I wonder if there's anyone out there who actually believes that Donny Trump didn't tell his daddy in advance about the meeting with the Russians who promised dirt on Hillary Clinton, and didn't tell him after the meeting that there was nothing to be gained?
I wonder if there's a legitimate reason, other than "well, better her than her father," for Ivanka to sit in on the G20 meeting in her father's place? "Angela M" approves, I read, just meant that delegations can choose who gets to sit in the meetings, not necessarily that she approved of Ivanka being there.
And on a related note, I wonder if anyone thinks Chelsea Clinton could have given a better response than she did to Trump's tweet. Here's that exchange.
I saw that Bernie Sanders is not ruling out a run in 2020. Anyone else wondering if that's the silliest thing they've heard today? And I wonder, if he does in fact run, will he pretend to be a Democrat again or will he have the courage to run as who he is?
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has let us know that law-making is more important that vacationing, and he plans on keeping the Senate in DC instead of starting the August recess on time. In making his announcement, he blamed the Democrats - no wonder there, right? After all, when you can't get your own party in line to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, with no Dems invited to participate, you need something else to blame for inaction. So, hit the opposition for being oppositional on Trump nominations... Makes sense.
And finally, Brad Sherman, a Democrat from California (natch) has submitted an article of impeachment against the president, for obstruction and for 'impulsive incompetence' or something. And it seems that incompetence may be considered an impeachable offence, according to Charles L Black, a Yale Law School professor.
The political nature of impeachment is consistent with the constitutional framers' decision to entrust the impeachment process to the legislature rather than the courts. As Gerald Ford famously noted in reference to efforts to impeach Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas in 1970, "an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."I wonder, how long before we have any outcome from any investigation, and whether any of those outcomes will include any obstruction? We can argue the incompetence issue until we're blue in the face, but I don't anticipate there being any serious movement towards impeachment, even on the part of the Dems, unless and until there's some 'there' there.
Anyone think differently on that?