Not directly, but he has some looney supporters, might they be deployed to a poorly protected forward operating base in Yemen... ehh. I just don't see much in the complaint that we don't already have the 'gun' on. Whether those things are crimes or worthy of impeachment is another discussion.
These things are not crimes in the context of the admission. So if there is more to be said that makes them crimes, then it is the whistle blower's word vs. Trump's word. And it requires testimony in person. Some Trump supporter isn't going to go after them any more than any Trump supporter went after Kavanaugh's accusers. Hell, if there are violent people to fear it is antifa and the protesters from the left.
No. The defendant has the right to confront material witnesses against them - refer to the constitution for more on this. A court can make some decisions about whether a witness is material or not, ie. whether the case and the allegations against the defendant pivot on the credibility of the witness and the testimony of the witness, and whether the jury is substantially relying on that testimony to reach their conclusion. If the judge thinks that the defense has called a pile of witnesses just to create a harassment environment by getting personal info on them, then the judge can withhold the names, and require the defense to separately present a motion to release their names whereupon there will be a separate hearing on each person and their material value. Danger to the witness is not a show-stopper- if the witness is pivotal. Nor is the whistleblower act an absolute barrier to releasing in a criminal trial or impeachment. Especially if issues are raised that go beyond the simple presentation of a complaint. If all we were talking about is a whistleblower who said "you get a copy of the transcipt with ukraine and you know what I know so I am done" then that would be one thing. But the swampspy formulated opinions and conclusions based on hearsay from others and included them in the report and he is properly subject to cross examination.
As I said, I want to see copies of all of their communications with Brennan since Brennan left office. As with the initial witch hunt started by the swamp, and as with Kavanaugh, and now this one- these are all planned, orchestrated hits.
yes--and when it comes to Biden or Hillary or any Dem, it's always said--leave em alone----they're running for president ---or leave em alone, the election's over etc etc etc. ----But if it's Republican, it's get em get em get em.
%% OK; being a bullmarket/strong uptreneder, most likely UP. And as a practical matter, hard to find him guilty in the Republican ruled Senate trial --IF it gets that far.,
"It's only a matter of time." Indeed that is so. WHO IS THE WHISTLEBLOWER? https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/10/who_is_the_whistleblower.html
Meh, an army of Hoaxblowers who will not appear before anyone, will not be cross-examined or confronted in any way publically. Hoaxpeachment.
I do agree that the whistleblower will need to come forward, but he/she shouldn't have to come forward until legally required to. I'm not familiar enough with impeachment but I'd imagine if we go by our judicial system, that's not until the trial, meaning when it gets to the Senate. Our justice system is setup that way, likely following Salem With hunts, so yes, the accused should face his accuser, but Trump, nor his allies at Fox or the Senate get to dictate when. Not having an accuser come forward sets precedent for pretty much every president getting false accusations lobbed at them. Let's not turn a blind eye to Trump and his cult attacking people who turn on him, he's set his bed and now he has to lie in it. The American public just the same has a right to have unredacted materials released, meaning transcripts and recordings (if they exist), whether it's just this call or others may be up in the air, but let's not be selective about Trump facing his accusers, while his backers champion every obstruction by him to discovery attempts by the House. Having said the above, I really don't see what else the whistle blower can say that hasn't been already corroborated by the WH memo; there is nothing else to gain. I suppose he/she could try to interpret their feeling of the context of the conversation, but I don't even see how that would be admissible. At this point, outing the whistle blower only helps politically, not judicially, as painting him as some partisan "deep state" operative could sway opinions.
One of the reasons why the dems do not want to vote on a formal impeachment inquiry is because the minority party -ie. the dems then gets subpoena rights too- so they would be empowered to call witnesses in House proceedings too - if they wanted. It's complicated. The dems would be and are already calling him now but they control the agenda, the amount of time, whether he will return, whether it recorded or not and on and on. A vote for a formal impeachment gives them greater/equal power to participate/control those interactions. The dems don't want that of course, but they want to impeach him. Well figure out what you really want because some things go with the turf if you start down that road. The comparison to the judicial process is useful but then it becomes limited. The proceeding in the House phase are very much akin to the function of a grand jury - whereby both are tasked with deciding whether the defendant will be charged and what the charges will be. However, a grand jury is a mostly secretive process, as opposed to the impeachment phase in the House which -by any definitions is one of the most widely followed circuses in the world with everyone trying to weigh in. A defendant before a grand jury has no attorney- may or may not even appear himself unless it is just for a specific question- has no ability to know what is going on with his larger case, no ability to communicate with the press and work his case in the public to prevent being charged based on what is being looked at in the grand jury, no ability to call witnesses at that phase while the prosecutor calls them by the pantload, etc. etc. But in a house hearing the defendant- even at the indictment phase- sees what is going on overall- has hundreds of congressional reps on his side, to question and probe and bloviate and posture with the media and the public to try to stop the process from going to the next level. You have thousands of people around the country who probably indicted last month and wont even know about until next year. It's not that kind of environment in an impeachment indictment. It's the closest thing to nude mud wrestling in public that they have in DC, and the defendant has all sorts of opportunities to be defended by his political allies even at the indictment level. And of course there is also the obvious point that in a grand jury proceedings you are trying to convince independent citizens sitting as jurors. There are no unbiased, independent deciders at any level in an impeachment. Let's get this thing going. Either proceed or be seen as losers. You have passed the point of no return.