If on January 20, 2020, a future person came back to show you a photo of this year's Inauguration

And you couldn't see who was going to be sworn in:

1. Who would you have guessed was going to take the oath?
2. What would you have thought was the reason for the masks?

I'm no W fan, but this cracked me up

There are many reasons it's constitutional to convict an impeached former president. Here's one:

Some more delusional Republicans are now trying to avoid voting to convict Trump in a Senate trial on the grounds that it is supposedly unconstitutional to conduct impeachment proceedings over a former president.

But here's the thing: The Constitution provides that a sitting president is removed from office immediately upon conviction by the Senate. This is self-executing and requires no additional action by the Senate. Removal is automatic and instantaneous.

The Constitution also allows, but doesn't require, the Senate to disqualify a president from ever again holding federal office..

Because this second vote for disqualification is taken AFTER the vote on conviction and removal this obviously means that, at the time that second vote is taken, the impeached president is no longer president. Therefore, the Senate is voting to penalize a former president.

Why does that matter? Because it is proof positive that the Founding Fathers fully anticipated that impeachment proceedings did not have to halt for all time after a president is no longer president. The Senate is permitted to continue its proceedings even after that person is out of office, just as it does when it votes to disqualify an officer it just convicted and removed.

If you're demanding Schumer "better not cave!" or insisting "he needs to grow a spine!" please know

Chuck Schumer - or any Congressional leader, for that matter - doesn't operate in a vacuum. He's not, on his own, figuring out how the Democrats can best position themselves, singlehandedly deciding how to proceed, and then negotiating with McConnell all alone while all of the other Democrats sit in their offices hoping he'll get it right and waiting helplessly to see what he comes out with.

Schumer is working closely with his caucus to determine what they think is best and developing strategies for achieving it. He and the Senate leadership talk to the Democratic Caucus every day, sometimes several times a day. They meet as a group at least once a week, have regular conference calls, and talk one-on-one and in small groups on and off the Senate floor, in the cloakroom, in the hallways, in their "hideaways," and in their offices daily.

When Schumer takes an approach, it's not because he alone decided it. He takes an approach that his Democratic colleagues, as a body, determined is the best plan. He's the Majority Leader, not the Majority Monarch.

So, demanding that Schumer do or not do something is not just pointless (and not just because he's not listening to us raging on an online message board ...), It's anti-factual. Assuming that he's "caving" or letting down other Democrats if he takes an approach that people on DU think is not aggressive enough is not based on reality.

Chuck Schumer isn't weak and he isn't winging it. He's doing exactly what his caucus elected him to do and he's obviously doing it well enough for them to overwhelmingly want him to keep doing it.

Dr. Fauci in two acts:

If I say "white supremacist," would anyone here instantly think I'm talking about you?

Just wondering ...

QAnon has a sad: "I don't think this is supposed to happen"

Clinton, Bush, and Obama are on tv together making a fool of Trump without even saying his name

He is already a nothing, a nobody.

New sheriff is in town ...

Melania Be Done