What's the problem?

I even knew where the meetings were being held.

And The Republicans didn't?

I guess they are dumber than I thought.

Because everyone who knows you probably would then decide to vote for Trump and Republicans in 2020, if you lived here instead of Canada. Of course, we have enough here like you to help in that conversion to vote Republican.

Well, that makes them look even more uninformed.....a Canadian knows and Americans don't?

Oh, THEY know...they just won't say it NOW.

I heard there were Republicans in the basement bunker/room....here's a tidbit of the info I've read

Inside the room, lawmakers and staff from both parties are allowed to ask questions until they run out. The depositions open with opening remarks from Mr. Schiff, who said he then invites a member of the minority to do the same. The witness also gives an opening statement.

After that, said Rep. Mark Meadows (R., N.C.), a clock starts ticking. Democrats get an hour to question the witness, followed by Republicans with the same time. Once the first two hours are up, they move to 45-minute increments. Lawmakers and staff are asking questions.

“There is a clock, with a timekeeper,” Mr. Meadows said, noting that the aide makes sure each party gets equal time.

both parties?....Dems AND Reps?

member of the minority?.....A Republican?

Meadows?....R? doesn't R signify Republican?

HE knew about the meetings and other members of his party didn't know about the meetings?

RE:we have enough here like you to help in that conversion to vote Republican.

Have I converted you or did you need converting?

about the 'basement' room...it's actually a SCIF....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive_Compartmented_Information_Facility

First...it was highly unusual to have the Intel Committee headed up by Schiff to preside over impeachment investigative depositions rather than the Judiciary Committee...that decision was made between Pelosi and Schiff because they knew Nadler proved himself to be inept with the Lewandowski open hearing where he was made a fool of by the witness.

Second...SCIFs are used to hold confidential and classified testimony and Schiff made it a point to announce before EACH and EVERY witness that NOTHING was going to be confidential or classified so the point of having the hearings in that room was nothing more than complete control.

Third....NO witnesses were allowed to be called by Republicans...all of them were rejected by Schiff when the list was submitted to him...again, nothing but control. AND many questions by Republicans were stopped by Schiff by suspension or outright telling the witnesses not to answer.

Fourth...There were only a small handful of Republicans in the room....although there are many Dems and Republicans that sit on BOTH the Intel and Judicial Committees and should have been allowed to sit in on the testimonies given, Republicans on the Judicial Committee were banned while Dems were allowed in.

A few of the testimonies were leaked by Dems but Republican were explicitly told ahead of time that if any of them leaked anything, they were going to be charged with obstruction of justice....and that they would get written transcripts of the testimonies but some have still not been given to them.

The President's legal team/advisors were NOT allowed to be in the SCIF or at the couple of public hearings held by Schiff either so he had NO representation and could not question the witnesses.

Dems wanted complete control over the narrative for the media and changed most of the impeachment rules used previously in order to have that control.

Dems in the House sent letters to witnesses (not subpoenas) telling them that if they fail to appear, they would be charged with obstruction and threatened government employees that didn't cooperate and who brought counsel with them or used executive privilege with having their pay withheld. The President was not allowed to call witnesses, see testimony statements and/or evidence, or have counsel at hearings ...these are basic procedure protections. Dems rejected Republican subpoenas for witnesses they wanted to call and NONE were called to testify. Nadler also denied Republicans the right to call Adam Schiff to testify in the Judiciary hearings even though they (the Dems) were reading from Schiff's report numerous times. Instead one of Schiff's staff counsel came to testify about it contrary to proper procedure from past cases of impeachment where Ken Starr testified about his report against Clinton and Mueller testifying regarding his own report. (I assume Schiff was too afraid to answer anything under oath because he lied so often while chairing his own hearings and has made many lying public statements.)

REFirst...it was highly unusual to have the Intel Committee headed up by Schiff to preside over impeachment investigative depositions rather than the Judiciary Committee...that decision was made between Pelosi and Schiff because

Because it is THEIR right?

RE:Schiff made it a point to announce before EACH and EVERY witness that NOTHING was going to be confidential or classified so the point of having the hearings in that room was nothing more than complete control.

Don't YOU mean NOTHING was going to considered confidential or classified when it comes to testifying. In other words, a witness can't use the "I can't talk about it defense, because it's classified". Lay everything out on the table, let's see what ya' got. The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Third....NO witnesses were allowed to be called by Republicans...all of them were rejected by Schiff when the list was submitted to him...again, nothing but control.

WHERE would anyone pick up THAT habit? Some reject, others ORDER people to disregard subpoenas.

RE:The President's legal team/advisors were NOT allowed to be in the SCIF or at the couple of public hearings held by Schiff either so he had NO representation and could not question the witnesses.

he had NO representation?.....I thought there were republicans "in the room".....they weren't/couldn't/didn't represent HIM? I thought Republicans were HIS "hand puppets".

RE: Dems wanted complete control over the narrative for the media and changed most of the impeachment rules used previously in order to have that control.

Unlike DJT? Don't respond to that subpoena!!! YES, Boss

Some control the media(FOX NEWS)...others control the witnesses?

First...it was highly unusual to have the Intel Committee headed up by Schiff to preside over impeachment investigative depositions rather than the Judiciary Committee...

Just heard that Moscow Mitch is going to
confer with Trump's lawyers on how the "other side" will handle impeachment.

here it is

McConnell and White House counsel agree to coordinate impeachment trial plans

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and President Donald Trump's top lawyer sketched out a plan Thursday to coordinate closely for an impeachment trial but haven't reached agreement on a final strategy to defend Trump against charges of high crimes and misdemeanors, according to two sources familiar with the conversation.

The closed-door meeting Thursday between the Kentucky Republican and White House counsel Pat Cipollone occurred as Senate Republicans and the White House have diverged on what they would like to see take place in the looming trial in the chamber. Trump has made clear he wants witnesses to testify, in person, while senators -- including McConnell in private -- have warned that going down that path could lead to a politically precarious slippery slope in the GOP effort to acquit the President.

In this part of the world "cellar" is associated with "root cellar".

We don't have cellar dwellers, we have people that live in basement apartments.

that after accusing Trump of many 'crimes' over the last three years and after not being allowed by Schiff to have any witnesses or counsel on his behalf to argue HIS side of their crap accusations, that he would want to have the opportunity to defend himself and his actions, JP. How would you like to be railroaded by a one sided persecution (or prosecution) and not be able to be represented or have witnesses testify on your behalf or have the witnesses only the prosecutor put on display be told by the prosecutor that they don't have to answer questions?

The discussions going on between Mitch and the WH relate to dismissing the charges because they are illegitimate and not give this crap any more than what they've already gotten or drag it out by calling witnesses forcing a few of the 2020 Dem candidates to not be able to campaign because they would have to be there for the trial. There would be two outcomes...both ending the same...in the Senate. Dismissal and go on with Senate business of more judicial judge seated or outright acquittal and force the Dems to lose to Republican votes there and make the Dems own what they created.

Neither of the 'charges' of impeachment are anywhere in the Constitution....there are no 'crimes' mentioned in the two articles they are going to vote on this morning. This is the slippery slope that Dems should be very afraid of going down....ALL future Presidents, including a Dem one, will be entirely ruled by the majority in the House after this just to harass the hell out of him/her from now on and try to prevent that President from going about the agenda he/she was elected to do. Tossing half the country's vote out is unAmerican and totally goes against everything the Constitution was written for. This is going to end badly for the Dems and the horrible part about it is that they don't care that they have destroyed the credibility of their party. Warren, Sanders, and AOC must be so happy because it makes way for their Socialist party to replace them.

When someone that is supposedly "not being allowed " to present witnesses tells/orders individuals that others consider to be "witnesses" to disregard a subpoena, it makes it very difficult to have any sympathy for Individual 1.

DJT wants the truth to be out there?

Yet HE orders individuals that were directly involved into the circumstances under investigation to disregard a subpoena.

Since DJT thinks HE did nothing wrong....let everyone testify....Remove the Presidential Gag Order

Any bets that not ONE the insiders actually testify....even the ones that DJT told not to obey the subpoenas?

IF I did nothing wrong and everyone I associate with knows it.....I would want them blabbing their mouths off , especially under oath.

about how Schiff demanded that EMPLOYEES of the Government that HE subpoenaed could NOT bring counsel or not show up would be 1. charged with obstruction and/or 2. lose their paychecks? They didn't show and he did NOTHING. ALL of them held Executive Privilege rights and he knew it because ALL of them hold high enough clearance levels that had direct contact with Trump. Would YOU let your 'wife' be deposed under oath without benefit of counsel over private conversations she/he had with YOU? Not hardly. Also...BOLTON, one of those witnesses Schiff subpoenaed had ALREADY taken the case to a JUDGE to determine if he had to show up and Schiff didn't wait around for that judge to decide and did NOTHING. THAT is normal procedure regarding high level government officials and Schiff knew it and also knew that more than likely that judge would rule against his subpoena, which is why he did NOTHING about the rest of them.

"any bets that not ONE of the insiders actually testify".....it's too late for that in the House because the Dems/Nadler's time table to get this done before Christmas as a gift to their extreme left base won't allow for waiting for a judge to decide it, which is why NADLER never issued subpoenas for the TWO hearings he had this week...he knew they would be fought in court.

IF the Senate decides to dismiss, NO witnesses will testify....not even SCHIFF who lied constantly or the FAKE/PHONY 'whistleblower' who had nothing but hearsay second/third/fourth hand and got it all wrong anyhow because hearsay isn't legal testimony, AND who colluded with Schiff and had some counsel in Schiff's office draft his infamous 'memo' in legalize.

Face it....you guys lost and Trump wins again no matter what happens in the Senate now....and the Dems will lose the House in rapid fashion.

WINS????

How so?...by being impeached?

HE was already "going down in history"...HE didn't need to add impeachment to his résumé.

Like the man with an orange face needs more egg on his face?

You think HE really wanted to be on the list of Presidents that were impeached?

I can see being the FIRST to be impeached...THAT deserves SOME recognition. HE is a member of a select group....

HE didn't even want to be on the list of people that trash talked Greta Thunberg

His tweet was disappeared....who disappeared it, we don't know.

Unless DJT actually does shoot somebody (as HE claimed HE could do) and gets away with it, HE will go down in history as an American President that was impeached.....nothing more....nothing less.

Perhaps HE will shoot somebody and distract people from the fact HE was impeached.

HIS eulogy has been written.

I didn't think you would respond to the unfair tactics used against not only the President, but a US citizen, in their kangaroo court. As for his eulogy....after looking honestly at all of the achievements he's managed to accumulate in three years and still more to come (England/Brexit trading coming and the pending China deal announced yesterday for example), he will be known as the most successful President in history in such a short amount of time, IN SPITE OF THE CRAP THROWN AT HIM BY THE DEMS.

Just remember, as an illegal alien, the Dems are giving them MORE representation and justice in our courts than what they are affording the leader of the free country. They claim 'nobody is above the law'.....and yet all three of them (Pelosi, Nadler, and Schiff) represent sanctuary cities where they IGNORE Federal law every day. AND they've listed NO laws that the President has broken....they just don't agree with his policies so impeachment is their answer for that.

For your benefit:
Mark Pollot, J.D. from University of San Diego School of Law (1986)
Answered Aug 27, 2018 · Author has 266 answers and 25.8k answer views


There have only been two presidential impeachments in American history. Both failed, so the question has never been put to the test, but it certainly seems that an impeached President who has been convicted can appeal not the indictment, but the conviction. Note that an impeachment is the equivalent of a crminal Indictment. The issuance of Artcles of Impeachment is followed by a trial (not a hearing) in the senate which must be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, just as an indicted defendant must be tried by a jury of his or her peers and is presided over by a trial court judge. Both the members of a jury in a criminal case before a federal judge and the Senators in a trial on impeachment must take an oath to follow the law and constitution of the United States, etc..
The Constitution specifically. states that a President may be impeached and convicted for treason (which requires the testimony of two independent witnesss to the same overt act of treason (and treason has a specific, non-John Brennan definition), bribery and other “high crimes and misdemeanors” occurring in office. The President, like members of Congress and judges, has a qualified immunity from prosecution for acts specifically authorized by the Consitution (and no, his state of mind or motivation cannot be taken into account). Not withstanding arguments to the contrary, as can be seen, impeachment is a legal process, with the House acting as a grand jury, though not in secret, and the Senate acting as a petit jury, not a political process. Why does the Constitution mandate that, not only a judge, but the highest judge in the country preside over the trial except to make legal rulings and to keep the trial within legal bounds?
One of the first things a defendant often does, through his or her counsel, is to make a motion to the judge to dismiss any count of an indictment/article of impeachment that fails to charge a prosecutable crime (meaning an alleged crime for which no statute exists or, in the case of an impeachment, that is not one of the crimes specified in the Constitution). There is no federal common law and therefore all federal crimes must be defined by statute or listed among the those specified in the Constitution. The Chief Justice clearly would be obligated to rule on that motion. If he denies it the trial proceeds. If the President is acquitted there is no need for an appeal (acquittals may not be appealed unlike a civil verdict of non-liability). On the other hand, if the President is convicted, there is no logical reason he or she cannot appeal to the Supreme Court just as it can review any conviction on appeal for its constitutionality and following of proper procedure. Impeachment followed by trial is the ultimate legal proceeding though its aim is the removal of thevPresident from office if found guilty of at least one high crime or misdemeanor. (Driving without a license, for example, though a crime, is not a high crime or misdemeanor which could support impeachment.). Andrew Johnson, the first President to be impeached (and was acquitted) was impeached by the reconstruction era House of Representatives for firing a cabinet Secretary (sound familiar?) who was purportedly protected from firing by the Tenure of Offce Act, which Act was later found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Bill Clinton was impeached for suborning perjury, a crime, and was acquitted.
It would be odd indeed for the court not to review a conviction on trial after impeachment. (Democrats must think so, as well, no matter how much the might publically argue otherwise. This is one reason they have explicitly Caitlynn given for wanting to deny Mike Kavenaugh confirmation of his appointment to the Supreme Court.)

From YOUR link, and when I say "read" I mean think about

and the Senators in a trial on impeachment must take an oath to follow the law and constitution of the United States,

NO mention of coordinating the defense of the person being charged (Individual 1/White House Counsel) with "the JURY" (The Republicans and/OR the Democrats).

Since when does the Jury talk/coordinate with the defendant?

I have heard of the Jury asking the Judge to answer a question.

Moscow Mitch claims to coordinating with Individual 1/WH Counsel...any comment on HIS comment?

I didn't think so.

There are only two options.....outright dismissal and it's over with or having a trial with witnesses and testimonies by everyone, including Schiff, the phony 'whistleblower', Pelosi (who just stated that Dems have spent 2-1/2 years planning for impeachment), Nadler, et al, since this would be the first time Republican would have the ability to call witnesses without Schiff's interference. THOSE are the only two choices, and yes, Mitch would be talking with WH advisors to determine which way would be the best way to go since the first lets the Senate get back to work on behalf of the country or the second which brings the Senate to a grinding halt and accomplishes the exact same end result....acquittal for Trump.

Since you've heard of a Jury asking the Judge to answer a question, have you also heard of the Prosecutor, Jury, and Judge all being the same people/person? THAT's what you just saw happen with Schiff and Nadler with NO defense able to be presented. And you agree with those tactics? I figured, since it's all about getting rid of Trump for you no matter what means were used to justify the end. Unfortunately, it's not working out with the ending you want.

The ONLY reason to know the identity of the 'whistle blower' is for DJT to find out IF there is a rat in HIS administration.

IF a person is charged with arson you don't have to know the identity of the person that called the fire department, to convict the arsonist.

RE: have you also heard of the Prosecutor, Jury, and Judge all being the same people/person

Yes, his initials are DJT

'witnesses' that Schiff called that were stopped in their tracks by Schiff when they were asked by Reps WHO they had talked to, even though they admitted during testimony that they HAD talked to other people about the conversation. The fact that SOMEBODY leaked information about the phone call that they supposedly had been listening to ABSOLUTELY should be disclosed so THAT person could be prosecuted for leaking classified conversations the President has with others....JUST AS OBAMA PROSECUTED LEAKERS IN HIS OWN ADMINISTRATION.

And since at least TWO people under oath ADMITTED to talking with 'others' (including the 'whistleblower' evidently), it appears at this point that at least THOSE two people will be looked at by the WH for prosecution as leakers.

and Dem leaks about the whistleblower, he DID NOT have top security clearance, even if those who talked to him DID. That makes at least TWO who leaked classified information to a third/fourth party that wasn't in on that conversation, much the same way that Comey leaked a classified government document (his memos) about the meeting he had with Trump to a friend of his who then leaked it to the press for him. And eventually he will also be held to account for it.

The problem with your scenario of 'what's the problem if they all have the same security clearance' is that they still aren't authorized to reveal the conversation on their own to ANYBODY....

The people ON the call CAN talk to someone....the IG....if they have concerns. They just aren't allowed to talk to Congress or ANYBODY else about it or it's considered to be LEAKING and they can be and should be prosecuted for it.  The ONLY people who can be considered to be a legitimate whistleblower are the ones with FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE.

Did YOU see what you just did there?  Evidently not....

about reporting directly to the IG and NOT talking to ANYBODY else, you would see that the post you just replied to is the SECOND or THIRD time I've stated that. Those who listened in on the call IF they were concerned should have gone THEMSELVES directly to the IG....NOT told OTHERS who eventually repeated it to OTHERS. That's a game of 'telephone' we learned as kids and the end result is NOTHING like what it started out as, and it's exactly what happened here. The 'whistleblower' had INCORRECT and UNFACTUAL information given to SCHIFF before going to the IG WITH AN ATTORNEY....all based on 2-3-4 times over garbage passed along that telephone chain. THAT is NOT a true 'whistleblower' and the RULES had to be changed by SCHIFF to include 2-3-4 times SECOND HAND KNOWLEDGE not the REQUIRED FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE that ONLY those in on the call HAD.

Why do you think NONE of THOSE people complained to the IG on their own? Because just like the warrant taken to the FISA court, they believed they could get away with their crap and keep their jobs, even though those jobs would have legally been protected by the Whistleblower Act. Everything done was done against all normal protocols.

And, as long as there is hope that Trump will be gone, you are just fine with any rules and laws that are broken by the Dems and never Trumpers…...so accusing him of 'crimes' that Dems ARE actually doing instead is OK by you.

Anything 'credible' about this crap is coming from somebody who had NO first hand knowledge, so if I say your neighbor's wife was told by a second cousin that you've been beating your wife, although your WIFE says it never happened, and the cops show up and arrest you, and drag you into court to try and prove you are innocent (which is backwards to our laws), that ALLEGED crime is all that's needed to convict you. NOBODY living with you made the complaint....it was just a rumor made up and passed along....but you're still in jail trying to figure out how to prove you didn't do anything wrong because they won't take your wife's word for it.

Good luck with THAT crap, too, JP

the fact that witnesses that Republicans WANTED to call in defense of Trump's conversation were DISALLOWED and REJECTED by Schiff because they weren't the ones SCHIFF wanted to testify. A prosecution against you would never have the ability to stop YOUR witnesses from coming and testifying, JP, in a court of law. BUT CONGRESS is NOT a court of law and rejecting their subpoenas is within Trump's authority to do so, and the ONLY recourse for Congress is to take that to a REAL COURT and challenge it and let the COURT decide the outcome. They didn't do that and instead, based on 'urgency' charged him with 'obstruction of Congress' which is NOT a chargeable offense for impeachment in the Constitution.

You are also ignoring the fact that in OUR court system, you DO NOT have to prove you are innocent....the PROSECUTION HAS TO PROVE YOU ARE GUILTY, and Schiff and Nadler failed to do that. Why do you think Schumer is now 'demanding' MORE witnesses in the Senate? Because the House failed miserably....and McConnell is right. It's NOT the Senate's job to finish the House's homework for them.

You don't have to "prove" you are innocent, BUT it helps to put YOUR slant on any disputed evidence(IF there is any) out there to help the jury make a fair(in YOUR opinion/favor) decision.

No need to mount a defense?

Kinda' makes the job of a "Defense Attorney" redundant doesn't it?