sensitive classified information", would that stop Bolton's publisher from releasing it?

Could the NSC "redact" enough of the book's text to make it useless and meaningless?

I'll go on record now as someone who would contribute generously to any leaker's defense fund.

"Who will rid me of this meddlesome Democrat?"

Sound sorta familiar?

declassify information, to replace an ambassador or to claim executive privilege---all seem to have one "however". These cannot be used for a "corrupt purpose" or to "conceal criminality of the POTUS".

Why does the same exception not apply to the pardon power?

Are we sure it doesn't or has it never been challenged?

According to one rumor( which I'm starting with this post ), he's recovering from surgery. He's had silicone implants inserted over both kneecaps so he won't have to be bothered with those damn kneepads---on, off, on, off, on---------he's a busy man!

You may have heard someone ask---quite reasonably--- "Why can't the Congressional Republicans just admit they made a big mistake in supporting Trump and get rid of him so we can move on as a nation?"

This is similar, in my mind, to the occasional news story we see about a driver who, when a LEO attempted to pull them over for a minor traffic offense, sped away and eventually, after miles of high-speed chase and a shootout, was arrested for multiple felonies. His trunk, you see, was filled with either multiple duffel bags of hundred dollar bill's or dead bodies.

It wasn't the speeding ticket that they were running from; it was what they knew was in the trunk.

Mr. McConnell, Mr. Graham, Mr. Cotton---the others who continue to run from the truth about Trump---what's in your trunk?

we're just wondering about your price. "

subpoena any witness who can provide RELEVANT evidence, with that relevancy determination to be made by CJ Roberts in open session? It seems to me this would rule out the Bidens and open up Bolton, Mulvaney, Pompeo, etc.

Merriam-Webster defines "relevant" as: a.) "having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand"; b.) "affording evidence tending to prove or disprove the matter at issue or under discussion."

I am not aware of any information either Biden could provide that would be legitimately relevant to either Article of Impeachment.

This would not have us "trading" witnesses and would not even require that any proposed witness be named. I'd love to hear a Republican justify turning down such an offer.

Addendum: I STRONGLY oppose any trade of either Biden or Obama or any other irrelevant witnesses, whether it is "one for one" or "one for ten".

you may have with anyone who calls him a "respected attorney".

A Doberman!

of evidence presented by the House Managers?

So far, the GOP "defense" amounts to "YADA, YADA, YADA!" Starr's presentation would have to get a lot better to even rate just "irrelevant twaddle".