Only 2 Articles of Impeachment? Error, Error . . . .

Democrats.  Gotta love 'em.    Ready to snatch defeat from the jaws of Victory yet again.

Why ignore the Criminal acts committed by Trump?   These are easily provable.  

Omitting them leaves open the claim that Democrats think such Criminal Acts are acceptable behavior for a Chief Executive.

Not to say "Pile on" with frivolous and tenuous charges, but for those that are clearly Criminal and provable, it would be a grave error to omit them.




Add a comment

Rachel Maddow. "Where Facts don't matter anymore"?

October 31, 2019, on her MSNBC show, Rachel Maddow made a "big deal" about Missouri's health director, Randall Williams "tracking women's menstrual cycles".

While I may find Missouri's attitude toward abortion Laws to be a bit over the top, I find this segment to be a bit over the top as well.

Rachel repeatedly cited as "proof" Missouri was "tracking women's periods" a reply to a question about a column in a report containing the "calculated last normal period".

This brief clip, such as it was, did not prove her point at all.   Recording a single data point does not prove "tracking".  

There was no proof given, or any indication that continued tracking of periods was being done, other than Rachel's rather heated comments.

Any competent OB-GYN will also record the "last normal period" as a normal part of pre-natal care.  

If this is an indication of what passes for informed and accurate reporting, we might as well watch FOX.



Add a comment

Quid Pro . . . What?

All this focus on "Quid Pro Quo" . . . 

Odd how this causes people to focus on "quid pro quo" as if THAT was the crime.

The offense is seeking foreign assistance AT ALL, regardless of any other issue.

Funny about that, ain't it?


Add a comment

Treason "Impossible"?

We all know about "Mission Impossible", but is "Treason Impossible" a similar fantasy?

Seems the esteemed Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC fame believes so since he continues to claim Treason is "impossible", apparently for anyone, as the US is not in a formal "state of war" and, thus, has no "Enemy". 

Certainly a finessing of the definition of Enemy as anyone of the "Cold War" era and Korean and Vietnam conflicts can attest.

Further, he asserts various Court cases have rendered such defining or supporting decisions, but has, thus far, never cited even ONE such case despite prodding to do so.


Add a comment