'Toon Time: Crystal Blue Persuasion

credit: J. Koterba, Omaha World Herald 
 Wackydoodle sez: Weird Who?

Still More: US Person does not want to belabor this point, but the point about three articles instead of two is that the third obstruction of justice article arises from a separate set of facts unrelated to obstruction of Congress' impeachment inquiry. These set of facts deal exclusively with the Special Counsel and the Orange King's attempt to obstruct his investigation by removing him from his office.  Obstruction of Congress is exclusively related to his refusal to submit to lawful subpoenas issued by the House in pursuit of its own Article I authority.  Unless the House intends to not protect duly appointed Special Prosecutors from removal by hostile presidents it should vote for a separate article to vindicate the authority of any future prosecutor appointed to investigate officers of the executive branch.  Any pattern of behavior evidence of one charge is irrelevant to the other.  Now, if the concern of the House Judiciary Committee is that it does not have self incriminating evidence of the Tangerine Tyrant's obstruction of justice, the Mueller Report certainly exhibits direct, eye witness testimony of the same, which is certainly enough to justify lodging the charge. Would Don McGahn change his prior testimony under oath if brought to the well of the Senate to testify at trial? US Person thinks such blatant perjury highly unlikely.

More:  House Speaker Pelosi has been reluctant from the beginning of this odessy to support a muscular indictment of the criminal occupying the Very White House.  Her latest dithering is her preference to stick to only two articles of impeachment, both based on the whistleblower complaint.  She continues to ignore the evidence developed by Robert Mueller and compiled in Volume II of his report detailing the perpetrator's obstruction of the Special Counsel investigation. Ignoring the plain evidence already in the record sets a dangerous precedent for future presidential accountability.  Ignoring Mueller's evidence may encourage future presidents to attempt to fire a special counsel investigating their conduct in the hopes they can get away with it.  Pelosi is fond of intoning, "'no one is above the law", but by refusing to expand the focus of the impeachment by onlt one well developed and publicly understood article is a dereliction of her duty to protect and defend the Constitution from the criminal onslaught of the Tangerine Tyrant.  Nancy has clearly been in the Swamp too long when the results of polls mean more to her than the administration of justice.  This is a 'come to Jesus moment' in the nation's history: it is no time to deny what is right and accept  what is proven to be wrong.  Leave that Orwellian exercise to the Repugnants.

{07.12-19}US Person, aka "Elf on the Shelf" wishes to take some credit for the current state of play in the Swamp.  All the bloviating pundits were pooh-poohing impeachment after the Mueller Report proved a PR dud, butt he consistently called for the impeachment process to begin despite Nancy "don't mess with me" Pelosi's foot dragging (Net Worth: $101 million, D-CA) .  Now, in the light of the whistleblower's complaint, courtesy of the 'Deep State', the delay proved irrelevant and even harmful, but did allow some congealing of popular and political support of the only constitutional process provided to remove a rogue president.  Undoubtedly there is more clear and convincing evidence to be had of his nefarious conspiracy to convert the nation's highest office into his personal piggy bank, but there is enough evidence in the record to send him to the Senate for trial.  If Repugnants make a mockery of that, they will be punished by the voters a few months later.  It's kind of a 'catcha twenty-two'!

credit:D. Whamond
BC Idonwanna sez: He made offer Ukraine refused! 

life imitates art