My Point Was

"Before the impeachment of Clinton and attempted impeachment of Nixon a vote on authorizing impeachment was held.  This is what Marcus means by precedent.  But there is no legal reason that it has to be held.  If the first two times a cop arrests you he is wearing a hat, that does not mean he has to wear a hat the third time he arrests you." - Uncle Ken - 10/18/19

Uncle Ken has been saying recently that the impeachment process has begun, and I have been disputing that, saying that only the impeachment inquiry has begun.  Well, it seems that the inquiry is an official part of the impeachment process, so I was wrong about that part.  Nevertheless, contrary to what Uncle Ken said in the above quote, unless the full House votes on the articles of impeachment, the process is dead in the water.  This is more than just precedent, it is the law.  Of course Congress can change the law but, until they do, they are bound by it.  In my post of 10/18, my comments after the imported content were not cut off, that's all I wrote.  I didn't feel like getting into that Gage Park thing right then, so I put that in another post two days later, figuring that it didn't matter because Uncle Ken would not read it until Monday anyway.

My computer has been acting strange since I started it up last night.  Everything works, but the displays look different, as if I am using a different browser.  Windows 10 sends me updates periodically, it's automatic and I can't turn it off.  The changes are usually not noticeable, but I wonder if they slipped in a new browser this time.  My latest security scan report, which also comes automatically, told me last night that everything is okay, so I doubt that I've been hacked.  I suppose I will get used to the new look eventually, if they don't change it again before I do.

Trump was on the TV news this evening talking about that Kurd thing.  He said that, while the Kurds have been our allies lately, the Turks have been our allies since the founding of NATO, and he didn't feel obligated to defend one ally against another ally.  Trump is Trump, but he might have made a valid point this time.  What do you do when one of your allies attacks another one of your allies?  I hate to say it, but this might be a job for the United Nations.  If they intervene, at least we will find out which side is the good guys and which side is the bad guys because, historically, the UN calls a cease fire as soon as the good guys start winning.

Then again, maybe Trump is as full of shit as he usually is:

https://a.msn.com/r/2/AAJ7uf9?m=en-us&referrerID=InAppShare