It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

[Urwrongx1000]

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.

[Urwrongx1000]

If the Democrats were truly concerned with the "Anonymity" of the whistleblower, then should not have begun the official impeachment inquiry. Because of the nature of these allegations, against the President of the US, duly-elected, the American Public now has Constitutional Right to oust and out the identity of the so-called "Whistleblower". The Democrats are operating from Injustice, and have lost their Rights on this matter.

There is no precedent for attempting the Forced Removal, of a duly-elected official, on the condition of an Anonymous person. This is also a direct assault against the foundations of Western Democracy and Civilization.

[Meno_]

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.

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?

[Urwrongx1000]

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?

The difference is accusations of Anonymous sources.

When you want to impeach the President of the United States, you have NO RIGHT to anonymity.

[Carleas]

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]

My position is perfectly Bi-Partisan by the way. I don't care if a Democrat or Republican President is impeached.

In NEITHER case is it morally or legally justifiable to make an anonymous accusation that leads to a formal Impeachment.

It's completely unconstitutional and a direct attack on the US Foundation, morally, culturally, and legally.

[Peter Kropotkin]

let us say BOB witness an robbery....
BOB goes to the police and says, I saw a robbery
and here is my account of the story...

the police in investigating BOB''s story find out that
there is physical evidence to the robbery....

they find a video of the robbery and they find the robber with
the money and the robber admits to having committed the robbery,

the police really doesn't have any need for BOB in a court case..
even though BOB began the inquiry, he isn't needed to prove that
the Robbery was committed and who committed the robbery...
the other evidence is more then enough to convict the robber...

although the whistle blower began the investigation, he/she isn't
actually needed to conduct the investigation... there was an criminal
act and IQ45 admitted it and Mulvany, acting chief of staff admitted it
and Rudy admitted it....there more then enough evidence of others and
physical evidence to impeach IQ45.. the whistle blower testimony isn't
going to change in any way, shape or form the evidence for bribery
and corruption and witness intimidation that already exists....

at most the whistle blower can do is confirm the already existing evidence
which exists in abundance.....

using the whistle blower is simply another attempt to gaslight the
entire impeachment proceeding...it has no value outside of that.....

Kropotkin

[Urwrongx1000]

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.

In the situation of impeaching the President of the United States, duly-elected and represented by the majority of the Republic, yes, all Americans have a Right to face this accuser as the condition of anonymity is used a shield to a threat against the democratic process as a whole. In other words, if there were any type of accusation that could be made, that could invalidate the votes of the majority Republic, then it is Unjust. And that is the case, here and now.

[Urwrongx1000]

If this were allowed, which it is NOT, then by that logic, any and all "anonymous" tips can be used in the future to threaten to impeach and remove the President of the United States, or any subsequent officers of the US. This is obviously stupid and ridiculous, since any "anonymous" source could then be used to invalidate the overall Democratic and Republic process.

Completely Unjust and Unconstitutional. And I expect severe ramifications for this precedent. Democrats and the insane Liberal Left should be rebuked, censured, and punished, for these violations of law.

[Urwrongx1000]

Furthermore, according to Carleas' logic, anybody can make any accusation and threat, to anybody else, under "Anonymity", and they would NEVER receive due-process.

That's not how Law works. Certainly nowhere in our Constitution.

[Urwrongx1000]

NOWHERE in the US Constitution is there any "Right" or entitlement to Anonymity.

Not ONE.

[Carleas]

You're just making that up, though.

Even it it weren't obvious, as Peter and I have pointed out, that an anonymous tip can lead to independent evidence of a crime. Even if that weren't so, the Constitution doesn't say anything about the standard of evidence for impeachment. The House can impeach for whatever, in its sole discretions, it determines to be a "high crime[] [or] misdemeanor[]", and the Senate can remove the President on its similar discretion. They are not constrained by the developed body of criminal law, because 1) this is not a criminal case, and 2) the authority to impeach and remove is granted exclusively to the House and Senate and is not subject to judicial review.

[iambiguous]

Arguing with Kids!

[Urwrongx1000]

Show me ONE area of the US Constitution where a Citizen has any "Right" to Anonymity.

None.


However, US Citizens do have a Right to due process, facing accusers in court, and concerning this attempt to impeach and forcibly remove a DULY-ELECTED official, The President of the United States, there is no reasonable motive or justification, to shield anonymous accusations. Especially to base the whole premise and motive of the impeachment itself, upon it.

Unprecedented.

Again, According to Careless' Logic, now any and all "anonymous" sources can be used as a method to accuse, falsely or blindly, any US official of any crime, and then be 'shielded' from recourse, even or especially when the accusation is false!

Left want to call Right "Fascist". No, that is Fascism! And you are in support of it, Careless.

[Urwrongx1000]

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.

[Peter Kropotkin]

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.

K: there still has to be evidence of some sort to even bring the case to the DA...
what evidence do you have that Carleas did in fact committed some sort of crime?
did Carleas confess as the president confessed and as confirmed by mulvany
and Rudy.... you are mixing up two distinct and separate events.....
not to mention you clearly have no understanding of the law
as to what is in the constitution in regards to impeachment or in general law.....

Kropotkin

[Carleas]

Arguing with Kids!

These are my windmills.

Show me ONE area of the US Constitution where a Citizen has any "Right" to Anonymity.

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.

US Citizens do have a Right to due process...

What process is due here?

...facing accusers in court...

Impeachment doesn't happen in court.

K: there still has to be evidence of some sort to even bring the case to the DA...

I don't even think it is. My recollection of criminal procedure is fuzzy, but I believe a Grand Jury can rely on inadmissible evidence in order to bring an indictment.

[Urwrongx1000]

Impeachment doesn't happen in court.

Congress is a court; they make and dictate law.

Since you are balking on the Anonymous accusations, I can only take that as concession that you also don't want to pursue the path of 'Immune' anonymous sources that cannot be cross-examined, questioned, or confronted about the basis for their accusations of crimes. I hope you're smart enough, at least, to see the corruption on behalf of your own Democrat party and this liberal-loony establishment.

Anonymity is exceptional in US law and history, and is NO BASIS for removing a US Elected Government official, and especially not the PRESIDENT of the United States.

Americans have a right, and Duty, to expose this traitor.


Anonymity has some, limited merit in most criminal cases, but in the case of overthrowing Democratically elected officials. This is an attack against the Republic, and the US Constitution.

[Carleas]

Congress is a court

This is patently false.

[Karpel Tunnel]

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.

I think you and Peter are right in this disagreement.

I would however like to place the discussion in a slightly different context.

Obama was horrible in relation to whistleblowers. Horrible. Even worse than Republican predecessors.

I am big on protecting whistleblowers, both in the private and public sectors.

Stuff that could follow whistleblowing - grand juries, etc. - happen far less than the destruction of the whistleblowers. And this is bipartisan, this destruction of whistleblowers.

Now there is this very strong protection of a whistleblower. It's convenient. It's not wrong.

It's just it should be the rule. And those on the Left should notice that democrats are certainly not better about whistleblowers and may even be worse.

What are we not hearing about? Who have they scared into silence about what?

It seems to me we just barely scratch the surface of things,

[Fixed Cross]

If on the grounds of an anonymous witness (meaning testimony cant be verified) an elected president is removed, I don't know what else you call that but a coup.
Questions from thereon range from the unaskable to the unanswerable.

The age of Aquarius upon us.
war style
Carlyle

[Urwrongx1000]

Congress is a court

This is patently false.

When you create and enforce laws; that is a court. This impeachment "inquiry", is a court. You can't weasel out of it.


And to base prosecutions on Anonymous accusers, is Unjust, Immoral, and Unethical. While I believe Anonymity should be protected in most cases, absolutely NOT in the case of Impeachment of the President of the United States, and absolutely NOT when such an allegation comes to publicly, duly and fairly elected Government Officers. Because, then, "anonymous" sources, at random, can be used as pawns as false and unprovable allegations, to smear any candidate, at anytime, for anything. This is a direct refutation of Democratic AND Republican values. Completely Unjust.

And Unconstitutional, since Anonymity is no guarantee and no "Right" automatically afforded, nor should it be.


If you want to accuse powerful people of powerful crimes, then you need to man-up and do so publicly. "Fear of Retaliation" does not apply when it comes to the very core of Government institution itself. It doesn't matter how "corrupt" the Government could be, a President could be, etc. The PEOPLE have a right to know the nature and source of allegations that lead to the overthrow of DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED officials. Because then the anonymous accusation is a violation of democracy-itself.

[Fixed Cross]

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.

[Meno_]

That is why it's more a question of wether this court of public opinion can weigh evidence, which concerns opinion based facts regarding levels of intelligence procurence and judgement.

[Urwrongx1000]

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.

I consider it a severe attack against the core and foundation, the Constitution, Law, and Democracy of USA.

I believe it's time for the 'Center' to move. The fact that the Liberal-Left and "Democrats" feel that they are entitled to do this, or "see nothing wrong" as Carleas and PK state, is further evidence of severity of the situation. That amount of self-righteousness is blinding, meaning, this is new and dangerous territory. The ramifications are already set, just a matter of discovering their severity. The further attacks on Free Speech, on the side-lines, are the other ominous sign of the next era to come. I consider that, now more than ever, Free Speech and the First Amendment are specifically being attacked by the corrupt "Deep" State, or in otherwords, those Self-Righteous, feeling 'invincible' and immune from scrutiny, by the system they-themselves setup, that now those attacking Free Speech don't even realize what they are doing, nor can they be "talked down", back off, or be reasoned with.