1) It's a predicate to a criminal act to remove someone from office. It is not a criminal proceeding itself, because it does not include a power to fine or imprison someone. It deals only with removing someone from high office.
2) Her personal safety was not in question at all. She had no reason to feel physically threatened. However, feeling upset that someone criticized her work product is understandable. It's just that criticizing someone's results at work is not criminal. Her testimony, whether credible or not, did not establish a foundation for impeachment. She said she did not know of any criminal activity on the part of the president. In fact, she testified she had never met nor communicated with the president before.
3) Is this a typo or are you engaging in double negatives?
4) That has never been adjudicated as a matter of law. Julian Assange is Australian, not Russian.
5) Well, at least your a step closer to admitting that this is a conspiracy theory.
6) The standards of the intelligence community? Hah! They traffic in disinformation constantly. That's what they do.
7) Stone was prosecuted in a US District Court.
1) I really wish you were willing to share your sources with us. This one would be fun. Impeachment has the force of law. Sure, all it can do is remove someone from office. But so what? Congress typically borrows from the law because that makes sense. The process needs structure, and if you can find a better way to structure that process, you'll go down in history as a great American.
2) Once somebody has left the reservation, and Trump was never on it, all bets are off. Especially since this wacko is also president, with all the power that implies.
3) Verbally attacking her while she was giving testimony that she felt threatened... that's self destructive idiocy. First Rule of Holes, when you're in one, stop digging!
4) There's a bunch of intelligence agencies, not just ours, that say that. How about a little common sense, please.
5) Again, by intel standards, this is clear. Congress will need to walk American through this, step by step. But given everything Trump has admitted to, over the least couple years, it's a foregone conclusion.
6) That's what you do.
7) I was referring to impeachment, and the limits of politics. Having a judge that knows the law cold, and is skilled enough to handle a complex case... that would give the process a rigor that no political environment can ever match.
I know it's not a possibility. But this is like the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, it's simply too much for people to handle. Given the way I have to keep explaining the basics, that should be obvious.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” - Voltaire