Frogcycle's Twitter Archive; PDFs of Selected Authors' Threads
Link to full archive
I’m a little baffled by the Revolutionary War section of
the president’s (generally anodyne) speech yesterday. He
has a professional speechwriting team. Why can’t they get
the timeline right?
The Fourth of July was once a raucous, avowedly
partisan, boozy occasion—so how did it become a
celebratory civic gathering?
The @NixonLibrary has just released its oral history
with Hillary Clinton, part of its compilation of the accounts
of the participants in Watergate.
If you think that politics is solely about “winning,” then impeachment looks like just another card to be played. But the founders—who were remarkably clear-eyed about human frailty—thought otherwise
I am genuinely alarmed that no one seems to have explained to the president of the United States the basic principles of impeachment as a constitutional mechanism.
. Even if—like Pelosi—you believe that no amount of evidence, no shift in public opinion, could possibly move sufficient votes in the Senate to remove the president, the process of impeachment still delivers five discrete constitutional benefits
In January, I mounted the case that impeachment is the proper, constitutional mechanism for resolving allegations of criminal misconduct against a sitting president:
I am finding it utterly impossible to reconcile Barr’s testimony on Mueller's analysis of obstruction, with Mueller’s actual analysis of obstruction
why the power to impeach, and then try, a president is vested in the House and Senate, and not the Supreme Court.
*Must Read! The Founder's deliberations prior to and during the draftin of the Constitution are critical to understanding the document itself. -dbciii