Question What You Read    

   USA Today. "The president's GOP enablers place power and party ahead of truth and country." (and Democrats don't?) "Constitutional violations are grounds for impeachment." 

   Los Angeles Times. "The two (bills of particulars) fully justify the grave step of impeachment." (Note: Either branch of government has the right to seek a ruling from the court when there is a conflict.)

   Boston Globe. "The facts show that the president has threatened this country's core values and the integrity of our democracy. Congress now has a duty to future generations to impeach him." 

   Washington Post. "Mr. Trump has refused all cooperation with the congressional inquiry ... and prevented the release of documents..." 
(Hmmm. Wasn't it many thousands of documents the White House released to the Mueller committee?) 

   Chicago Tribune. "Trump's Ukraine misdeeds are a serious abuse of his office. But they do not meet those tests of an impeachable offense. The option we see more fitting ... for both houses of Congress to censure him." 

   Wall Street Journal. "That's all there is? After obstruction of justice, collusion with Russia, bribery, extortion, profiting from the presidency and more, House Democrats have reduced their articles of impeachment to two: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Honey, we just shrunk the impeachment. 

   "Democrats voted on Friday in favor of the text of the two articles they unveiled Tuesday, and now they will rush it to the floor this week. It's enough to suspect that Democrats understand they are offering the weakest case for impeachment since Andrew Johnson, that the public isn't convinced, and so they simply want to get it over with." 
 

Take your stand.

But be careful what you're standing on.

       Jimmy