Democrats have now declared political civil war

More conservative hysterics; you guys must really be more worried then I thought.

 

Not hardly guy.

 

This is a middle school interpretation of the data.

Its even easier to say lefties have no amygdala.

Real glad to see you bringing up brain anatomy and physiology though.

Sounds like you want to go there.

 

A Lib "finds" self-serving results and the other Libs do their clapping seal act, fascinating!

 

And yet you did just that!

 

Needless to say there is no credible nonpartisan source for any of the above disinformation otherwise it would have been supplied.

 

You mean like these examples of your BLOTUS deliberately and disingenuously manipulating language and the meaning of words?

Fake news
Witch-hunt
Deep State
Spygate
Winning
Crooked

Your BLOTUS has done a BIGLY job of deliberately and disingenuously manipulating language and the meaning of words.

 

Why? it's over, the Dems lost, they just don't know it yet. The resolution to codify no due process, no minority rights, no true transparency witch hunt gives the Republicans the legal basis to dismiss the illegitimate case on the spot, if they choose to... or if they prefer, drag it out for months destroying the dem primaries while Trump governs and campaigns.

Kimberly Strassel writes at the Wall Street Journal:

The Pelosi impeachment resolution was supposed to deprive the GOP of its complaint that the process wasn’t formal. Instead, it formalized a rigged process—and gives Republicans a solid rationale for rejecting the entire proceeding. Democrats gripe that the GOP refuses to talk about the substance of the case against the president. But it is Democrats who have made that impossible, given the secrecy and one-sided approach. Due process is at the heart of America’s system of ordered liberty, and the “evidence” Democrats are secretly compiling in the basement of the House is already soiled.

 

Fake News blog from a Murdoch owned TABLOID hack!

 

But you have nothing on substance, that the dems already lost as they are running a totally illegitimate no due process, no minority rights, no real transparency partisan circus which gives the Senate more than enough justification to dismiss the garbage on the spot, right?

 

PROJECTING your own nothingness posts since this began onto others is just HILARIOUS!

 

Must be yuge!!!

 

How arrogant of you to quantify my thoughts on our Constitution. That is insulting and uncalled for, just because someone does not agree with you. Since you've felt free to insult me, I won't hold back in reply.

You are quite wrong in all respects here. The Democrats are not holding any sessions without about four dozen Republicans who are on those initial three committees. Those Republicans are free to be in the SCIF, and to ask whatever questions they want. Most of them, however, have not bothered. Have you not noticed that a few of the Democrats on those committees have spoken to the press now and then, and shared what little information they are allowed to share at this point? Now, ask yourself, why have none of the Republicans done that? Perhaps because the testimony so far is just too damning for Trump?

Also, several of the Republicans who are allowed to take their seats and ask their questions instead took part in that stupid stunt, marching in with cell phones recording, stopping the procedure, and ordering effing pizza like they were having a party, instead of taking their seats and doing their jobs.

As for conducting these depositions in secret: that's exactly how a grand jury would do it. If your hero Trump is so innocent, if that call was so "perfect" as he keep saying, he should want this in secret so the witnesses couldn't get their stories straight.

They've just voted on a process that will allow everyone, including we the people, to hear these witnesses and read corroborating documents, and will allow Trump and his attorney's to question witnesses to their heart's content. And yet, not one Republican voted for this open, transparent process. Why is that? Why do they seem to want the truth hidden?

Like every Trumpster in the country, first they want it in the open, then when Democrats agree and vote on a process to do just that, they suddenly don't want it all out on public after all. You're all hypocrites IMO.

As for the constitution, ahere is everything it says about impeachment:

Article I, Section 2, "5: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

Article I, Section 3, "6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present." "7: Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

Article II, Section 4, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

There is nothing in the Constitution about process, and nothing describing what constitutes a high crime. That's up to congress alone to decide, as is the orocess they use to determine the facts.

You need two things:

1. A civics class. I had to know this stuff before I could graduate from the 8th grade and advance to high school.

2. Better news sources. The right wing echo chamber is lying to you, spinning the facts, and probably destroying brain cells.

 

Apologies, you're right, that was kind of mean, but after seeing your posts going on and on and on about that link that had already been provided to you twice, I just couldn't help myself.

 

See that last item.

And yes, IMO it was one of the biggest disgraceful moves Obama made.

 

There is no evidence that Ciaramella is the whistleblower, whose identy is protected by law.

 

"...whose identy is protected by law."

I wasn't aware of this. Would you please cite the applicable law and quote the relevant passage?

 

Here is the law that applies to this particular whistleblower:

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/who-w.../icig-related-links/making-lawful-disclosures

Here are the procedures that this whistleblower followed:

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/who-w...cal-specifications/trusted-data-format?id=366

Nowhere does any of this say that the whistleblower must disclose their identity.

 

Syria.

 

Nowhere do those say that identities are protected.

There is this interesting tidbit, though:

"ii. The employee may contact the congressional intelligence committees directly as described in clause (i) only if the employee –

a. before making such a contact, furnishes to the DNI, through the IC IG, a statement of the employee's complaint or information and
notice of the employee's intent to contact the congressional intelligence committees directly;..."

It would be interesting to find out if those procedures were followed. My understanding is that they were not.

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/who-w...cal-specifications/trusted-data-format?id=366

 

well, if trump objects yo all subpoenas, isn't that the logical conclusion

 

You've been misinformed. Those procedures were followed. This whistleblower follwed them to a T. He or she went first to the IC IG as required. The part that was not followed was that, once the complaint was deemed credible by the IC IG and duly turned over to the DOJ, the DOJ then has 14 days to pass the complaint along to the Intelligence committee. Because Trump's pet AG runs the DOJ nowadays, that wasn't done, the complaint was not forwarded to congress, so the whistleblower had to go there him- or herself.

Do you follow? Everyone involved followed the rules except for the DOJ under William Barr, who himself is mentioned half a dozen times in the call transcript.

 

That's not my understanding of the timeline. Can you post a link to where that is spelled out?

 

uh ok, hang on to your hat

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-phone-call-turned-into-calls-for-impeachment

Just google "whistleblower timeline." There are many versions, but this one seems to have the most details.