have which I thought is what people wanted.
Re:
“We’ve tried nothin’, and we’re all out of ideas!”
Re: Re:
I’ve been using that Simpsons quote for a while. It’s one of my favorites.
Re: Re: Re:
I’m still delighted that “said the quiet part loud” is just part of the vernacular now.
Re: Re: Re:2
A couple of others that feel appropriate for this conversation:
“Gotcha. Can’t win, don’t try.”
“Never say anything unless you’re sure everyone else feels exactly the same way you do.”
Cathy may have some good arguments, and I may be showing my Autistic tendencies, but I cannot finish reading an article written by an author who can’t even count to two. She states, “There is only one way this crisis ends…” and then proceeds to use either/or to list two very different possible outcomes. Even a four-year-old can count to two, and the author’s inability throws all of her other assertions into question. Does no one proof-read anymore?
Impeachment
You impeach Trump and you end up with JD Vance, a true believer backed by Peter Thiel. A truly dangerous situation. Look it up!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Top 5 Software development companies in nagpur
Could you clarify where you want the comment? Are you referring to feedback on content, a comment for social media, or something else? 😊
What a complete and utter waste of time this would be. Perhaps it is worthwhile solely to prevent time being spent passing fascist legislation, but my guess is that Johnson will not even allow it to come for a floor vote.
Impeachment is just a strongly worded letter.