The partisanship and the division are so great...

[kentuck]

...that when Joyce Vance, Barbara McQuade, and John Dean appear before the Committee today, that many will accuse them of being liberal and Democrat, because they have all been guests on, or work for, MSNBC or CNN. Many will probably block it out? It is part of their partisan training. They will be unable to hear historical facts and evidence, because of that partisan training.

In my opinion, it would be a good time for America to listen, and attempt to hear if there is anything "new" there, or if, what is already gathered is more than sufficient evidence of some sort of wrong-doing? We should all have open minds during these hearings, in my opinion. Otherwise, we will be going down the wrong path.

Just my opinion.

Peace.

[SWBTATTReg]

1. And I'm hoping that some of what they discuss etc. is made public (we hear about it)...

Dean is one the few folks I really respect. I don't know the other two folks...take care!

[watoos]

2. Unless this is a prelude to an impeachment inquiry

what is its purpose? To better explain the hundreds of high crimes and misdemeanors that Trump has committed?

There has been enough dirt on Trump to begin impeachment a year ago. Is this hearing supposed to mollify the impeach now crowd? Every day we learn more. A man can be banned from flying for vaping on an airplane, but Trump's lawyer John Dowd can be recorded on tape floating a pardon to Flynn's lawyer, on tape witness tampering, obstructing justice. Instead of holding this hearing with Dean, Vance, and McQuade, why don't they get these 3 people to testify under oath why John Dowd should lose his law license?

Debates in a couple of weeks, voting in February, soon 24/7 Steve Kornacki, the time for an impeachment inquiry may be gone.

[kentuck]

4. Good questions.

I hope it's not for mollification.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. Two things...

I don't for a minute believe that we are more divided than around Nixon's time. We'd been through COINTELPRO and other J. Edgar horrors when the FBI was a criminal enterprise. We'd been through the Army-McCarthy hearings, King's marches and assassination, Viet Nam, Woodstock, Russian missiles in Cuba, and godknowswhatelse. Was a time when Father Coughlin and Walter Winchell had much more effect than Sean Hannity does now. (At least there was Cronkite, who would now be lost in the noise)

Things are actually much quieter now, with the real difference being cable news and Facebook amplifying what differences we have. No draft riots or setting dogs on civil rights marchers these days, so all sides have to find outrage somewhere.

The other thing is that slowly but surely the House Dems are digging into Trump, it's just not that easy when the White House is illegally stonewalling them at every turn. Trump demanding they all shut up and defy subpoenas can't last, but until there's a breakthrough, they are stuck with Dean as their "celebrity witness". It's not like they can send the capitol police to pull unwilling witnesses in.

We survived the '60s (both 1860s and 1960s) and Reagan. We'll survive this.

[kentuck]

5. One difference might be?

Although all the times you mention were very challenging, we had different leaders in the White House with different inclinations toward Russia and other foreign interlopers. It seems to be different today?

[TreasonousBastard]

6. True. We have never had such a combination of ignorance and arrogance...

as we have now.

But we have come close. Reagan and Bush the Lesser managed to surround themselves with pure evil.