It is fascinating to watch democrats argue so vigorously against
the sixth amendment.
"“The primary object of the [Confrontation Clause is] to prevent depositions of ex parte affidavits . . . being used against the prisoner in lieu of a personal examination and cross-examination of the witness in which the accused has an opportunity not only of testing the recollection and sifting the conscience of the witness, but of compelling him to stand face to face with the jury in order that they may look at him, and judge by his demeanor upon the stand and the manner in which he gives his testimony whether he is worthy of belief.”221 The right of confrontation is “[o]ne of the fundamental guarantees of life and liberty . . . long deemed so essential for the due protection of life and liberty that it is guarded against legislative and judicial action by provisions in the Constitution of the United States and in the constitutions of most if not of all the States composing the Union.”222 Before 1965, when the Court held the right to be protected against state abridgment,223 it had little need to clarify the relationship between the right of confrontation and the hearsay rule,224 because it could control the admission of hearsay through exercise of its supervisory powers over the inferior federal courts.225"
It is also interesting the bar was lowered so this latest cartoon show could start.
Intelligence community changed whistleblower rules to include hearsay shortly before complaint was filed
"The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until after the transcript of Trump’s July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public, eliminates the first-hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence and only “heard about [wrongdoing] from others.”"
"“We learned from today’s reporting from a couple different sources, including The Federalist, that the form used to require as recently as a month ago or at least in the last year, the complaint had to be firsthand knowledge, and a number of other obligations, that it not be a matter of differences of policy. It has to be some very specific criteria. It doesn’t even cover the president, it only covers what happens in the intelligence community,” Dhillon said.
“The new form which is published on the website of the DNI for whistleblowers. It’s marked August 2019, so last month, around the time this whistleblower complaint,” she continued. “It has eliminated that first-hand knowledge requirement. And you see that reflected in the current complaint. It’s full of second-hand, third-hand and press reports and more.”
Dobbs listed several examples of what the Trump whistleblower complaint consists of, to include:
“I received information from multiple officials.”
“Officials have informed me.”
“Officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me.”
“I was told by White House officials.”
“It reads like the most preposterous document,” said Dobbs.
“There is a very good reason why we require firsthand knowledge and firsthand eyewitness testimony on these types of things,” said Dhillon. “It’s the most credible and most close to the facts. But more importantly, the type of complaint we are talking about today could not have been made under last year or earlier this year’s rules. It’s very significant that those rules were secretly, surreptitiously changed.”"
A reasonable observant person will have little trouble picking out the fascists in the current scenario.
If you cannot face your accuser, then you cannot be certain that what you are being accused of has any basis in fact. If the government could bring charges against someone without presenting the accuser claiming that you have done something against the law, then the government would be entirely free to make up whatever crime it wants, along with whatever evidence it wants, without any recourse of your own. This is how "trials" during the Inquisition were performed, and the decision by the Founding Fathers to include this right explicitly in the Constitution is a reflection of the abuses that such systems wrought in the past.
