I have to wonder at the title for this article. How could Karlan testify about something that she and the other 'witnesses' did not witness nor have personal knowledge of? I watched the so-called hearings yesterday and they were a joke. For something that is supposed to be a slam-dunk with 'irrefutable' evidence of misconduct by the President, why did the Democrats feel the need to stack the deck 3 to 1? Why did they choose the date for a time when they knew the President would be out of the country for a NATO Summit, then blame HIM for not being there to testify? It also did not help that Karlan, on more than one occasion, showed her contempt for the President and his family, and even took a cheap shot at his son Baron! She later offered a lame apology in which she again attacked the President.

With regard to Biden, he openly bragged on tape that he engaged in the very same "quid-pro-quo' that seems to be extremely upsetting to the Democrats, and those same Democrats now want to impeach the President for asking about the company that even President Obama wanted to investigate for corruption? Doesn't pass the smell test.

Despite how the newspapers and tv news try to blur and/or outright lie about what the President said. Everyone knows that he never asked Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, he asked for them to investigate Burisma and the Previous Ukraine administrations interference in the 2016 election as documented by the New York Times and Politico among others. It's actually amazing how many countries were involved in interfering with th e2016 election; England, Italy, Australia, Russia, and Ukraine, not one of which was supporting soon to be President Trump.

Getting back to Karlan's statements though, it's obvious that she merely parroted what she heard or wanted to believe was true rather than verifying the facts for herself. The 'favor' the President asked for was to get information to resolve the question about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. He said ' the country has been through a lot". Meaning that hwe was concerned about the continued rumors and lies that are continuing to tear the country apart. But as we have seen, there is nothing that the Ukrainians could say, do, or provide that would convince the Democrats or a media that is determined to destroy President Trump. The Ukrainian President has denied several times that he was subjected to or felt any pressure from President Trump and the transcript of the phone call proves it, but we still are subjected to the impeachment theatre of the absurd.

Let's face it, the press and the Democrats have been talking about impeaching the President since BEFORE he even won the Republican nomination! First they wanted the results thrown out in the states that 'flipped'. Then they wanted the Electoral college to change the rules and vote for Hillary instead. Then it was 2 years of the fake Russia collusion hoax. Now it's Ukraine. At no point have the media or the Democrats accepted that THEY LOST. They objective now is to muddy and dirty up Trump as much as possible in order to keep him from being re-elected since they know they have no prayer of getting him removed from office after they enact their pre-determined impeachment vote.

It's really a shame to see people who are law professors at some of the most esteemed colleges in the country, being used to try to prop up a constitutional argument that if upheld, would weaken future Presidencies so much as to make the President no more than a figurehead that serves at the pleasure of whichever party controls the house. That is something I don't think EITHER party really wants.


Jim Neal
Modesto, Ca
(Formerly Old Mountain View)

(Note: All of the above statements reflect my personal opinions)

Sure, if only Trump had not been in Europe, he would have testified on DAY ONE. But now that we are beyond day one, Trump and has chumps will say it is somehow too late. Perhaps something like: "you have already shown you will not be fair."

The expert witnesses could properly give not just legal advice about the law but also an opinion of the evidence currently in the written record. That record is wide open. All of the President's Men should testify - none will. We understand perfectly.

"How could Karlan testify about something that she and the other 'witnesses' did not witness nor have personal knowledge of? "

That's why there are two defined categories of witnesses: fact witnesses and expert witnesses. As somewhat outlined by Gary, above.

"it's obvious that she merely parroted"

No, she studied previous testimony, something a number of people/posters have not yet done. She referenced that factual testimony with her expertise in constitutional law.

"Everyone knows that he never asked Ukraine to investigate the Bidens"

Au contrere. See the testimony mentioned above, as well as video and written records of the president's own words.

Let me make this Public Confession / as a lifelong registered Republican I belong to a now-stupid political party. So my reply to Leonard Pitts Jr. (Miami Herald) "Open Letter'" is to call not only for an impeachment of President Trump by the US House of Representatives, but his removal from office by the US Senate. I was not in the country when Nixon was undergoing impeachment / but at that time Republican Senator Howard Baker eventually expressed the thoughts of a responsible and thoughtful citizen of this Republic.
In January I will probably be going to DC, so I can walk around 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, whistle around my neck, and join in whistleblowing with whoever that darn "whistleblower" was. God bless the Republic and those whose loyalty is to democratic government under The Constitution and not to "The Donald".

Thanks, Jim Neal. Even though you have moved, I'm happy to hear your reasonable voice again.

This "investigation" is sham. Schiff made up his own version of the phone call and people didn't even bother to read the actual transcript, yet President Trump is wrong and Schiff is some sort of hero. Ridiculous.

Prof Kaplan is an embarrassment to her profession. She has backed Democrats and openly admits it, yet reporters (and those posting here) act as if she is unbiased. Again, ridiculous.

Real evidence and actual proof mean nothing in this process and yet Nancy Pelosi has the gall to say that she is going forward not because she is partisan, but because she values the Constitution. Preposterous.

Please get this to the Senate so that we can have an evaluation of the FACTS. I am sick of the parade of hurt feelings of those who can't tolerate the Constitution as written and prefer to silence those with whom they don't agree.

"Prof Kaplan is an embarrassment to her profession/ those who can't tolerate the Constitution as written"

How did the law professor misrepresent the Constitution or any of the factual evidence provided thus far to Congress?


***


"people didn't even bother to read the actual transcript"

You and I have not seen the "actual transcript." The call report released is only a part of the conversation, it is clearly and obviously not a complete transcript. As the actual call report clearly states:

“The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty Officers and NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place,... A number of factors can affect the accuracy of the record, including poor telecommunications connections and variations in accent and/or interpretation.”

Note the number of ellipses used in the call report, highlighting that a significant amount of the call is not reported.

For example: here's a critical line from the section about Biden, Trump says: “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me.”

Those ellipses are the White House’s entry. Perhaps they denote a pause; it’s quite possible they denote that Trump said something in between those two sentences that the White House would rather not reveal.

Your statement was: "people didn't even bother to read the actual transcript"

Did you the call report? What do *you* think was held back by only partially reporting on the call?


***


“I would like you to do us a favor though.”

Please note that Trumps statement is a lie: “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution"

As previous testimony shows, this did not happen.

Anyone who reads a police report or a transcript of testimony will get an impression of what happened. Prosecutors charge suspects every day based on what they have read. The House will indict - impeach - President Trump based on the materials and live testimony, if any, House members choose to consider. The Senate will then run a different process of its choosing. Hunter Biden, for example, will be given a Senate subpoena to attend and testify. He might refuse to answer on the ground that answers to particular questions might tend to incriminate him. That would finish off Joe Biden's bid for the Presidency. Stay tuned. Should be great. In the end, I am predicting that Trump will not be re-selected (by the electoral college) and will resign just before his term expires in January 2021 to receive a broad pardon from President Pence.

@Jim Neal

1. We still do not have the full un-redacted Mueller report -Obstruction of Justice
2. Trump is refusing to let his team testify -Obstruction of Justice
3. trump Made up lies about Ukraine-false narrative- Lying to the American People
4. Won't show taxes- emoluments clause
5.Congress is a co-equal branch of government and has constitutional duties and responsibilities to oversee the executive office
6. Tweeting about witnesses- Witness Intimidation
[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

We do not have the full un-redacted Mueller report because we are not entitled to it. It's truly amazing to me that people seem to forget about executive privilege only when Republicans are President. However, in this case there is not only executive privilege involved, but Grand Jury testimony which CONGRESS has specifically barred from being made public, but now complains about not getting.

Obama also refused to let members of his Administration testify before Congress as was his right. You see, in our Constitution we have something called "Separation Of Powers" and 'Co-Equal" branches of Government". That means that no one branch is superior to any of the others. When Congress tells the President to jump, he doesn't have to ask 'How high?". He can refuse. Congress can then go to the Court to ask that the matter be resolved. The problem with the Democrats in Congress now is that they think the President is subservient to their will and has no choice but to do what they say. Maybe they should read the Constitution again.

What lies did the President make up about the Ukraine? A few examples would be nice to go with the accusation.

LOL, the emoluments clause has absolutely nothing to do with tax returns! There wasn't even an IRS when the Constitution was written! If Congress wants Tax Returns to be part of the requirements to be President, then they need to propose and pass a Constitutional Amendment, otherwise; any candidate or President can tell them to go pound sand. For Congress to ask the President for his tax returns is also an exercise in stupidity as he was incredibly wealthy BEFORE he became President. Let's face it, the only reason they want his tax returns is so they can do opposition research for the next election, and the President is in no way obligated to just roll over and let them.

Yes, Congress IS Co-equal as I said earlier. But if you already know that, then why do you think co-equal means that the President has to do everything the Democrats tell him to do and turn over privileged information?

LOL! Seriously? Tweets are now witness intimidation? Good grief! The 'witness' would not have known anything about it if Adam Schiff hadn't breathlessly read the tweet DURING her testimony. Now if Trump had messaged her directly on her phone, or sent someone into the chamber to menace her, I might agree, but this talking point is simply ridiculous. The President tweets all the time and so far, no one seems to be wetting themselves or shaking in their boots when he does so.

Keep trying though!


Jim Neal
Modesto, Ca
(Formerly Old Mountain View)

Jim: Tweets are now witness intimidation? ... The President tweets all the time and so far, no one seems to be wetting themselves

Oh?

The Washington Times told us in 2017: President Trump’s Twitter posts are official statements.