Urwrongx1000 wrote:It is Unconstitutional and Unjust to attempt to impeach the President of the United States under a condition of Anonymity.
By the Constitution, Citizens have the right to Free Speech, to democratically elect representatives and the US President, and we have rights to Due Process.
All of these are in violation, if the Democrats and LLL believe they can impose Impeachment on the premise of an Anonymous witness.
A majority of Americans voted for the President, and so, have Right to face this accuser.
The "Whistleblower", almost certainly a DNC, Partisan Operative, with malice intent, has no Protection under Constitutional Law.
Not only is it Unjust to push this Impeachment under a condition of Anonymity, it is a direct threat to US Democracy, Law, and our Way of Life.
The whole proceeding Impeachment operation is Unjustified, and the American Public has Right to expose this "whistleblower".
The fact that the LLL Establishment, along with the Fake News Media, count as Sedition, are censoring at large the American populace and citizenry, is further an Injustice.
It's time for the US people to exercise our Rights, for Due Process, and to attack these forms of censorship which are in violation of the First Amendment.
Meno_ wrote:So it was ok for Nixon to burglarize the Democratic Headquarters at the Watergate, for lack of censure and impeachment would have established a precedent ?
How is the Trump impeachment differ?
Carleas wrote:If the police receive an anonymous tip, and follow it up and in so doing find evidence of a crime and prosecute the criminals, the criminals have no right whatsoever to unmask the the anonymous tipster, much less cross-examine her at trial, and much less still during grand jury deliberations.
Urwrongx1000 wrote:Here's how it's going to go from here on out, if Fascist Liberal-Leftist-Demonrats have their way...
I'm going to use an "Anonymous" source, to accuse Caerleas of a crime, Bribery, Extortion, or worse. Caerleas cannot defend himself in court. Any cross-examination or knowing the nature of the accusation, cannot be had. The Invisible-Witness is totally protected from exposure. Who is this source? What did the source actually say, see, or do? All unknown. All backed by a 'lawyer', who speaks on behalf of the "anonymous" source. And this second-hand source can be used as a Primary, according to this fucked up logic.
So, Caerleas, care to defend yourself against my "Anonymous" sources? You are guilty of Bribery! Want to defend yourself? Too bad! Consider yourself Impeached.
iambiguous wrote:Arguing with Kids!
Urwrongx1000 wrote:Show me ONE area of the US Constitution where a Citizen has any "Right" to Anonymity.
Urwrongx1000 wrote:US Citizens do have a Right to due process...
Urwrongx1000 wrote:...facing accusers in court...
Peter Kropotkin wrote:K: there still has to be evidence of some sort to even bring the case to the DA...
Carleas wrote:Impeachment doesn't happen in court.
Urwrongx1000 wrote:Congress is a court
Carleas wrote:This is the wrong question. No one's saying it would be unconstitutional to reveal the identity of the whistleblower (though it might be illegal, given that the whistleblower followed the proper procedure in notifying superiors of illegal acts), but rather that there is not constitutional requirement to reveal his identity. That's true because 1) independent evidence is sufficient, and 2) the standards for impeachment and removal aren't the same as for criminal charges.
Carleas wrote:Urwrongx1000 wrote:Congress is a court
This is patently false.
Fixed Cross wrote:The fact that people would tolerate such a spooky procedure to attack their president shows how oblivious people are to their own disdain for the law. It is very deeply seated, this Off switch for civilization - they don't notice when its being switched.
This is what we are up against - people who don't know what they are doing. Who would, if they were to put 1 and 1 together, be in shock and reverse their course.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users