Impeachment does NOT require a crime

If you want to garnish over 66 votes in the Senate it has to be a criminal act that doesn't depend on a simple subjective opinion.

That is exactly why the House Democrats have such a weak case. It is all based on worse case scenario assumptions while at the same time they are ignoring and/or covering for Democrat corruption.

Yovanovitch admitted that the State Department prepped her on how to skirt the Biden/Burisma issues. That, in and of itself, has been the most compelling smoking gun in the whole House inquiry...but totally ignored by the Dems. I repeat, totally ignored by the Dems !

 

Or.... President Trump asked for help with Crowdstrike and complied with the US-Ukraine Treaty after hearing a Biden interview that provided, "probable cause," to investigate a shakedown.
Giuliani was establishing additional, "probable cause," prior to Joe even announcing his candidacy. Why? Because Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election.
And how about the money laundering that went through Latvia and Cyprus from money kicked back from the Koch-Glitsch deal involving Putin?

 

Trump was Impeached simply because the Democrats had more votes. Nothing valid in the Articles to provide any evidence of wrongdoing. Nothing !!

 

the House proved enough for Impeachment and Trump was impeached

not the Senate needs to prove enough for removal

two separate processes, will the Senate have a fair trial or will they do Trump a favor?

 

can't help if you believe the cult of Trump, Nunes appears to have dealings with Ukraine too, we need to get to the bottom of that

 

the FBI and the DOJ can do the investigating of political rivals, the President doesn't get to ask foreign governments to do it or refuse to give them money or interviews, that is an abuse of power

 

Trump was impeached because he was stupid and tried to bribe a foreign government into announcing an investigation into his political rival, Trump has no one to blame but himself

 

Yep, doesn't require a crime at all - all it requires is a deranged partisan majority in the House. Conviction will be another matter though.

 

Two ridiculous articles with zero proof. A partisan crap show in the House was a joke.

 

1. Trump empowered Giuliani to employ the help of various members of the US diplomatic contingent to Ukraine, and some who were not part of that contingent, to put pressure on Ukraine to announce an investigation in to Joe Biden. A campaign that began in the spring of 2019. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50492438
2. Leverage was used, at Trump's direction, as a means to get Ukraine to acquiesce to Trump's requests in the form of the withholding of military aid authorized by Congress.
"Clear direction from POTUS to continue hold."
https://www.justsecurity.org/67863/...ts-reveal-extent-of-pentagons-legal-concerns/
3. Resulting from the WB complaint, a summary of the transcript of the Zelensky call was released revealing Trump speaking to Zelensky about the investigations he wanted Ukraine to announce. A transcript WH officials tried to hide from other members of the government and the public by placing it in a code level secret server typically used for keeping national security matters secret. https://apnews.com/817c0c285bc9485d88608635e0fef3e3
4. Trump and Sondland were overheard discussing the efforts to get Ukraine to announce an investigation in to Biden.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/21/imp...ow-he-overheard-trump-call-with-sondland.html
5. Officials in the admin and the Pentagon expressed concern the hold was illegal.
https://publicintegrity.org/nationa...rried-ukraine-aid-halt-violated-spending-law/
A GAO analysis of the laws pertaining to the hold found it was, in their opinion, illegal.
6. Ukrainian officials asked about the aid on the day Trump called Zelensky when he said, "I need you to do us a favor though," prior to asking Ukraine to investigate Biden (and the server).
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/20/ukr...ump-zelenskiy-call-impeachment-testimony.html
7. Part time, acting Chief-of-Staff Mick Mulvaney publicly acknowledged the quid pro quo.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/17/poli...d-pro-quo-donald-trump-ukraine-aid/index.html
So did EU ambassador Sondland.
Sondland acknowledges Ukraine quid pro quo, implicates Trump, Pence, Pompeo and others
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...741e3c-0b92-11ea-8397-a955cd542d00_story.html
8. US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch was relieved of her post by Trump as a result of a smear campaign launched against her by Giuliani because she posed on obstacle to carrying out the scheme to extort Ukraine. https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/15/trump-yovanovitch-impeachment-070988
Lev Parnas recently stated her removal was directed as a payoff to get a Ukrainian official to produce dirt on Biden. https://slate.com/news-and-politics...risma-biden-dirt-fire-ukraine-ambassador.html
9. All of the 17 witnesses who testified during the House inquiry corroborate 1-8.
10. If any of the witnesses or documentary evidence Trump has blocked as part of his obstruction of the investigation can offer a refutation of the evidence above it is his prerogative to present it.
11. The solicitation of help in a US election from a foreign person or government is illegal.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...s-illegality-of-soliciting-campaign-help-from

 

Schiff made a telling observation when he said the Repubs couldn't find a constitutional scholar to defend their position about the necessity of the commission of a crime to justify impeachment. They had to use a defense lawyer for that.............like Crazy Al.........who changed his position.
https://www.newsweek.com/alan-dersh...not-needed-impeachment-1998-interview-1483025

Schiff also noted the attorney Repubs brought out to make the ludicrous claim President Skidmark's crimes don't rise to the level of being impeachable, Jonathan Turley, does not agree he can't be impeached for abuse of power cuz............he's a constitutional scholar and knows that argument is absurd.

 

On its best day, politics is a really dirty business.

 

~ Sadly I think everyone would agree on this .

 

There is not a single chance in all of hell that the Dems would accept any witness or document that would clear Trump's name. They would charge such witnesses with perjury.

 

Please direct me to where in the Constitution or anywhere else that states congress can demand or subpoena anything they want from the president of executive branch.

 

Well, I WAS going to lay out a case but I see it would be a wasted effort. You've already determined that your opinion is the only one that is right and anyone else is "lying". Including "any lawyer"...which means that you're going to ignore even those that have studied the law for years or decades more than you have in your armchair.

 

The House did not prove diddlysquat.

 

Yes, they tried to prove diddlysquat, but were only able to establish abuse of office and obstruction of Congress. This is a shame, because Bonespurs would be the first president impeached for diddlysquat.

 

Blah, blah, blah. Straight out of the old and tattered Dem playbook. More blah, blah, blah and a little yadda yadda yadda.

 

Name such a witness.

 

This reads like the initial WH "brief" in the Senate impeachment trial.

 

There is no such thing in any law as obstruction of congress by the executive branch.

 

Probably most if not all of the witnesses Schumer and the House Dems are demanding.

 

Yeah, the WH statements were also accurate.

 

Then why did the WH instruct those witnesses not to appear?