What Is The Difference Between Impeachment For Trump, Versus Previous Presidents?

They were related only in your dreams. Withholding aid never came up in the call.

Maybe you realize.... or not.... or don't care that Trump provided magnitudes more military aid to Ukraine than Obama even thought about. Ukraine got hundreds of millions of dollars and critically needed anti-tank missiles in 2017 and 2018. Obama gave them blankets, night vision goggles, and MREs while he watched Russia simply roll in and take over Crimea and did nothing, other than bloviate, to honor the commitment you talk about.

 

I think you mean several of the "Trump hating opinionated witnesses".......

 

I certainly can, I just ain't agonna.

 

Why is the taxes or income of a president even being discussed?

 

1. The call was important, but not the only evidence supporting wrongdoing. I suggest you dig a little deeper.
2. I acknowledge that the Trump administration DID supply Ukraine with badly needed armaments & funding during the first two years of Trump's Presidency--possibly due more to the Sec of State or Sec of Defense, than Trump himself, who seems profoundly reluctant to offend Putin in any way. But, regardless, Trump DID stop the Congressional funded aid for Ukraine for several months, until the House started looking into it thru its investigations. Then, suddenly, Trump released the aid again. You may see something good in Trump as a leader. I don't. It's not that I'm unwilling. It's that I've found nothing in him worthy of respect or admiration.

 

If you are incapable of communicating or respecting a point of view other than your own, or anyone holding such opinions, then how do you maintain justice or civility?

 

Actual evidence for known and established High Crimes or Misdemeanors were set forth BEFORE the impeachment. With Trump, made up charges were invented and then articles passed with no actual evidence.

 

I think you are entirely comfortable spreading the self-serving, Trump-Republican propaganda points to avoid facing the truth. I'm the opposite.

 

It's just easier to continue falsely attacking those who disagree, than seek truth, I guess. Sad.

 

All of the other witnesses that support wrong doing are 2nd or 3rd hand opinions of swamp Trump haters. The only witness the House interviewed with first hand direct interface with Trump (most of the others never even had met Trump) was Sondland who testified that Trump told him directly and succinctly that there was no quid pro quo and that he, Trump, needed nothing from Zelensky. That testimony unfortunately got eaten by the House's pet dog.

 

Why do you call people who express an opinion on something they have no first hand knowledge about "professional witnesses?"

 

I know it's part of Sondland's job to believe Trump, but it's also widely known that Trump rejects the idea that there's a difference between truth & lies, & uses both whenever convenient. I don't like Trump--never have. Trump debases & dismisses all the values I regard as those that best define what America should stand for. Even I wouldn't support impeachment & removal if the evidence didn't support a conclusion of guilt. But it clearly does. Your refusal to see that isn't my problem. It's yours.

 

Because they have spent their professional lives working in a top secret, intelligence environment for their country, and they were part of the process & system Trump was sabotaging with his malfeasance. They ARE the most qualified witnesses who could be asked to testify--even more qualified than the President himself or his lackeys in the White House. Dismissing their testimony in favor of Trump defies logic, & forces a conclusion that those who do, are working to replace the Constitution with a nation of men, not laws.

 

Not real different imo. In all cases impeachment is essentially a court of public opinion but with officially sanctioned consequences.

The Clinton impeachment is a perfect example. Clinton objectively committed purjory, a crime. The House impeached him for it. The Senate nullified any consequences of his crime by voting not to convict. Basically, jury nullification. While what Clinton did was illegal, it was not popularly considered a big enough deal to warrant removal from office.

Thats the same question posed to the Senate now: was withholding/delaying aid to Ukraine a big enough deal to warrant removal from office? Whether it was illegal or not doesnt really matter, as the Senate could nullify any consequences for it whether it was illegal or not, as they did with Clinton.

 

But, as my point was, testimony about one's opinion, professional or not, is not evidence, probative, or worth diddlysquat.

 

I am not a lawyer, but I believe even hearsay is accepted as evidence in a court of law. I may be wrong, but the intelligence professionals interviewed by the House committees are the top level experts existing in our country. We all depend on their work & their personal integrity for the safety of our nation on a daily basis. To depreciate them on the word of a proven liar & con man such as Trump defies rational thought. Impeachment doesn't require "hard proof" of malfeasance. But the House actually has obtained that "hard proof" anyway. The reason Republicans are attacking the system under which Democrats worked to obtain that evidence rather than responding to that evidence directly, is because they know they don't have a leg to stand on factually. So, they spend all their time & energy trying to find ways to erode public confidence in Democratic motives or the semi-legal system under which impeachments always have to work--the VERY SAME SYSTEM they used themselves a few years ago against Clinton. They've adopted the Trump imperative that winning is all that counts, no matter what the costs. The costs of current Republican abandonment of every sacred ideal America has always stood for, just to help Trump, will impact America & Americans for generations. It's a profoundly sad heritage.

 

Quick reminder:

Clinton was deposed because he was a defendant in a civil suit and the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the suit could go forward. The video in the Clinton GJ testimony was not created or produced for the benefit of the House or Senate.

 

Including Clinton?

 

What is the "crime?"

 

1 word animus. The first impeachment driven almost entirely by animus. Even when they couldn't find actual evidence their feelings led them to do impeachment any way. This is but a pause. There will be another impeachment attempt if Trump wins re-election. The Dem establishment just can't let it go.

 

I'm typing on my phone so near with me...

Obstruction of Congress and obstruction of justice are two VERY different things. One, obstruction of justice, is an actual crime that is codified I to law with a specific definition. Obstruction of Congress on the other hand has, and never has been, defined or codified into law. Due to that it can literally be applied for anything that Congress wants to. If the president ever said "no" to Congress then they could impeach. Wouldn't matter why the president said no, it would be impeachable.

As for abuse of power, that yo has never been codified into law. Which means ANYTHING that a president did could be considered an "abuse of power. Even say.... firing someone. The founders even specifically rejected putting abuse of power into the Constitution because it was too general a term which could be abused and would make it to where the President would serve at the pleasure of Congress. Something they were actively trying to avoid.