The President wants the name of the person that gave the information to the “whistleblower”. He said “ you know what we use to do with people like that”. This is gonna get great real fast.
And Jim we are letting it ride instead of organizing a march to D.C.!! Optics my friend optics can cause D.C. nerves to come unhinged!! We the American people hold the power!!!
This is a lynching in progress.
AMEN.
Constitution???
What Constitution?
> ...doesn’t the accused have the constitutional right to face and question his accuser? <
Impeachment is a political process, and not a criminal one. So I don’t think the accused has the right to face his accuser.
But yes, this is most certainly a lynching. And every last GOP senator should acknowledge that fact right now, today. But as we all know, many GOP senators are Deep State actors. They would be secretly happy to see Trump gone, and the status quo restored.
Haven’t you heard Nancy Pelosi on the Constitution? She laughs at that.
email from President Trump:
THE DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO DESTROY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND ALL THAT IT STANDS FOR. STICK TOGETHER, PLAY THEIR GAME, AND FIGHT HARD REPUBLICANS. OUR COUNTRY IS AT STAKE!
The law is to protect the whistleblower from being adversely
treated at work and nothing to do with what they are blowing the whistle on.
I.e. you can’t fire someone because they blew the whistle. The accusation is adjudicated depending on jurisdiction of the case, if the appropriate legal body decides to pursue the case.
There’s no way Dims can muster a majority over hearsay from an unnamed individual.
And I think Pelosi would pull the articles from the floor if it came to that.
For thousands of years, going back to the Roman empire, the law always states that the accused can face the accuser in a court of law.
Fox News reported that NYT reported that it was a CIA officer with experience working with Ukraine.
Due process protects the “individual” from the state, President or not. Even Pelosi, Nadler, and Schumer are afforded this right but they do not deserve it.
Jim, do we have station chiefs yet? We may want to kick around the idea of a meet up on the mall at this point. You know erect fake gallows and the whole bit. Plus we will clean up after ourselves.
Go-around to the whistle-blower sources.
The whistle blower isn’t. Hearsay. So not covered. Also the law only applies to people UTA “Under the Authority” of. The President is not part of the Intel Community.
NO.
Next question.
Well, that right applies if they are charged in a court of law. If you just want to lynch someone in the media, I don’t think the victim gets to invoke it.
If you are telling about some event or conversation you are not privy to, I believe that is hearsay, and I don’t believe hearsay is admissible as evidence in a criminal proceeding. My suspicion is that this person is not a whistleblower because they are not reporting on a matter they have personal knowledge of. They seem to me like a person who is acting on rumor.
It is important to protect whistleblowers because they have to be in a position to be able to offer evidence that is of value. Just being some a-hole with a suspicion is not the same thing as being a whistleblower. There has to be some sort of relevant evidence that these people have that will make a powerful person very uncomfortable.
Nancy only recognizes the Constitution if it helps a dim, so in this case, the answer must be YES.
The Constitution is only to be trotted out by the dims when they can beat a pubbie over the head with it.