Trump impeachment proceedings begin today.

The ice bergs have floated to the top.

The bigger issues are:
National Government versus International Government,
Democracy versus Impeachment (Anti-Democracy)
Establishment (Washington DC) versus Anti-Establishment (New York Elitism)
Left culture versus Right culture
Justice versus Corruption

I think many factors are shifting now, to places that many people are unwilling or unaware of. There are few “choices” to be made, because those in power, are simply following-through the processes that got them there. I mean, how else could the “Democratic” party be pushing Impeachment, which is fundamentally Anti-Democratic? The people vote for President, but no, voting doesn’t really matter, and only Congressional power matters? Representational power, not power of the Federal citizens? And then, next, how is the President elected, except through the Media, recognition, and being Platformed? Trump was a hero of “The Media” before he ran as Republican/Right. Then it turned on him, and look how badly and viciously it did so.

Did the Media turn on Clinton, Biden, Obama, or Epstein? No, instead, it protected these individuals. So why the double-standard, except, everybody is serving certain aspects of the status-quo? There are loyalties at play, and all these are becoming exposed rapidly. For all of Trump’s faults, one of the best things he’s done so far, unintentionally, is begin to wage war against “The Media”, and point-out much of that corruption.

Where is the press about the ABC news anchor, that “whistleblower”, who basically name-dropped the link between Clinton and Epstein. Fucking huge! Do you realize how big that is??? How damning? And while the masses are entertained with the political circus, nothing more is said? The major “News” corporations don’t even report or follow-through with it?

No, still just the first thing. That guitar music is righteous, no doubt, but what is that video supposed to show? It picks up mid conversation, so it’s not clear what’s being withheld and why.

When I go to the bakery and order some bread, and they’re like “give me the money”, and I’m like “nah, I’m not going to…If the [bread is not baked], you’re not getting the money”, that is neither bribery nor extortion, right?

So, what’s the accusation here? What’s the context? Was he acting in his personal capacity? Was he relaying administration policy? Was it even an accurate description of events?

Here’s the full video and transcript of the conversation. It’s clear from context that 1) he was there relaying an official policy position of the administration, 2) it’s in the context of providing aid to Ukraine against Russia, and even of praising the Trump administration for some of its steps with respect to the Ukraine, and 3) it’s part of an international effort to enforce sanctions against Russia and limit their influence in the Ukraine.

I suspect that context was cut because the editor felt that it muddied the water.

Let’s be clear that the witnesses against the President include many Republicans and career civil servants, several appointed by Republicans and several appointed by Trump himself. The lawyers who immediately recognized that the Zelensky call needed to be covered up worked for the President. It isn’t just Democrats, and it isn’t just a congressional committee that think there’s a problem here.

You have still not explained how you interpret the law regarding high crimes, so, glass houses my friend.

The context is that Biden brazenly admits to corruption, extortion, and gifting his son a no-show job.

That’s how much contempt the Liberal-Left has, believing they are untouchable, and they can do whatever they want without rebuke. Now that Trump is draining the swamp, the tune will change, hopefully.

Next, it would be nice for a news agency follow-through with the Clinton-Epstein link, and put the Democratic party in with the pedophiles.

Icing on the cake, let’s see if it happens.

You should watch the testimony given by two career diplomats in the Ukraine yesterday, in which they both explicitly rejected that Biden’s conduct was corrupt. Also note that one of them had cautioned Biden against a perceived conflict of interest related to Burisma, leading to that company’ exclusion from embassy events, and the other one was a Trump appointee.

Also note that the prosecutor that Biden was talking about was blocking an investigation of Burisma.

Also note that Trump was a friend and defender of Jeffrey Epstein, seems to have known about his pedophilia, has himself admitted to liking young girls, and has admitting to sexually assaulting women.

Trump owned the modeling world and didn’t need to drink the poison that Epstein offered to his blackmail targets. Clinton? Now publicly linked on video, with evidence, that is being spiked by the major news networks. In short, Trump was and is not paid-off, like other DC Politicians, nor is Trump bribed by 12 or 13 year old girls, like other DC Politicians and Media CEOs.

Again, even IF Trump ordered Ukraine to investigate Biden, and his obvious corruption (Biden Jr no-show job), then it is more than legitimate to do so, no “crime”, and certainly nothing worthy of an Impeachment. This only reveals how little to no case Democrats have.

Lastly, the Whistleblower should be exposed. While Whistleblower laws may apply to high levels of government and corporate crime. This is an Impeachment of the President of the United States of America. There is no “Whistleblowing” law that makes one immune to this type of trial and due-process. It is Unconstitutional to go to an Impeachment under the pretense of an anonymous “Whistleblower”. The President has Right to Due Process. And that means, confronting your Accuser.

If Demon-rats, and the Loonely-Left-Liberals have any backbone, they’ll do what’s right and put the Whistleblower up to testify, ASAP.

Otherwise this whole unjust coup, witch-hunt, is Unconstitutional in addition to a treasonous act by the Democratic Party, their handlers and constituents.

LOL

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQvMpIQAu0A[/youtube]

Who needs Fiction, when you have Truth?! Ouch!

You are using a term of art that doesn’t mean what you think it means. The Constitution expressly gives Congress the sole authority to remove the President through the process of impeachment by the House and a trial in the Senate overseen by the Chief Justice. That is the process.

From what I understand the democrats got themselves slapped pretty hard yesterday and it basically was a republican political victory. To do an impeachment before a national election looks like a soft organized political coup, if the democrats were confident about themselves politically they would let this all play out during the national election by voting. Instead this national theatrics of an impeachment looks like a political position of weakness or desperation and most of the nation doesn’t respect that all. In the competition of politics nobody respects positions of weakness.

[Although for my disdain for democracy and voting it’s not like a vote means much of anything at all. For the sake of argument here however you would think that would be the political strategy to play here.]

The witnesses confirmed every allegation, and made new allegations as well. How is that “slapped”?

Trump has more than 1/4 of his presidency left.

0sum, (awesome)& Carleas,(car lease)

The awareness of implosion is at hand, when the inverse psychology of intentions will be discovered, through the translation, toward ‘clearity & transparency’.~ as more then merely trying to breach party differences.

pls.don’t hit an innocent bystander.

They have no Right, and under no law, to base their case on an anonymous “Whistleblower”.

Due to the nature and severity of this prosecution, the Whistleblower must now be named and outed, because Congress is trying to impeach the duly and fairly elected President of the United States.

There is no “Whistleblower” protection or anonymity, when you try to overthrow the US Government.

A cornerstone of US Law, is a Right to face your accusers. This is no custody battle. These are hearings to impeach the President. It is unconstitutional, to protect the hypothetical “Whistleblower”, now.

Except the procedure of handling the protection of whistle blowers has been fairly assumed to be proper, especially the fear of inter intelligence agency involvement.

Remember the Republican cornerstone of defense is lack of transparency through due process.

They would be biting themselves.in the leg. They just brought it up , well knowing, that .

While I think Whistleblower laws are good for the whole, usually, this is an exceptional case.

There is no higher Office in the United States. So, if you want to remove a duly and fairly elected President of the United States, then you cannot do so under the pretense of anonymity. You have to show your face. The people have this Right. There is no constitutional law that protects a “whistleblower”, in this case, in an Impeachment, nor should there be.

Since the Dems want to go down this route, it’s time to give it up. Out the Whistleblower, now, and the nation can confront any accusation, and see it all for what it is.

The People have that Right. I have that Right. You have that Right. The entire country has the Right to see and know this Accuser, trying to overthrow the Democracy.

If the Demonrats want to Censure the President, or impose some type of penalty, then the Whistleblower can stay anonymous.

But if the Demonrats want to oust a duly-elected President, then the Whistleblower cannot stay anonymous. That is unjust and unconstitutional.

There is no “Whistleblower” protection, when you’re trying to impeach the sitting President.

Why not? What precedent are you basing this claim on? What law?

Yeah, that’s what impeachment and removal are for.

Trump is not the government. There are three coequal branches, Trump is the head of one of them, and the rules for succession for that position are established. One of the rules of succession is that Congress can impeach and remove a sitting President.

The 6th amendment, which establishes that right, begins “In all criminal prosecutions…”. This is not a criminal prosecution.

Moreover, even if this were a criminal prosecution, the right to confront witnesses would be afforded during the trial, i.e. after impeachment, and it would only extend to witnesses whose testimony is being relied upon in reaching a decision, i.e. those whose testimony is presented to the jury. Since a dozen people have come forward to describe the actions at issue, and Trump himself has released a memo corroborating the charges, the Whistleblower’s testimony need not be presented or relied on in order to conclude that Trump did what he’s being accused of doing.

1. Impeachment is a Criminal prosecution.

2. We, The People, are the Government. The People elected Trump for President. Congress is trying to remove the President. So, who is the Government, the People? Or Congress? Answer: The People, are still the Government. Because Congress is trying to, unjustly, unfairly, without Due Process, illegally, trying to overrule The People, and the votes of the country, measures must be taken. The People have Rights, to face accusers. The basis of this “Impeachment”, is founded on the “anonymous whistleblower”. Because this is a Criminal prosecution, The President, and all those who voted for him, The People, have a constitutional right to face this accusation.

Because the corrupt Democrats have brought the case forward, the “Whistleblower” must be exposed.

You cannot try to impeach and remove the US President under the condition of Anonymity. Has the world gone Insane??? Yes, yes it has.

I honestly believed Democrats would be too cowardly to push forward with something so stupid, but they have. And now that the impeachment is official, this “Whistleblower” is doomed. You cannot impeach the sitting US President, on the basis of anonymity and ‘immunity’. Bullshit! Do you even begin to know, how Unjust that is? This is a violation of the Constitution. Not only is it Unethical, but it’s Unconstitutional.

It’s not only an assault against the President, it’s an assault and insult to the people of this country.

If you want to impeach the US President, you better have the balls to come out and publicly state the accusations you-yourself.

This Whistleblower must now be exposed, because to further protect “anonymity”, is a threat against the fabric of this country, and our Constitutional laws.

Let me restate, simply:

If you want to Impeach the sitting US President, duly and fairly-elected, then you must not hide anonymously. You are required to state, publicly, the crime. And you must face the American people. ALL OF US, own this Right. This is not simply a trial against Trump. It’s a trial against the country. And this level of Corruption, must now pay a steep price. Democrats must face the penalty of such empty accusations.

Not it isn’t.

1. Impeachment is the decision to have a trial at all, it is not the trial. Even among civilians, a Grand Jury is often held secretly prior to a trial, and the subject of a Grand Jury has no right to confront those witnesses.

2. The trial that impeachment starts is expressly limited by the Constitution to exclude any criminal penalties, it is solely about removal from office:

The people elected Congress too. And the people elected the representatives who ratified the Constitution, which provides for the removal of an elected President.

The Whistleblower is not impeaching the President. The House of Representatives is, based on interviews with dozens of named witnesses, many of whom will testify publicly prior to impeachment. Once he is impeached, the President will be tried, not by the Whistleblower, but by the Senate. We don’t know what testimony will be presented during that trial. I would be surprised if the original Whistleblower complaint were used, because there’s so much other evidence available, but if it were relied upon, and Trump asked to be confronted with his accuser, then you might have a point. As it stands, you have a bunch of political talking points that don’t reflect Constitutional law.

But what if intelligence inter-agency issues involve many departments where releasing identity would / could entail more than just the exposure of operatives, but could impinge on national secret international operations, by virtue of those identified?