Of course, it does. It has to approve the expenditure, including on foreign relations. Further, it has the power to impeach if POTUS is going bananas and is using 'foreign relations' to feather his own personal political electioneering nest.
You know how many jury trials turn, every day, on the "perceived possible motives" of the defendant? Any guess how many juries return a guilty verdict, every single day, despite the defendant remaining silent or repeatedly declaring that their motives were innocent?
Generally motivation is more of a factor in sentencing and not guilt or innocence, with the exception of hate crime legislation - which I am totally against. In this case we are to assume that some missiles were mentioned and there was no hold up on their funding and the supposed victim says he felt no pressure. We are supposed to leap to the conclusion that because there was a temporary delay on other funding that somehow our president was sending a message that there was some kind of possible implied contingency. Seriously this is the basis for impeachment? This just seems so frikin' lame. This comes across as an impeachment in search of a crime.
I can simplify your search. Trump abused his power when he sought campaign assistance from a foreign government in the form of an investigation against his domestic political rival while he simultaneously and unilaterally held up hundreds of millions in military aid, a requested meeting, and a restoration of trade rights. Trump then obstructed justice when he sought to hide, lie about, and ordered the non-cooperation from every current and former employee. And motivation is simply another term to describe intent. And there are dozens, if not hundreds, of crimes that require a certain type of intent.
So you should hold the evaluation of whether trump committed an impeachable offense to a less strict standard.
If trump had evidence that Biden was involved in criminal activity, he would not have personally needed to get involved, let alone have needed to apply pressure on the foreign government to announce the investigation.
You can impeach all you want. You won't get a conviction and you'll be viewed as partisan crybabies, still.
All Trump wanted was for Zelensky to announce that Ukraine was investigating the Bidens (whether it was or not is irrelevant) as that allows Trump to campain saying "Biden, Joe Biden, that bloke who President Zelensky announced is being investigated by Ukraine, where there is the most corruption on the Planet!"
Trump wanted to know what happened in the 2016 elections: I'm sick of our country dumping billions down the rabbit holes of corrupt countries. Ukraine is about as corrupt as they come. Glad we have a prez that at least wants to see some indication of action on their corruption before once again backing up the Brinks truck.
Joe Biden is among many 'domestic political rivals'. Does that mean that they should not be investigated for corruption, especially when that corruption is on video? If a political candidate cannot be investigated for corruption, why should a President?
So what? Everyone knows it means nothing and will not effect the outcome of the 2020 election. The Democratic candidates not named Biden are the ones who will benefit.
there were no 'police' that caught 'him' red handed... ergo, the analogy sucks and is blatantly biased to fit someone's agenda
I grow weary of this talking point. No one has ever suggested that Biden is immune from investigation. Full stop. If you, as a political official, have evidence - like a two year old video - that should be the basis for a corruption investigation against Biden or any other political candidate, then go to the appropriate investigative agency and let them do their job. If you, as a political official, are asking a foreign government to provide campaign assistance in the form of an investigation against your domestic political rival, especially if you do so while simultaneously and unilaterally holding up hundreds of millions in military aid, a requested meeting, and a restoration of trade rights, then your behavior is improper and an abuse of power.
So......been golfing this morning and then watched a replay of Morrison/Volker. I have also watched the previous two days. Now, I know there are plenty here who put ***** on Schiff. I know nothing about the bloke other than he is obviously a senior Democrat in Congress. To get to the point....I am impressed with the way he has chaired these proceedings, and his calm delivery, as opposed to the stuff of the theatrical Jordon et al. I saw nothing today which made me move to any concluded view, but will admit, that Volker and Mossison were being cute in their terminology, adoption of what are obviously euphemisms. The other thing is this. Why has no-one (I have seen) asked what, among all the corruption which Ukraine is renowned for, made Burisma stand out for specific attention? What distinguished it from all the other corruption Trump might have wanted Zelensky to announce an investigation in to. The obvious answer is......Biden. Down Here, that sticks out like dog balls.