This and now there are reports that the person that signed the hold on the funds to Ukraine is breaking with the Administration's request not to testify, is going to testify over the weekend. It sure looks like this ship is taking on water at an increasing rate.

dagnabit. I apologize for the missing "/" close tag:

Do I need to quote the Constitution of the United States, Ray? Fine.

Article Two, Section Four of the United States Constitution provides that: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachmentfor, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors."

No. It's not. That's why not a single Republican has defended it. All they've said is the robber didn't get the money from the bank, so there couldn't be a crime! Or "hearsay! hearsay!" like they forgot Evidence 101 in law school, and that this isn't a trail.
All are equally inane (or insane) arguments.
All you're trying to do is an equally ridiculous false equivalence,

Do I need to quote the Constitution of the United States, Ray? Fine.

Article Two, Section Four of the United States Constitution provides that: "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."

All you're trying to do is an equally ridiculous false equivalence,

Trump asked for something of value (solicited a bribe) from Ukraine or else he wouldn't (extortion) release funds for Ukraine's needed weapons to defend themselves.

This isn't complicated. His ask was for his political gain, against his primary opponent. The value of having the new President of Ukraine go to the microphone and announce that he was opening investigations into Biden, Clinton, and the Ukraine's actions in the U.S. election of 2016 would have been HUGELY beneficial and worth millions to him, personally. Not to the U.S..

Retaliation is forbidden by law. Is your actual position identification will not lead to retaliation?

When I said that the reason the GOP wanted to expose the WB was for retaliation and to silence other WB's from coming forward (in any other instance) I was told I was "stalinist" and wanted to implement "gulags" and "reeducation camps" by Null. That's how off-the-rails insane some folks are when common sense sits right there in front of them.

#111 Whistleblowers are afforded protection against retaliation (firing, demotion, etc). I don't think that applies to anonymity though.

Re: Disclosure of the Identity of a Whistle Blower:

I see Danforth's post - however:

My entire point is that the WB is not the accuser. There is no right to meet him/her. It's a bulls**t talking point and if the GOP does call the WB, then the WB identity would have been compromised, illegally unless the one person that knows their name is under a very specific condition as called out by law. I've quoted the law a couple of times and can pull it up again if needed.

So how can the WB be subpoenaed without violating the law? The only way is by confirmation of the rumors (founded or not) by the WB or the DOJ IG (I believe).

If they play this game it's going to have serious reverberations.

Jeff?

#92 It's not a talking point, Yav.
If the House impeaches, McConnell could very well subpoena the WB and compel him to testify in the Senate trial.
#96 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-11-14 12:01 PM | FLAG:

3 minutes later...

What I'm saying is that Clark Kent delivered Trump and the GOP a very effective talking point.
Fair or not that is a political reality.
#97 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-11-14 12:04 PM | FLAG:

"Lindsey Graham: Every American has a right to confront their accuser, even the president."

If the House impeaches McConnell will probably provide that opportunity in the Senate trial.

#85 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-11-14 11:04 AM | FLAG:

This republican talking point is so beyond stupid it hurts. And to see anyone give it any attention is worse.

The WB isn't the 'accuser' anymore than someone that calls "Submit A Tip " Crime Stoppers USA 1-800-222-TIPS" is an accuser. The WB's complaint has been born out, and the evidence is piling up.

Anyone using this, including Graham, should have it shoved right in their face as being disingenuous lying sacks of s**t that they are.

All IMHO, of course.

They have no capacity for that, Corky.

It's interesting. Depending on who is opining it was either a good day for Democrats or a bad day for Democrats.

I didn't say it was a good day for the Democrats. I said we weren't "--------- wilt...."
Personally I think it was a horrible day for the United States and I resent that Trump has brought us to this point with his illegal, unethical actions in his, and only his, self-interest.

#344 - agreed.
Not to mention the report of some Republicans petitioning McConnell to drag this out as long as possible so none of the Senate candidates are able to campaign.

As Dem --------- wilt....

You weren't watching, were you? The Republicans made preposterous arguments, Nunes putting out conspiracy theories that were later shot to hell, whined about a tiny portion of testimony that was hearsay (apparently forgetting "Evidence" class in law school), and took lessons on "getting the vapors" from Lindsay Graham.

Then they got their a** handed to them with a surprise about another phone call, make from a public Ukrainian restaurant, between Sondham and Trump that was loud enough for people to hear Trump talking. On that call, all Trump cared about was getting Zelenskyy to go the Press and say 'Biden, Clinton, Ukraine interference' and not one wit about Ukraine and any actual corruption.

Yesterday was not a good day for the Party of Trump, no matter how you spin it.

Jordan's one big trump-licking toady with a story to sell.

More like SCReeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeach!

There's a lot more than hearsay so far, but the Republicans are focusing on only that part.

#22 - those links to that site? That is some crazy-a** right-wing s**t!
You sure you meant to post that in response to the post using the Daily Wire?
That wasn't just a double-down!
Dang!

the gist is there.
the heavy editing took its toll on grammar. :)

When you watch X, the algorithms feed you more X, which you watch. That X, which reinforces more X.
All the while you think you're being massively validated in "truth."
This is especially problematic with platforms like YouTube.
This is the key to radicalization. People naively think it's "self-radicalization" It's not. It's much more pernicious than that. It's active, and it 'watches.' It learns. There's no need to go and look for things that feed your confirmation bias. It will all come to you.

Confirmation of what should have been obvious to anyone that's paid any attention to this Administration.

Interesting article.

Everything?

You mean we "liberals" don't like anything you like? WTF does that even mean?

Nice research and find, FedUpWithPols.

Silence.

I have never said that.

You on the other hand have told me I'm stupid, repeatedly, because I am deceived, unable to think for myself.
You then turned around and called me a Republican.

I won't own a Google device, I won't turn on Google voice assistant for anything I have at home, and I won't use gmail. Will this prevent Google from getting my data? Perhaps not, but I won't give them a dime of my money, intentionally. Read the TOS/EULA sometime.