WOW! "Censure" Trump? Why not just print it on 2-ply and mail it to him?

[Miles Archer]

I did not anticipate waking up and hearing "censuring" Trump making the rounds today.

Stephanie Ruhle's guest just floated it as a possibility, saying "it's not as strong as impeachment, but it allows Congress to let the president know that they don't approve of his actions."

Ruhle snorted and said "I'm pretty sure they do that every day."

I DO NOT IMAGINE Trump would be sitting in the office going "Oh NO! They're going to CENSURE me! My presidency is OVER! I'm FUCKED!"

[Tommy_Carcetti]

1. You censure for lying about a blow job.

You impeach for, well, something that should be more egregious than lying about a blow job.

[WeekiWater]

2. Censuring him would be a good step. I cannot think of a reason not to.

An attempt to censure Clinton failed yet he was still impeached. It's not an either or proposition.

[Miles Archer]

3. True, but it's being presented by some as an "alternative."

Granted, cable news is pretty much a bunch of people talking. That's it.

I hear what you're saying, and it makes sense. What doesn't make sense is "censure him instead."

I still think this will be resolved in November 2020, not before. Whether that's true or not, keep the heat on until then, and after if necessary.

[The_Counsel]

4. Trump Should ALREADY Know Congress Doesn't Approve of His Actions...

...what he doesn't yet know for sure is whether Congress has the fortitude to bring consequences to bear.

Trump suspects the answer is "no." Time to show him the truth is a little different.

[C_U_L8R]

5. Public hearings... just like Watergate

Everyone in this country (even the most thickheaded rightwingers) need to see the truth of what's going on. When the public appreciates the gravity of Trump's conspiracy, it will be over.