There is no specific charge or charges supported with evidence admissible in a court of law to justify impeachment proceedings. But they are going to investigate anyway.
There is a whistleblower who is likely from the intelligence community. No one is asking how this person, who it seems did not work in the White House, got access to classified information?
No one is asking why they came into possession, or why the first-hand sources, assuming there are first-hand sources, did not come forward themselves?
The complaint itself seems to have been written by a legal professional, not a layperson, which is highly unusual for a whistleblower complaint. The whistleblower has no first-hand knowledge of any wrongdoing. Self-admitted, none.
Why is the whistleblower part of the discussion?
The reason the person is a whistleblower is there are protections for whistleblowers with respect to protecting their jobs/careers. Use of the political whistleblower statute is a legal mechanism to shield release of the accuser’s identity. This is a use never intended which Congress should disallow. How do you do background checks if we cannot know who they are? How can you properly prepare a defense if you do not get to know who your accuser is?
The prosecution is asking us to believe a charge without a name, from an unknown person, is a reason to impeach the POTUS. Just consider the gravity of that? The whistleblower rules underwent recent modification to allow acceptance of second-hand information under the statutes. Who did that and why was it an appropriate decision?
Impeachment… What Do We Know? We are being told we are going to impeach the President… but you cannot question either the whistleblower or the people they got information from. The incident being talked about is a phone call between heads of state. The POTUS released the transcript. That is nothing if not transparent.
The call is being intentionally mischaracterized by the prosecution. Read the transcript and then listen to what is being said by the persecutors. “High crimes and misdemeanors” is the functional equivalent of a felony as it was originally written. We are going to put someone on trial for a felony with the intention of removing them from office, without specifying the charge or letting then confront their accuser.
Is this a setup with political motivation?
The impeachment, as setup by the Democratic House, is extremely political and even more partisan. Authority to move forward has zero votes from the opposition party. One would think that there would be some willingness to do the right thing for the nation from at least a minority of the opposition party. If the charges had a shred of credibility.
The president, while charged with a felony, is not allowed to know who his accusers may be or to confront them. The appearance is that the procedure assumes guilty until proven innocent. The Democrats and the media are even moving to silence voices speaking against this impeachment.
Does that strike anyone else as a sham? Does it appear to be railroading? How does this make sense in America? This is an effort to kneecap POTUS. That by itself would be bad.
What is worse is that this president and every other future president… will live under the cloud of the precedent created by these proceedings. It is a horrible precedent. This isn’t about trying to get facts and make a considered decision. This is a gottcha’.
Process is important
This is we’ve already decided, as a partisan Democratic Party… we’ve already decided we have to get rid of the POTUS. “We’re moving forward with it, irrespective of facts. That is clear.
The questions remaining are: Do we really want to live under one party rule? Do we want that party to be a totalitarian socialist regime?
Do we really want to end the rule of law? Clearly that is no longer true. We are trying to defend this by acting like the rule of law applies. There is a great difference between the rule of law and partisan politics.
Impeachment… What Do We Know? Which party is seeking to end the Bill of Rights? Which party does not want to follow the U.S. Constitution… except when it serves their purposes? This is a throwback to when we answered to the King of England. Have we learned nothing?