It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

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.

Arguing with Kids!

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.

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

These are my windmills.

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.

What process is due here?

Impeachment doesn’t happen in court.

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.

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.

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. 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,

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Sixth Amendment contains the Confrontation Clause that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him”.

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.

That’s 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 doesn’t 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.

If impeachment is considered criminal prosecution as it suggests in this article, then the Sixth Amendment constitutionally allows the President to confront the witness and the First Amendment allows them to speak about it.

That’s about the extent of my knowledge on the US constitution.

Any lawyers on this forum?

I think “Congress” (House of Rep) has a general allowance and leeway to begin and run an impeachment “however they want to”, but the presumption is, from my understanding of Ethics and Law, that there must maintain the basic processes of Due-process, which entitles basic Rights of Trial, accusations and witnesses as well. Now the Democrats have invoked and pushed “whistleblower protections”, but this is an exception historically, and it seems obvious, and common sense, that you cannot begin grounds of Impeachment of the duly and fairly elected President of the United States, explicitly under the basis of an Anonymous Source. Not only does that stink of corruption and abuse-of-power (by the House of Representatives), but look at what precedent it sets.

That…any house majority can accuse a sitting president of any crime based on an Anonymous source and that this “anonymous source” is Immune from outing.

There is no Legal precedent for such, except some legal cases which “protect whistleblowers”, but this is Unconstitutional as I’ve laid out, especially in this case.

Whistleblowers are usually enacted in Corporate and Mafia criminal cases, and based on the severity of such crimes and implications. Because this source is used as a method of impeachment of the President, or worse, as the premise, then this is simply unethical, immoral, illegal, and unconstitutional.

Again, the Precedent this sets, is that issues of Impeachment can begin in the future, from any and all “Anonymous” sources, and if you question or want to defend against such “Anonymous” sources, that you have no recourse to do so. Congress will push it anyway. This is clearly abuse-of-power and overreaching. Pragmatically, it’s simply partisan politics, Democrats trying to impeach a fairly elected President. But it is Unconstitutional. There is no “Absolute Right of Anonymity”, and articles of Impeachment must strictly follow the US Constitution, otherwise Congress is overreaching or overextending their Authority.

The House Judiciary Committee should have overruled these means of Impeachment already, or should do so now. It’s flagrantly wrong.

Yes, it is also my understanding that the Obama administration was hard on whistleblowers, though I do not know of a case where a whistleblower followed the procedure prescribed for reporting misdeeds up the chain and was subsequently punished. I wouldn’t be surprised if there cases like that, I just don’t know of any. But I think even Snowden should have been given more leniency than he was.

But the whistleblower thing is a distraction here. Look at the way it’s being used in this thread, as though it were the whistleblower alone impeaching the President, rather than the House of Representatives, and as though the House were basing its actions solely on the report of the whistleblower, rather than on the public comments of the President, the memo released by the White House, and the growing list of insiders who are testifying publicly and privately to congressional committees. We don’t need the whistleblower’s identity because we don’t need his testimony to establish the allegations that are likely to be forwarded to the Senate.

Listen: there is no sequence of events where this will happen. So far, we’ve had over twenty hours of public hearings in which both Republicans and Democrats were able to question known members of the Trump administration, who made allegations of significant wrongdoing by the President. If the President is removed from office, it will be on the grounds of the current and growing body of public evidence that Trump abused his power to pressure a foreign government to investigate a domestic political rival for his personal gain.

No it isn’t. You have a habit of switching back and forth between technical meanings, colloquial meanings, and metaphorical meanings. In the technical sense, the sense that is relevant when we’re talking about how Constitutional rights apply, Congress is not an Article 1, Article 3, or Article 4 tribunal. It is not a court in a Constitutionally relevant sense.

Impeachment is not a criminal prosecution. One piece of evidence of this is that the impeachment clause expressly preserves the possibility of criminal proceedings for the same conduct for which a sitting President is impeached and removed; a President can be removed from office for a certain act and then immediately tried and convicted in criminal proceedings for the same act. That wouldn’t be possible if impeachment were criminal, because the Double Jeopardy clause prohibits retrial following a conviction in criminal cases.

I am a lawyer, but to be honest the average lawyer isn’t going to be much better at these analyses than the intelligent layperson. Constitutional law has a few quirks, but to a great extent it still relies on the plain language of the Constitution (there are exceptions, e.g. First Amendment law is complicated and often unintuitive, though the average lawyer doesn’t know a ton about that either). And especially in the case of Presidential impeachment, there’s not a lot of precedent interpreting the few Constitutional provisions about it, and not much time was spent on it in law school (though I’m sure it’s different for people in law school now!).

Implying that it’s even remotely possible to impeach and remove, forcibly, the duly and fairly elected President of the United States under the condition that he had committed no crime, in no violation of a US law, and in no violation of the US Constitution… gimme a break!

It goes without saying, you cannot be impeached, if you committed no crime. A US President cannot be impeached “because the House majority doesn’t like him”. Again, that is a violation of basic Democracy. The majority House cannot simply overrule the US public, which is exactly what is being attempted here.

Imagine it this way: Democrats held majority House and 66% of the Senate – the US population votes in a President, then House and Congress impeach that same President, even when no crime is committed?!? Ridiculous!!! Absurd, and insane!

There is no intent, whisper, hint of such radical behavior within the Constitution or Bill of Rights! The US President, perhaps more so than any single citizen, has full authority and protection of the US Constitution, including Due Process of Law! This means, facing accusations and allegations of wrongdoing.

The entire “Premise”, of this entire Impeachment, is based solely and exclusively on the “whistleblowing”. But there is no actual case for protection of anonymity, which threatens the First Amendment, as-if it were remotely reasonable, moral, ethical, to allege wrong-doing under conditions of Anonymity.

SHAME on you, Carleas, for defending this! This is a breach of the highest order of conduct, law, and moral fabric, of US history!

I guess, based on this precedent, the House, Senate, and Congress, can conjure any “Anonymous” source and run with it, with any allegation and accusation, without reproach!?!?

Absolute violation of the US Constitution. Congress is far out-of-bounds and should be penalized, censured, and rebuked. Way too far!