monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

I responded to the excerpt you quoted.

In other words, dems are using the law as it was meant to be used.

It's the repubs who want to be above the law.

No they don't.

You are wrong about history, archaeology and genetics.

Do you?
If you ain't got any, then don't request it from another.

That's true, too bad frosty and oral aren't curious or educated.

because neither side alone has the numbers to beat the unified conservatives in this right-leaning country.

I don't think Polychroniou's headline describes Chomsky's statement accurately. It's not "Democratic centrism" which risks handing the election to Trump. It's the split between the two wings of the party and the likelihood of either side not supporting the winner if their side loses which poses the risk.

Have any DNA information on Palestinians?

Chomsky makes no claim about which route forward will best serve us in getting rid of Trump.

Your post makes many and varied assumptions; foremost being that the conservatives are cohesive and "unified".

Pence and Trump aren't exactly showing as team players.

As for the "first past the post" elections, where does the electoral college come into that equation?

As for "moderates and progressives running on the same ticket", last I checked, it comes down to just D and R on the vital ticket.

Yasss queening Fiona Hill, a longtime hawk brought into the Trump Administration for the purpose of quelling concerns that Trump would be insufficiently hawkish, is just beyond parody.

If the Republicans cared about the facts or the gravity of the crime being investigated, the answer would be apocalyptically damaging. But they don’t care, and they will continue to defend Trump even if those testifying under oath include an eyewitness to a criminal conspiracy hatched in the White House like Sondland, or patriots like Fiona Hill, Alexander Vindman, and Marie Yovanovitch, who not only provided irrefutable evidence of the crime but detailed the existential threat that crime poses to America.

Had Trump pulled out that (so far) proverbial gun and shot someone on Fifth Avenue, Republicans would trot out the exact same defense they have this week: The shot was fired at 2 a.m. and there were no eyewitnesses. Those nearby who claimed to have heard the shot had actually heard a car backfiring. The closed-circuit video capturing the incident is, as the president says, a hoax concocted by the same Fake News outlets that manufactured the Access Hollywood video. The confession released by the White House was “perfect” evidence of Trump’s innocence. Election records show that the cops who arrived on the scene were registered Democrats and therefore part of a deep-state conspiracy to frame the president for a crime he didn’t commit but that the Democrats did. The victim was not killed and will make a complete recovery, so no crime was committed anyway. And even if Trump had killed the young woman he gunned down, the argument advanced by Trump’s lawyer last month would apply: “The person who serves as president, while in office, enjoys absolute immunity from criminal process of any kind.” Next case!