A serious request: I would like someone who opposes impeachment explain to me why impeachment proceedings aren't required if you have credible evidence a president obstructed justice?
-
-
I agree with you! In my view, the relevant question is the strategic one: What sort of response from the House is most likely to inflict political damage on Trump.
-
Doing nothing seems like the clearly wrong answer to that question, even if reasonable people might disagree as to the right answer. (And to be clear, I don't think House Dems are doing nothing.)
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Even if impeachment is effectively off the table (because we know the Senate will acquit), you can have a House inquiry the need for impeachment. Which is why IT MATTERS that people distiguish between oversight inquiries, an impeachment inquiry, impeachment and the actual trial
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Censure is an option. And a good one due to how rarely it’s used.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Isn't "censure" a thing?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.