So... um, what's the problem, Rachel?!1

[UTUSN]

(NOTE: This is not an attack on Rachel, is even tongue in cheek, so anybody about to set flying fingers to keyboard in declarations of outrage, disdain, contempt, looking-down-the-nose, etc., please - *please* - leave this piteous thread to its fate of sinking like a stone without your opposite effect of kicking it up into a flamefest and we can all go our very separate merry ways - tia!)

***********
So Rachel was doing her customarily thorough job of providing history, background, and context regarding how the only three (two for Andrew JOHNSON) exercises of the impeachment process were implemented in different ways, and how the current committee hearings are traveling along very differently from the Watergate hearings.

And she described how the current six committees already have their own investigations going, such that this hydra-headed process apparently is going to continue, somehow ending up with them all eventually submitting findings to Judiciary, which might then execute the disposition.

So her basic questions were, is this how it's projected to work, or how? And how long for one or all, how how how?

To which this little old keyboard warrior says: So, what's the problem, Rachel?!1 (& I seldom use emojis, or is it smilie?!1)

[DURHAM D]

1. I want my 37 minutes back.

Total waste of time.

[Claritie Pixie]

2. Forming an impeachment committee with a new chair would slow them down.

This whole things needs to be expedient and can't drag on for a year so that makes sense.

I think Nancy will want to wrap it up before spring. We're already at 200 yea votes.

So yeah, what's the problem Rachel?

[Captain Zero]

3. Right drag him through the mud

With all the committees currently working on something.

[Boxerfan]

4. When she went to Yang-I bailed....

Not her best work on such a important night.

[Dream Girl]

5. She always tries to give it her own unique slant, but this was a big fail

I didn’t even get her point