So if there is probable cause of a crime but it being investigated and people charged might benefit a politician it cannot be investigated? Or how about the China trade deal, signing that would benefit Trump, and there are lots of quid pro quos involved. A President cannot negotiated such deals because it would benefit them?
What if done to protect the taxpayer dollar from falling into corrupt hands in the third most corrupt country in the world?
Yet still resulted in numerous arrest of trump officials and dozens of charges plus tens of millions in seized property. Yeh, rumor...
Doesn't need to be for impeachment. If he's thrown out of office, then the standard of "proof beyond reasonable doubt" would apply to a criminal indictment. If Trump is eventually charged with extortion or bribery under the criminal statues in a criminal indictment, it will be utilizing the RICO statutes on organized crime.
Rudy Giuliani admitted to a reporter that he was meeting with Ukrainian officials BEFORE the phone call, about investigating the Bidens. if you recall from the transcript, there is a point in the call where President Zelensky says that he had already met with Giuliani. Ambassador Sondland testified that Trump directly ordered him to offer white house meetings to the Ukrainians in return for information on the Bidens.
I was referring to beyond a reasonable doubt as the legal standing. There is obviously reasonable doubt in this case so far.
"Legal standing," in terms of the federal rules of evidence, doe NOT apply in impeachment. [See page 112, in "The Federal Impeachment t Process," by Michael Gerhardt, 1996. Gerhardt is a constitutional law professor at UNC (or was at the time of his book).]
Changing a country's policies into what they feel is best, is the very definition of a personal advantage. Also, if a former VP were to have bribed a foreign official and Trump catches wind of it, is the suggestion to ignore it because the corrupt individual is running for office? No, quite the contrary that's when you should speak up more.
You may think that. The founders, who wrote the Constitution didn't. I suspect the articles of impeachment will reference behavior on the part of the President subsequent to the last election, which occurred since he has been in office. The seriousness of the process is reflected in the super majority required, in the Senate, for conviction; the same 2/3rds majority required by both chambers to overcome a Presidential veto.
Illegal according to what law? So it wouldn't benefit the country if an investigation revealed corruption by Biden?
Are you under the impression that the Biden corruption theory centers around the conditional aid that he was managing as Vice President?
How do you know that announcing it is ALL that Trump wanted? How do you know that he didn't want an actual investigation to happen?
Law, what law? The president doesn't have to break any laws to get impeached. Haven't you been keeping up?
True. However, impeaching is one thing, but actually removing him from office is another, if there was no law broke. It is like they say. They can impeach a ham sandwich.