>>4593555 (pb)
>chat-bot experiment
Thank you. I missed most of this, and am grateful for the examples of what to look out for. ( -Anon poster up-thread.)
I read that with some latitude. More correctly, it would read "The House will pass Articles of Impeachment."
And the debate getting any of THAT passed will be a total effin' joke. The internet didn't exist during the terms of Nixon and Clinton.
POPCORN!
People are talking about the Trump impeachment as a given. Think of what will have to happen to get it done. I have some recollection of the Nixon impeachment (couldn't pay attention to Clinton's). They (and I include Republicans in this) are going to have to debate each article of impeachment, make sure it's factual, and make sure it rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors." That debate, shown live on the internet, and clipped and posted everywhere, is sure to be a losing proposition for the Dems. You remember the Dem's insanity on display during Kavanaugh's hearing? This can only be an even worse disaster for them!
I've previously tried to contact Representatives over other matters, and it can be darned near impossible. Many of them take communications only from people in their district. You can try, through.
Interesting and good read. Seems like a principled man. What have we got left? Antiwar.com and Scott Horton interviews.
I am not familiar with him beyond what he writes about himself in the resignation letter. He was warning about the encroaching surveillance state, the endless wars, and MSM sycophancy. In those senses, he is on our side.