How about who encouraged him and who did he encourage to leak classified information, what promises were made to him in exchange, who leaked the information to him, why he reported false information just for a start.
Is this the same Constitution where the left wants to rewrite the 1 amendment, eliminate the 2nd, and if a college catches someone trying to hand a copy of it out on campus the call security and have them evicted off the grounds? And can you give me an example of Trump violating it.
You misunderstand. When the right wing is demanding additional rights because they exist in court, it is proper to note that those rights do not exist outside of court. When the right wing is demanding additional rights that does not even exist in a court of law, it is proper to note that those rights do not exist outside of court.
No. Consider this analogy for a second. A confidential informant calls the police and tells them about a drug operation. During the course of the pursuing investigation, the police legally collect evidence and eyewitness testimony from individuals who are willing to testify in court. If the prosecution decides that it has enough evidence to convict without ever citing the CI or his allegations as the source of the claim, then the CI will never have to testify. The "right to face your accuser" only applies to those who are accusing you in court. If 20 people testify against you, you do not have the right to face the 21st accuser who also spoke to police, but was never cited by the prosecution.
Your first (actually both) point cuts against you more than it helps. In the C.I. to police analogy, the person being accused faces a loss of liberty and property. At this point in the game, Trump can't even lose his job. He is not entitled to the same rights as a person facing criminal prosecution.
Actually, here is a report from NPR largely confirming every aspect of the complaint using sworn testimony and documents. https://www.npr.org/2019/11/09/7761...laint-has-largely-been-corroborated-heres-how
They would have more expanded rights to call whomever, but the worlds Greatest deliberative body is unlikely to become the clown show you desire, especially given the multiple GOP senators (Burr and Grassley, for example) who have already come out and said they wish to protect the whistleblower's request to remain anonymous.
Let's pretend. You tell me that Harry (Whistle Blower) told you he killed Tom. That is hearsay, except to the fact that Harry told you that. So...I go find Harry. He tells me the whole story and will give evidence to that effect. See, I don't need you anymore, do I.
Just what do you think is the difference again between the House building its case based on an anonymous tip for the Senate, and a prosecutor building its case for a courtroom based on an anonymous tip? Neither the defense counsel for Trump, nor the defense council for anyone else have any reason or right to access to an informant, if the informant is not to be used as part of the prosecutions case. Donald Trumps defense is no more handicapped here than anyone else's in this country, denied access to some guy who called in a crime in progress. An anonymous tipsters motive, his memory etc are completely irrelevant if he is not being used to prove anything. He is not the accuser in court. He is not going under oath. He is not playing any role if he is not testifying to anything and he is not subject to cross-examination by defense council if he has not been called to prove anything. As for Schiff's other witnesses, they can testify to anything, just as anyone can say anything to a cop on the beat or a prosecutor and the rules of hearsay are only pertinent to a trial, not a grand jury hearing seeking to indict. What is allowed in the Senate as far as hearsay rules will be up to the senate to determine. I have already completely written that entire process off. I don't particularly care if the House Managers to bother showing up. Mitch can do as he pleases. That will be a total joke.
The supreme court said he is, and likely more so as a president under impeachment where congress is attempting to disenfranchise over 60 million voters.
Many people believe the "confirmation" of hearsay witnesses or witnesses offering similar opinions as the whistle blower. So what?
A prosecutor would never ever get an indictment because of an anonymous informant, wouldn't even try. But the House has high, albeit fantastical, hopes of disenfranchising over 60 million voters based -- this month anyway -- on an anonymous whistle blower.
