Impeachment?

Calling for transparency and for an accuser to identify himself is not "witness intimidation." 

Even the President has the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." It's called the 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution.


But in your own words: Your entitled to that opinion, but that's all it is...an opinion.

Speaking of impeachment...

Key diplomat changes testimony and admits quid pro quo with Ukraine

In a significant reversal, a top US diplomat revised his testimony to impeachment investigators to admit there was a quid pro quo linking US aid to Ukraine with an investigation into President Donald Trump's political rivals.

US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland sent the committee a three-page addition to his testimony on Monday, saying he had remembered a September 1 conversation that occurred on the sidelines of a meeting between Vice President Mike Pence and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which he told a top aide to Zelensky that the security aid and investigations were linked.
"I now recall speaking individually with Mr. (Andriy) Yermak, where I said resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks," Sondland said.

www.cnn.com/2019/11/05/politics/gordon-sondland-kurt-volker-transcripts-impeachment-inquiry/index.html

Let the smears and personal attacks on Mr. Sondland begin...

Nice work, Professor. Again, there is absolutely nothing illegal here whatsoever. All of the various witnesses brought forth by Adam Schiff have nothing more than personal disagreements in how Trump was dealing with Ukraine.

NEWSFLASH: Donald Trump is the President, elected by the American people, and it he who directs foreign policy--not Gordon Sondland, William Taylor, Alex Vindman, the ambassador, any other civil servant or military officer. They can provide all the advice they want--but the Chief Executive Officer makes the decisions. Period. Just like Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and so on throughout the history of the Presidency. If these bureaucrats  don't like how he's handling it....they can resign. It's not their job to speculate on his motives and decide whether they are "improper" or how they affect our relationship with Ukraine.

Their "concerns" are their OPINION--and nothing else. This is nothing more than an attempt to criminalize foreign policy differences by endlessly repeating a scary-sounding term (quid pro quo) that is actually not a crime in itself. In fact, one could argue that almost all foreign policy--heck, all politics for that matter--is simply an exercise of quid pro quo; you do something we want, we give you something you want (i.e., all lobbying, candidate endorsements, and special interest voting blocs in exchange for expected favorable legislation). Unless there is a personal bribe involved or the misappropriation of funds, there is no crime.


As for the 6th Amendment not applying to this case, let's be real. If Democrats in Congress think that basic constitutional due process rights going back hundreds of years in Anglo-American law are going to be suspended in the case of impeaching the President, they are in for a rude awakening. For God's sake, impeachment is a constitutional process! Because I'd really enjoy hearing the argument that one part of the Constitution (6th Amendment) doesn't apply to another part of the Constitution (impeachment). Even RBG might laugh that out of court.

If the impeachment gets to the Senate, the whistleblower Eric Ciaramella is absolutely going to subpoenaed to testify publicly. He'll have his Christine Blasey-Ford moment--and I don't think it will go well.

Keep repeating that to yourslef Credo..it might help you sleep at night but remember, it really doesn't matter if there was crime or not.



Yes, do remember that trump is in charge and all of this crap happened on his watch.



Again Credo, you're making a point that is irrelevant to the impeachment of a president. It doesn't matter if there was no "crime".



I am and I was, the Amendment doesn't apply in impeachment proceedings.



The length of time we've had the 6th Amendment is again irrelevant, and no one is suggesting "suspending' anything...the Amendment doesn't apply to impeachment proceedings, and it never has. Let's be a little clear on the impeachment process and what's happening now. In the impeachment of a president the House acts like the prosecutor and the Senate as the jury. The House is conducting its investigation at the moment and here you are ranting about protections that don't come into play until the trial in front of the Senate.

Dear Trump Hater:  

in point of law, the whistleblower law only protects the Whistleblower from being outed to the Inspector General, as Rand Paul ably points out.  So we are not barred from knowing who he is.  Also, hiding behind the Whistleblower statute would seem to be a bit irrelevant at this point  because we already know who he is.  

Further, if we are to trust either the Whistleblower OR Adam Schiff, let them raise their right hands, take an oath, and deliver their testimony to the congressional committee:  Have the balls to be accountable for your actions or STFU... because we already know your statements are in direct conflict with the transcript of the actual phone call... for which you weren’t even in the room while it was in progress.  To say nothing of your affiliation with the Biden campaign and your coaching by Schiff’s staff.

If "it doesn't matter if there was no crime", then it seems to me that (a) the whole "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" clause of Article 2 Section 4 is irrelevant, and (b) the only other reason for impeaching Trump is that he's an asshole. While I may agree with that sentiment, it's not the most solid constitutional grounds for impeachment and conviction.  I almost feel that invoking the 25th Amendment would be a smarter bet.