What do you call a trial with NO witnesses/evidence?

AND no defense WANTED, By the party being charged.

Something fishy there....

AND Individual #1 tells/orders everyone NOT to testify.

What's up with that?

One would have to figure that anyone that did testify...would not have a good word to say. Given that HE knows what was said and done.

some are suborned?

Does YOUR trial system permit the accused to order witnesses to NOT give evidence?

Tell people what they can or cannot talk about? Witness intimidation?

EVERY word that comes out of DJT's cakehole is "classified"?

RE:A commentator yesterday had a brilliant analogy to offer. You're a student in school with a homework assignment....you turn it in half finished and tell the teacher to complete it for you.

I would have gone with....I completed the homework assignment and POTUS told me part of my assignment was declared Top Secret and HE removed the Top Secret parts. I tried to give it to the teacher...but POTUS stepped in....AND HE didn't even go to a court to get permission....

Abuse of power on HIS part?....I say YES!!!!!!

You actually answered your own first question. Yes, OUR trial system when it comes to the Oval Office/President DOES allow him/her, if he/she is the accused, to tell 'witnesses' to NOT testify. IF the prosecutor doesn't like that, we have a THIRD branch of government that resolves it BUT the prosecutor is REQUIRED to file a brief with that third branch and give reasons for why that testimony is necessary. And, even THEN, they are required to accept the decision of the court if it doesn't go their way.

The President has executive privilege rights granted to him/her by the Constitution AND SCOTUS....it's up to the prosecutor to challenge it. It's NOT up to the prosecutor to drop their subpoenas for witnesses because a court challenge would be lengthy and they want a quick resolution, and then DEMAND that the SENATE issue subpoenas for those witnesses. THAT leaves it up to the Senate to complete their homework for them.

Your analogy ASSUMES that the homework WAS completed when the EVIDENCE, in fact, proves otherwise because Schiff and Nadler, by their own admissions, DIDN'T complete it.

Impeached without evidence and witnesses to a crime they are accusing Trump of...….abuse of power? I say YES!!!!

WE didn't think it was fair that the CORRECT committee to do an impeachment hearing is the Judiciary (run by Nadler, the inept idiot) and NOT the Intel (run by Schiff) and yet that's what happened. WE didn't think it was fair that Schiff wouldn't allow ANY witnesses Republicans wanted in those closed door SCIF hearings, nor could Trump's attorneys be present to represent HIS rights to not be violated. WE didn't think it was fair that when ONE day of hearings under Nadler, NO FACT witnesses were there (only 'Constitutional' attorneys/professors who gave their OPINIONS), and that Nadler made the comment that "if Trump wanted to participate in order to PROVE HIS INNOCENCE, he was invited (in OUR country, it's up to the PROSECUTION to PROVE GUILT, not for the ACCUSE to PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE).

As for Trump deciding to not allow witnesses to testify without his authorization, these weren't staff receptionists or mail clerks for Christ's sake, JP....these are high level, high security people. NO President allows that, without a COURT (the THIRD branch, remember) deciding who can and what can be talked about because top level classified information could be revealed without meaning to, so even the questions that can be asked by the House would be dictated to by the Court.

Executive Privilege is GUARANTEED by the Constitution and ONLY SCOTUS can determine when and how it can be taken away.

If you wanted fair, Schiff and Nadler should have gone the LEGAL course and taken it to court, but to say that Trump 'obstructed Congress', and create a new article of impeachment out of it, by denying them access to the witnesses they wanted and documents they demanded is a real imaginary stretch of their whacked out minds because Constitutionally Trump was well within his rights to deny it all.

IF it was legal in this country to sue or impeach Congressional members instead of just voting them out of office, many of those whack jobs would be under the gun right now....but they ALWAYS vote bills that OTHER people have to live by and exclude themselves from them.

"THEY couldn't take the chance on DJT doing something more nefarious." At least that what THEY SAY....but even their OWN Dems have been saying since DAY 1 that they have to impeach him because they can't beat him. AND ALL OF THAT WAS BEING REPEATED OVER AND OVER THREE YEARS BEFORE THAT PHONE CALL, JP.

"Nefarious"???????? The Dems have been nefarious about Trump since before the election. Whatever the liberal Dems claim is going on with Republicans, you can bet every dime you have that they are already doing it, and you'd win the bet every time.

AND you didn't think it was fair to hold hearings in the basement......

What's up with that?

I was recently asked by a reader what the fear of basement is called. I searched high and low and couldn’t figure out what it is called if anything (if you do know, please email me).

"Rank has it's privileges"

Above the law?

And YOU agree?

and even BO who nobody ever looked at even though everything you wanted to know about him (except for his sealed college transcripts) was in plain sight.

mainly because his own grandmother said he was born in Kenya....documents CAN be altered when it's 'necessary' to do so and I believe his was, including the newspaper birth announcement that was brought out later. However, HE could have avoided all of the speculation IF he had brought out the long form right at the beginning.....BUT it was to HIS benefit to NOT do it for such a long time because it was a distraction that HE wanted.

IF HE had nothing to hide, why did he demand that his college transcripts be sealed? You can't accuse Trump of hiding something by not revealing documents demanded by the left without demanding BO's, too. BUT that's the liberal Dems for you. There will always be a double standard when they are protecting their own.

And HE can,(make crap up) and then sit on the sidelines and shout....

READ THE TRANSCRIPT!!!

READ THE TRANSCRIPT

A "transcript" that is A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation.· (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a
discussion.

HIS "version" of the call. He ain't "lying" until he takes the oath. And that ain't gonna' happen....

HIM in a witness chair? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

DJT's version of "the truth"...HE isn't willing to take an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, because then it would open him to perjury charges.

HE won't let others testify, BUT he will let others compose a "transcript" (under HIS supervision/direction) and release it as being the truth.

are done the same way and have been since Nixon. NOTHING is on tape/digital anymore so you'll just have to get over it and accept it since MULTIPLE transcribers were on the call and composed it. You are ONLY speculating that they altered what was said....much the same way that Schiff has done since it's not up to what he expected, just like the Mueller report that didn't come through for the Dems like they predicted.

"He took the bait"...…..is a President expected to walk on eggshells in every conversation or policy he conducts because now ANY President who has a policy difference with the House is a target for impeachment? You DO know that in OUR country, the President ALONE has the ability to set foreign policy, don't you? NOT THE HOUSE, NOT THE SENATE, and NOT SCOTUS...…

The ONLY people 'taking the bait' are people like you who believe everything CNN and MSNBC tells you. I hope you have a huge supply of Reynold's Wrap stored up....it sounds like you need it badly.

How unhappy are you with the new USMCA agreement that's being signed into law by Trump now that BOTH houses have passed it?

and you consider getting "dirt on YOUR political opponent" from foreigners to be good foreign policy?

Foreigners affecting YOUR election?....You're happy with that?

Some don't even think foreigners should be able to express an opinion on American politics, let alone providing "dirt on a political opponent".

RE:How unhappy are you with the new USMCA agreement that's being signed into law by Trump now that BOTH houses have passed it?

Both houses passed the money for Ukraine also.....How did that turnout?

PS What Canadians think of USMCA

of making crap up... "and you consider getting "dirt on YOUR political opponent" from foreigners to be good foreign policy?"

Show me ONE place where Trump ASKED or DEMANDED that? As President he has the ABOLUTE responsibility to make sure that the leader he is dealing with is not corrupt BEFORE releasing funds to them, even if they HAVE been passed in Congress. This was a brand new leader he was dealing with.....and considering how often the USA 'intel' has lied to him since day one, I wouldn't have taken their word for the 'vetting' they did either.

Foreigners affecting YOUR election?....You're happy with that? Nope, but evidently YOU guys were just fine with them interfering in HILL'S favor when she was PAYING FOR IT. Ukraine officials even ADMITTED that they were doing it....and the so called 'whistleblower' signed into the White House a number of Ukrainian officials on the same day for a meeting with BO et al just days before Trump was sworn in....what was THAT about, do you think, since he's the one who got third hand information about that call and gave it to Schiff? There seems to be actual evidence that the 'whistleblower' was working with the BO/Dem swamp for at least the last few years. Can you say Ukranian operative/asset?

More and more keeps coming out and it's not against Trump anymore, no matter how much you wish it to be true.

to get rid of her within earshot of someone he doesn't personally know? He has every right to be rid of people who don't agree with his foreign policies as Ambassador and, in fact, she wasn't fired for another 14 months. Do you wonder, at all, WHY that guy was recording Trump (without his knowledge by the way)?

Trump wasn't talking to HIM...he was talking to a staffer who was also there. THAT person (the one recording) had NO authority to remove/fire an American Ambassador since he was a Ukrainian.

Second, 'at least 10' cohorts in jail? Name them please because there are perhaps FOUR that I'm aware of, and ONE of them DID tape Trump and that went NOWHERE but was jailed for his OWN illegal crap, ONE is in jail, again, for reasons that had nothing to do with Trump, ONE was jailed for two weeks under FALSE measures by the FBI, and ONE is in jail for obscure reasons at this point.

Last.....let's see how many DEMS finally end up in jail for their illegal activities from three years ago (or longer). Durham isn't finished with his investigation and already heads are beginning to roll. That's why this impeachment crap had to be done now....if Trump is removed, that investigation goes away and they all go free. Panic has set in for the Dems.....

visit by your PM have to do with USMCA? It must be somewhere in those tweets, but I'm not hunting for it so enlighten me.