Read: Trump letter to Pelosi on impeachment

I agree with the President. We have no facts in finding on the assertion that he was motivated for the 2020 elections, nor do we have any evidence for a quid pro quo. This impeachment is a Nancy Pelosi temper tantrum. It's the case in point for losing the majority and thus taking the gavel away from her. She's irresponsible, dangerous and feckless with it.

 

Having no evidence is raping the intent of the Constitution. One wonders WHEN the collective Left abandoned their 1960s sensibilities and principles to embrace the very authoritarian abuses that they went to the wall back then to fight against. A 1960s activist would spit on the tofu of today's average 'The Ends Justifies the Means' leftist activist.

 

Cool.

Get back to me when the GOP Flips the House.

Anyway, Trump's Letter was a Complete Disgrace and a low point in the history of the American Presidency.

 

Hearsay and assumptions are not fact and the dems abandoned their bribery or quid pro quo. The first article is about a 'pattern of intent' and the second is the house deciding whether subpoena's are valid instead of the court deciding.

If they pass this it will be the first impeachment in history that does not include high crimes or misdemeanors.

 

You clearly didn’t read my post or failed to understand it. They have enough evidence to come to a conclusion as to what happened. They didn’t impeach prior to now because up to this point the evidence wasn’t there. Now, if you’d like to argue for the Senate calling in more fact witnesses, I’d fight that fight right along side you. I have a feeling that’s not what you want though. Can’t have that mutually assured destruction, right?

 

What's interesting that the more intelligent among these leftists know the validity of what you posted but they are now so entrenched in the mentality of 'The Ends Justifies the Means' that they are consequently condoning the rape of the INTENT of the impeachment clause.

 

They sent them subpoenas. It's not Pelosi's fault they didn't show up.

 

Please define “high crimes and misdemeanors”. I bet you cant. The framers intentionally left it ambiguous so as to leave decision to the House in the era in which they find themselves.

 

They shelved them and then decided they are the Court by determining the validity of the subpoena's instead of the Court.

 

And still. He is better than the Democrats

 

Crime and misdemeanors have definitions. High means the highest. Everyone with a brain knows what a crime is.

 

They withdrew the subponea's and even withdrew the lawsuit. So yes, it's the House's fault for both A: Speeding this up, and B: Not going to the Courts to address a remedy. Hence, one charge is going to be thrown out of the Senate by default. Or to use law terms, the House lacks standing since it had remedies it refused to follow through to completion.

 

But to all too many of these leftists the crime is not being . . . a . . . leftist.

 

Hey, the Senate is free to call Pompeo, Mulvaney and co. to testify. They won't, and we all know why. Of course, if the Senate speeds up the trial, you won't complain. Typical partisan hypocrisy.

 

High crimes and misdemeanors was specific terminology by the framers. The definitions of the individual words do not denote the meaning of the whole. The framers would have pointed to a collection of codified law if their intent was to say the president should only ever be impeached for crimes. They didn’t do that. They used the term high crimes and misdemeanors. The term is intentionally ambiguous as they knew that they couldn’t foretell every possible misbehavior that might justify removal.

 

They did, included as an indicator, bribery and treason, both with solid legal definitions.

 

Says the side crying foul on the House intentionally dragging out their investigations. Make up your minds.

 

The only "fact" is that Trump asked Zelensky to reopen the investigation which was shut down by Joe Biden, and which if it had continued, Hunter Biden would have been a target of the investigation.

Trump isn't being charged with that fact. He's been charged that his reason was to get a competitive advantage in the 2020 race, or "foreign interference with an [upcoming] election". That is an assumption of his motivation. His defense is that he was asking about possible past corruption by a member of our government, not for personal future political gain. Democrats have burden of proof about Trump's motivations.

This would be a clear cut case if it were illegal to make the request, but it is not that simple.

 

No, we don't "all know why". That's an assertion. I'd love to hear from them, so that we can get a clear record of the facts. I also believe at the same time that yes, with the evidence we have now I'm prepared to acquit the President on both charges if I had a Senate vote.

I don't see any evidence that Trump acted with regard to the 2020 elections, and I don't see any evidence of any illegal impropriety with regard to his discussions and dealings with the Ukrainians. What I do see, very plainly and clear is that the Speaker of the House is not fit to be the House Speaker.

 

Both bribery and treason were borrowed from laws already in existence in England. They considered those examples worth naming, but “and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” was left for future bodies to determine.

 

Both are high crimes so it isn't just whatever the dem clown show makes up. Abuse of power is amorphous and means nothing and is used to represent 'intent' which is nearly impossible to prove.

 

'dragging out the investigations'? Whoever said that? According to reports, it's Donald Trump who wants a full blown trial, and Senator McConnell who wants a quick one. I personally agree with the President, who likely sees the trial as more of a vindictive fight against the Speaker.

The Speaker has committed offenses to this Republic, by her own words. She said that impeachment needed to be overwhelming and bipartisan, it is neither. The Speaker began the inquiry 48 hours before she was to receive the transcript, which is an utter farce to any would-be investigator. She also said "he wasn't worth it", well apparently now he is.

If the Speaker were to be impeached from the House today, instead of impeaching Trump it would be an act of great fortitude to restore the House of Representatives.

 

If your erroneous assumption is correct why has your BLOTUS obstructed Congress and not provided them with the documents and witnesses that would have CORROBORATED that his motivation was based entirely on 2016?

 

Come on AN, don't play this game. You know exactly why they won't testify. If they would, they'd have the choice of perjuring themselves, or throwing Trump under the bus. Not exactly a winning proposition. That's why they didn't testify in the House, and they won't testify in the Senate.

Second, Trump claiming that he wants to testify is just unrealistic bluster, so he can claim "I wanted to, but they didn't let me". Since Trump can't help himself but distorting the truth every time he opens his mount, testifying to congress wouldn't go very well.

 

All you BLOTUS had to do was release the documents and allow his witnesses to testify that his motivation was only with respect to 2016.

Why are you NOT questioning his MOTIVATIONS for NOT releasing the information and witnesses that would have exonerated him?