The kids today don't believe it but in 2018 one major argument the Democrats used was that if they won the House they would do oversight on Trump and check his excesses. Many voters believed them too and it helped the Dems win! Wild times.
-
-
More convincing to who? Impeaching a president is a pretty significant event of accountability for the public. That Pelosi does not clear bars set by you is perhaps less of a problem than you think.
-
Do you think that history will look back on the Trump era and think that the opposition party did enough to check a lawless president?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
John. Bolton. Refused. To. Testify. For. $$$.
-
Oh well, shucks. They did everything they could
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
There is not one shred of evidence that widening the scope would have changed GOP Senate/House one tiny iota. So just sit down with this.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That would have stopped Openly Corrupt Republican Senators.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
They held Barr in contempt. The courts are slow-walking everything. What did you want them to do?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So they should waive their magic wand? Got it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So now you're arguing that they didn't impeach him the right way. That's fine, but it's a bit of a shift from your original argument that implied they conducted no oversight at all. Impeachment, even if too narrow in your eyes, is pretty strong oversight.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.