Le processus de mise en accusation du pr\u00e9sident Trump, qui se poursuit \u00e0 la Chambre des Repr\u00e9sentants, ou plut\u00f4t dans les commissions ad hoc <\/em>[notamment celle du renseignement] sous le seul contr\u00f4le des d\u00e9mocrates, constitue un cas extraordinaire de fonctionnement d’un \u00ab\u00a0État de droit\u00a0\u00bb, – et quel \u00ab\u00a0État de droit\u00a0\u00bb si glorieusement c\u00e9l\u00e9br\u00e9 ! – qui m\u00e9rite absolument d’\u00eatre orn\u00e9 de l’un de nos qualificatifs favoris qui a tout \u00e0 voir avec la bouffonnerie : \u00ab\u00a0‘État de droit’-bouffe \u00ab\u00a0.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Nous donnons ci-dessous un texte (du 11 octobre<\/a>) de Michael Snyder, de son site The EndoftheAmericanDream<\/em>, qui se penche sur cet aspect de la question apr\u00e8s la nouvelle que le \u00ab\u00a0lanceur d’alerte\u00a0\u00bb \u00e0 la base de l’accusation, un anonyme de la CIA travaillant en seconde-main (travail par \u00ab\u00a0ou\u00ef-dire\u00a0\u00bb et \u00ab\u00a0on-dit\u00a0\u00bb, pour tout renseignement s\u00e9rieux), demanderait comme une faveur pour sa s\u00e9curit\u00e9, – tout cela est consid\u00e9rablement vertueux – de ne pas t\u00e9moigner en personne mais simplement de faire parvenir \u00e0 qui de droit (la commission \u00e9rig\u00e9e en accusatrice parlementaire) un t\u00e9moignage \u00e9crit.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Snyder a l’habitude de travailler sur des cas divers (\u00e9conomie, finances, situation sociale, \u00e9cologie, guerre, etc.) qui alimentent sa th\u00e8se de la marche vers l’effondrement du Syst\u00e8me. Mais depuis quelques temps, son site s’est centr\u00e9 sur l’\u00e9volution de la situation politique aux USA, \u00e0 \u00ab\u00a0D.C.-la-folle\u00a0\u00bb, en rapport avec la proc\u00e9dure de destitution, comme un \u00e9l\u00e9ment fondamental des signes d’effondrement. Cela nous donne une mesure de plus de l’essence de la crise en cours \u00ab\u00a0D.C.-la-folle\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Une citation du premier paragraphe (adapt\u00e9e en fran\u00e7ais) nous indique l’essentiel du propos :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n « Cette \u00ab\u00a0instruction pour une mise en accusation de destitution\u00a0\u00bb devient de plus en plus glauque au fil des jours. Nancy Pelosi ne veut pas d’un vote de la Chambre elle-m\u00eame pour approuver officiellement cette \u00ab\u00a0instruction\u00a0\u00bb parce qu’elle est convaincue qu’un tel vote n’est pas n\u00e9cessaire. Comme l’a justement fait remarquer<\/a> l’avocat de la Maison-Blanche, Pat Cipollone, l’absence de vote de la Chambre \u00ab\u00a0viole l’\u00e9quit\u00e9 fondamentale et l’application r\u00e9guli\u00e8re de la loi pr\u00e9vue par la Constitution\u00a0\u00bb. Et voil\u00e0 que nous apprenons que le lanceur d’alerte initial demande s’il peut \u00ab\u00a0pr\u00e9senter son t\u00e9moignage par \u00e9crit au lieu de comparaître en personne\u00a0\u00bb, ce qui signifierait probablement que nous ne saurons peut-\u00eatre jamais l’identit\u00e9 de cette personne. Nous pourrions donc \u00eatre confront\u00e9s \u00e0 un sc\u00e9nario dans lequel la Chambre des Repr\u00e9sentants mettrait en <\/em>accusation [sans vote de l’assembl\u00e9e]le pr\u00e9sident des États-Unis sur la base d’un \u00ab\u00a0t\u00e9moignage\u00a0\u00bb d’une source anonyme que l’on ne pourrait voir et entendre physiquement. La Constitution des États-Unis \u00e9tablit une norme tr\u00e8s \u00e9lev\u00e9e pour destituer un pr\u00e9sident, et il est absolument absurde que ce processus aille de l’avant sur la base d’informations provenant de quelqu’un qui ne veut pas \u00eatre soumis \u00e0 un quelconque examen public et qui n’avait m\u00eame pas une connaissance directe, comme source indirecte de deuxi\u00e8me main, de la conversation de Trump avec le pr\u00e9sident de l’Ukraine<\/em>. »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Il est \u00e9vident que la proc\u00e9dure de mise en accusation prend une allure d\u00e9lirante par rapport aux normes tr\u00e8s strictes de l’observance des r\u00e8gles institutionnelles si essentielles pour les USA qui constituent une entit\u00e9 n’ayant pour support de sa l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 que le seul droit, – et m\u00eame le Droit en-majest\u00e9, si l’on veut montrer un peu de solennit\u00e9. C’est \u00e0 ce point que l’on mesure la crise psychologique, ou la pathologie de la psychologie qui a saisi la \u00ab\u00a0gauche\u00a0\u00bb US (les d\u00e9mocrates progressistes-soci\u00e9taux fourr\u00e9s dans le m\u00eame pieu que les factieux de la CIA rest\u00e9s \u00e0 l’int\u00e9rieur de la CIA)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Toutes les billeves\u00e9es sur le DeepState<\/em>et le reste, m\u00eame si elles jouent leur r\u00f4le, sont balay\u00e9es comme autant de f\u00e9tus de paille devant le degr\u00e9 de haine (celle des extr\u00e9mistes mais pas qu’eux…) et de l\u00e2chet\u00e9 (celle de la direction d\u00e9mocrate g\u00e2teuse), et l’ensemble de corruption psychologique, en pr\u00e9sence de ce chiffon rouge agit\u00e9 devant le taureau qu’est Donald Trump. Les deux adversaires-partenaires, – les progressistes-soci\u00e9taux et les populistes-trumpistes, – se compl\u00e8tent d’une fa\u00e7on extraordinaire pour cr\u00e9er un imbroglio et un labyrinthe d’affrontements dont l’effet est une impasse explosive exer\u00e7ant une pression d\u00e9structurante terrible sur l’ensemble institutionnel du gouvernement des USA enti\u00e8rement b\u00e2ti sur l’empire de la loi issu du Droit. Le fameux \u00ab\u00a0patriotisme\u00a0\u00bb am\u00e9ricain n’est rien si l’ensemble juridique de l’am\u00e9ricanisme ne lui offre pas la justification fondamentale de son expression : c’est le \u00ab\u00a0patriotisme\u00a0\u00bb de la \u00ab\u00a0d\u00e9mocratie\u00a0\u00bb (pseudo-d\u00e9mocratie) dont la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 trouve ses sources ni dans l’Histoire, ni dans l’espace national mais bien dans les principes du Droit. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n Pour ce cas, m\u00eame si les d\u00e9mocrates et toute leur coterie ont des arguments \u00e0 faire valoir contre Trump (le principal \u00e9tant que la victoire de Trump elle-m\u00eame d\u00e9l\u00e9gitime le syst\u00e8me de l’am\u00e9ricanisme, ce qui n’est loin d’\u00eatre vrai, mais Trump est alors un instrument et nullement une cause), il reste que leur action dans ce cas de la mise en examen et de la pouss\u00e9e pour la destitution a un aspect suicidaire dans les coups port\u00e9s contre l’ensemble institutionnel, et m\u00eame contre la validit\u00e9 de la Constitution.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n M\u00eame si cette proc\u00e9dure ne passe qu’\u00e0 la Chambre et que le S\u00e9nat statue en faveur de Trump, il reste que l’action des d\u00e9mocrates a d’ores et d\u00e9j\u00e0 d\u00e9cisivement transform\u00e9 l’acte extr\u00eamement grave de la destitution, – d\u00e9j\u00e0 malmen\u00e9 avec l’\u00e9pisode Clinton-Lewinsky, – en une pantalonnade ridicule. Cela signifie au mieux que les pouvoirs sont d\u00e9sormais li\u00e9s l’un \u00e0 l’autre par ces turpitudes, cette menace constante de la destitution, et par cons\u00e9quent impuissants ; encore ce \u00ab\u00a0mieux\u00a0\u00bb nous paraît-il tr\u00e8s loin d’\u00eatre le plus probable, et les autres options de crise constitutionnelle insoluble, de blocage imm\u00e9diat de l’action publique, de troubles publics, jusqu’\u00e0 des menaces de guerre civile et de s\u00e9cession, paraissent absolument concevables.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Le titre original du texte de Michael Snyder du 12 octobre 2019 est : « Trump Could Be Impeached Based On The Testimony Of A Parade Of \u00ab\u00a0Whistleblowers\u00a0\u00bb That Don’t Even Testify In Person<\/em> ».<\/p>\n<\/p>\n _________________________<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n This \u00ab\u00a0impeachment inquiry\u00a0\u00bb is becoming more shady with each passing day. Nancy Pelosi won’t even take a vote in the House to officially approve this \u00ab\u00a0impeachment inquiry\u00a0\u00bb because she is convinced that such a vote is not needed. But as White House Counsel Pat Cipollone has aptly noted<\/a>, the lack of a vote \u00ab\u00a0violates fundamental fairness and constitutionally mandated due process\u00a0\u00bb. And now we are learning that the original whistleblower is asking if he can \u00ab\u00a0submit testimony in writing instead of appearing in person\u00a0\u00bb, which would likely mean that we may never found out the identify of this individual. So we could potentially be facing a scenario in which the House of Representatives actually impeaches the president of the United States based on \u00ab\u00a0testimony\u00a0\u00bb from an anonymous source that they never actually get to see face to face. The U.S. Constitution sets a very high standard for impeaching a president, and it is absolutely absurd that this process is moving forward based on information from someone that does not want to face any sort of public scrutiny and that did not even have firsthand knowledge of Trump’s conversation with the president of Ukraine in the first place.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n And guess what? Now that the original \u00ab\u00a0whistleblower\u00a0\u00bb has gotten so much favorable attention, it has encouraged other \u00ab\u00a0potential whistleblowers\u00a0\u00bb<\/a> to start coming forward…<\/p>\n<\/p>\n New potential whistleblowers are coming forward to the House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, two congressional sources tell The Daily Beast.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n They seem to be emboldened by the actions of the whistleblower whose explosive account of President Donald Trump’s phone call to Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky about investigating Trump’s domestic political rivals ignited the impeachment inquiry.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Perhaps the Democrats will just keep having \u00ab\u00a0whistleblower\u00a0\u00bb after \u00ab\u00a0whistleblower\u00a0\u00bb come forward until they can find something that finally sticks.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n After all, if they never even have to testify publicly, there isn’t much risk for these \u00ab\u00a0whistleblowers\u00a0\u00bb. Anyone in the government that wants to take down Trump could come forward with \u00ab\u00a0damaging information\u00a0\u00bb, and of course the Democrats would be all too eager to gobble it up and run forward with it.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n According to the Daily Beast<\/a>, the new \u00ab\u00a0whistleblowers\u00a0\u00bb are currently being vetted by \u00ab\u00a0congressional investigators\u00a0\u00bb…<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Congressional investigators are currently vetting the new accounts they’ve received for credibility. Accordingly, knowledgeable sources would not discuss where in the government these new would-be whistleblowers come from, nor what they purport to have to say.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Needless to say, the term \u00ab\u00a0\u00a0\u00bbcongressional investigators\u00a0\u00bb could easily be replaced by \u00ab\u00a0Democratic political hacks\u00a0\u00bb, and anyone that has anything that could even remotely be damaging to Trump will be considered to be \u00ab\u00a0credible\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n If the original whistleblower was forced to testify publicly, a lot of these new \u00ab\u00a0whistleblowers\u00a0\u00bb would quickly disappear. But at this point, it appears that the original whistleblower is going to try to avoid even testifying behind closed doors to Congress. In fact, it is being reported that he may not ever testify in person<\/a> to anyone. At this point, the legal team representing the \u00ab\u00a0whistleblower\u00a0\u00bb has officially asked Congress if the \u00ab\u00a0whistleblower\u00a0\u00bb can \u00ab\u00a0submit testimony in writing instead<\/a> of appearing in person\u00a0\u00bb…<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Lawyers for the CIA officer whose whistleblower complaint <\/em> helped ignite<\/a><\/em> an impeachment inquiry into President Trump have asked Congress whether their client could submit testimony in writing instead of appearing in person, according to people familiar with the matter.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n The request reflects concerns about whether the whistleblower could testify<\/a> to Democrats and Republicans without revealing his identity, and fears that doing so would lead to it being publicly leaked, jeopardizing his personal safety. <\/em>The intelligence committees haven’t yet responded to the inquiry about potential written testimony, the people said.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n It is true that once the identity of this \u00ab\u00a0whistleblower\u00a0\u00bb becomes known, that person’s life will never be the same again.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n But if you are going to take down the president of the United States, it is not something that can be done anonymously.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n At this point Trump’s life has been made a living hell by this \u00ab\u00a0whistleblower\u00a0\u00bb, and Trump deserves to be able to face his accuser.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Not only that, but if a president that is supported by nearly half the country is going to be thrown out of office, the American people deserve to hear directly from the prime witnesses.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n This is a very, very serious matter, and this process should be treated with the utmost gravity.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Right now, the mainstream media is relentlessly hammering Trump, and the American public is increasingly becoming convinced that the president may have committed some sort of a crime. In fact, the modst recent Fox News poll<\/a> shows that 51 percent of all Americans want \u00ab\u00a0Trump impeached and removed from office\u00a0\u00bb…<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Just over half of voters want President Trump impeached and removed from office, according to a Fox News Poll released Wednesday.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n A new high of 51 percent wants Trump impeached and removed from office, another 4 percent want him impeached but not removed, and 40 percent oppose impeachment altogether. In July, 42 percent favored impeachment and removal, while 5 percent said impeach but don’t remove him, and 45 percent opposed impeachment.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Needless to say, President Trump was not very impressed<\/a> by this new Fox poll…<\/p>\n<\/p>\n President Trump bashed his erstwhile favorite news channel, Fox News, in a pair of tweets Thursday touched off by a new Fox News poll that found a majority of Americans want to see him impeached and removed from office.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0From the day I announced I was running for President, I have NEVER had a good @FoxNews Poll,\u00a0\u00bb Trump tweeted. \u00ab\u00a0Whoever their Pollster is, they suck.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n But what everyone seems to be forgetting is that in order for the president of the United States to be impeached and removed from office, he must have committed a crime, and that is simply not true<\/a> in this case.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n You can’t impeach a president just because you don’t like him or her.<\/p>\n<\/p>\ndedefensa.org<\/em><\/h4>\n<\/p>\n
A Travesty of Impeachment Inquiry<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n