Lets talk quid pro quo

And that seriousness should be mirrored by the quality of the evidence allowed.

 

Of course! An inquiry is part of the process of Impeachment.

 

Not illegal to 'criminal law' but illegal under the portion of the Constitution pertaining to impeachment.

 

There does not have to be any 'criminal laws' broken to be impeached and there does not have to be any 'criminal laws' broken to be thrown out of office.

 

I am not talking about what is a remote possibility. I am talking about what will happen.

 

Why don't you write Chief Justice John Roberts, who will be presiding over the Senate "trial" and tell him how you want it done?

 

So. Before they complete the investigation, they are impeaching. Doesn't surprise me in the least.

 

We'll just have to wait and see won't we?

 

I think the Democrats have greatly exaggerated the case against Trump and the quality of the evidence against him.

I'd expect a vote in the Senate mostly along party lines with a few democratic cross overs. Leading to the acquittal of the President.

 

How do you deal with the prospect that he may have violated the Impound Control Act? Do you believe the President is free to violate U.S. law?

 

So you have hearsay from a reporter.

Sondland said no such thing. When he was pressed to answer, he said no one told him those things, he only "presumed" it. In other words, Sondlaand speculated, made assumptions and presumed they were what Trumps policy was.

Even if Trump or someone connected with him was trying to learn the details of what took place, when Biden blackmailed Ukraine, it's still not a crime.

 

I am not about to convict Trump based upon hearsay, rumors, gossip or conjecture. Only a lynch mob convicts a man with hearsay and conjecture

 

Don't be ignorant, the Mueller probe found that not one single American citizen colluded with any Russians. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant

 

Guess who’s opinion doesn't matter to the house which is in charge of impeachment?

Yours!

 

That’s why it was an investigation on russian interference.
Which was found to have occoured.
While the collusion was not directly proven — the number of people arrested for lying in an official investigation shows something was not legitimate

 

They will if the Senate votes to use them in it's proceedings.

 

Bit a pretty good idea that it be the basis of an impeachment and not just a policy disagreement.

 

Please explain...

 

Impeachment is a political process, so why would they change its intent by limiting it to the standards of criminal justice?

 

What don't you understand...you may google the Impound Control Act, which requires the President to notify Congress before he withholds a Congressional appropriation and give them "cause," which was never done. The question regarding whether or not you believe the President is above the law is pretty self-explanatory.

 

Do you ever put more than two seconds of thought into your threads?

Bernie and Warren don't stand to gain personally from their quid pro quo. They are acting in what they perceive to be the best interests of the United States. Trump stood to personally gain from extorting Ukraine into investigating Biden.

 

Trump's chief of staff admitted the military aid was withheld until Zenlensky announced he was going to investigate. That was also a requirement for Zelensky to get an invitation to the White House. That is exactly what Mulvaney said.

The Hill writes, "Each side is trying to make the case that public opinion is trending in their favor — but there is little evidence either way.

"There was a measurable rise in pro-impeachment sentiment around the time that Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky became public in late September.

"In that call, Trump prodded Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, as well as a conspiracy theory relating to purported Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 presidential election."

This is what many cannot understand. It seems today that many Americans have forgotten that in that phone call Trump asked for foreign intervention in our Presidential election and used bribery as a motivational tool. Both are impeachable offenses.

Republicans, on the other hand, completely ignore the gravity of the charges and think that what Trump did was not impeachable when it clearly is.

The Hill continued, "All of the drama since then — high-profile hearings on Capitol Hill and counterblasts from the president’s Twitter account and his political and media allies — has not shifted the ground appreciably.

"A CNN/SSRS poll released Tuesday showed exactly the same split as the previous month on the question of whether Trump should be impeached and removed from office. Fifty percent of U.S. adults surveyed were in favor of his removal, 43 percent were against — the same as in late October."

In other words about half of all Americans think that the President asking for foreign interference in our elections and using bribery is okay. They don't care about the horrible precedent being set. It is difficult to understand that reasoning.

 

Try stupidity.

 

as I understand it he released the aide within the congressional time frame

 

No. You are confusing the rule on spending a Congressional appropriation within the same government fiscal year as it is appropriated with the Impoundment Control Act, which requires the President to process the appropriation without delay, unless the administration notifies Congress of the intention to delay funding and provides cause. The Congress then has 45 days in which to either agree or disagree. If Congress does nothing, the funding must proceed.
The administration never notified Congress of the "cause" of the withholding. The legality of the withholding was still being questioned by federal agencies involved, at the time of the Whistle Blower's report, which was followed by a letter from Congress to the White House requesting more information regarding the July 25th tel-con with Zelenskiy. That letter, dated September 9th, was followed by the release of funds, followed by the Trump-Zelenskiy meeting at the U.S. in late September.
The government fiscal year runs from October 1st of one year to September 30th of the following year. IMO, the WH always knew that they could not delay funding beyond September 30th, because that would have required them to return to Congress for a new appropriation for FY2020. They had roughly 4 months (June-September) to create enough pressure on the new Ukrainian President to get him to publicly announce investigations into Crowdstrike and Biden. Why did they miss the Impoundment Control Act? Probably simply shear incompetence and when it was brought up, they simply tried to bluff it through, hoping to get the investigation announcement from Zelenskiy before the September 30th date.