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.
If this were allowed, which it is NOT, then by that logic, any and all âanonymousâ 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 âanonymousâ 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.
Furthermore, according to Carleasâ logic, anybody can make any accusation and threat, to anybody else, under âAnonymityâ, and they would NEVER receive due-process.
Thatâs not how Law works. Certainly nowhere in our Constitution.
NOWHERE in the US Constitution is there any âRightâ or entitlement to Anonymity.
Not ONE.
Youâre just making that up, though.
Even it it werenât obvious, as Peter and I have pointed out, that an anonymous tip can lead to independent evidence of a crime. Even if that werenât so, the Constitution doesnât say anything about the standard of evidence for impeachment. The House can impeach for whatever, in its sole discretions, it determines to be a âhigh crime[ ] [or] misdemeanor[ ]â, 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.
Arguing with Kids! 
Show me ONE area of the US Constitution where a Citizen has any âRightâ 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 Carelessâ Logic, now any and all âanonymousâ sources can be used as a method to accuse, falsely or blindly, any US official of any crime, and then be âshieldedâ from recourse, even or especially when the accusation is false!
Left want to call Right âFascistâ. No, that is Fascism! And you are in support of it, Careless.
Hereâs how itâs going to go from here on out, if Fascist Liberal-Leftist-Demonrats have their wayâŚ
Iâm going to use an âAnonymousâ 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 âlawyerâ, who speaks on behalf of the âanonymousâ 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 âAnonymousâ 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 DAâŚ
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 eventsâŚ
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 lawâŚ
Kropotkin
These are my windmills.
This is the wrong question. No oneâs 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. Thatâs true because 1) independent evidence is sufficient, and 2) the standards for impeachment and removal arenât the same as for criminal charges.
What process is due here?
Impeachment doesnât happen in court.
I donât 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.
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 donât want to pursue the path of âImmuneâ anonymous sources that cannot be cross-examined, questioned, or confronted about the basis for their accusations of crimes. I hope youâre 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.
This is patently false.
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. Itâs convenient. Itâs not wrong.
Itâs 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,
If on the grounds of an anonymous witness (meaning testimony cant be verified) an elected president is removed, I donât 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
When you create and enforce laws; that is a court. This impeachment âinquiryâ, is a court. You canât 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, âanonymousâ 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 âRightâ 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. âFear of Retaliationâ does not apply when it comes to the very core of Government institution itself. It doesnât matter how âcorruptâ 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.
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 donât notice when its being switched.
This is what we are up against - people who donât know what they are doing. Who would, if they were to put 1 and 1 together, be in shock and reverse their course.
That is why itâs 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.
I consider it a severe attack against the core and foundation, the Constitution, Law, and Democracy of USA.
I believe itâs time for the âCenterâ to move. The fact that the Liberal-Left and âDemocratsâ feel that they are entitled to do this, or âsee nothing wrongâ 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 âDeepâ State, or in otherwords, those Self-Righteous, feeling âinvincibleâ and immune from scrutiny, by the system they-themselves setup, that now those attacking Free Speech donât even realize what they are doing, nor can they be âtalked downâ, back off, or be reasoned with.
The Sixth Amendment contains the Confrontation Clause that âin all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the rightâŚto be confronted with the witnesses against himâ.
However, note that this is only applicable to criminal wrongs, not civil wrongs - such as impeachment.
Article One of the US Constitution only covers how the House of Representatives has sole power of impeachment (in interpreting an impeachable offense) and that the Senate has sole power to try all impeachments.
Thatâs about it for constitutional coverage of impeachment.
If you accept the democratic election of your President, you accept the democratic election of your representatives. Due process can determine their impeachment in line with the above all it wants.
The First Amendment allows you to speak however you will, but it doesnât force those protecting the anonymity of anyone involved in impeachment to reveal their identity.
Impeachment is Civil and Criminal prosecution, and involves the Democratically elected official, in this case, the US President. Thus the President, and all those who voted for him (Trump), have Right to Due Process along with all other Rights afforded by the Bill of Rights.