Impeachment Report: Democrats Accuse Trump of Soliciting Ukraine to 'Benefit His Reelection'

House Democrats say the president "endangered national security."


House Democrats on Tuesday released their impeachment report, which directly accuses President Donald Trump of inappropriately pressuring Ukraine into helping to advance his 2020 reelection efforts.

"President Trump and his senior officials may see nothing wrong with using the power of the Office of the President to pressure a foreign country to help the President's reelection campaign. Indeed, President Trump continues to encourage Ukraine and other foreign countries to engage in the same kind of election interference today," the Democrats write. "However, the Founding Fathers prescribed a remedy for a chief executive who places his personal interests above those of the country: impeachment."

They note that impeachment charges are not criminal charges, but instead charge the president with violating the trust of the American people. And while the report does not draft actual articles of impeachment, it lays the groundwork for them, should the Democrats choose to proceed. 

Trump is the subject of an impeachment inquiry over allegations that he withheld a White House meeting and $391 million in congressionally authorized military aid from Ukraine in exchange for President Volodymyr Zelenskiy publicly announcing a probe into Burisma Holdings, which counted Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, on its board, and into a theory that Ukraine was behind widespread U.S. election interference meant to help 2016 Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

The report further accuses Trump of obstructing the impeachment inquiry by blocking witnesses in his close circle from testifying and by refusing to give the House Intelligence Committee subpoenaed documents.

"No other President has flouted the Constitution and power of Congress to conduct oversight to this extent. No President has claimed for himself the right to deny the House's authority to conduct an impeachment proceeding, control the scope of a power exclusively vested in the House, and forbid any and all cooperation from the Executive Branch," the report says. "Even President Richard Nixon—who obstructed Congress by refusing to turn over key evidence—accepted the authority of Congress to conduct an impeachment inquiry and permitted his aides and advisors to produce documents and testify to Congressional committees." 

Trump has forbidden Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former national security adviser John Bolton, White House Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, and others from appearing before the House Intelligence Committee. Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, testified that he wanted to obtain documentation that would help him explain the chain of events, but that the State Department would not turn over the materials. Trump has also prohibited the White House budget office and the Department of Defense from releasing requested documents.

Using witness testimony collected in November, the 300-page report outlines the step-by-step moves that Trump allegedly made in seeking to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations that would benefit him politically. Of particular interest is the removal of former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, who lost her post amid a smear campaign led by Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer. The Republican impeachment report maintains that Trump pushed for the investigations out of a desire to curb corruption. Yet according to the Democratic impeachment report, Yovanovitch was known "for aggressively advocating for anti-corruption reforms."

The Democratic report also outlines efforts made by Giuliani, Sondland, and former special envoy Kurt Volker to push for the investigations on Trump's behalf, culminating in the July 25 phone call with Zelenskiy when Trump requested that he "do us a favor." That call started with Trump asking Sondland if the Ukrainian leader "was going to do the investigation."

The Republicans have noted on several occasions that the investigations in question never took place. The Democratic report counters that argument, writing that Zelenskiy was poised to announce the investigations on CNN in September. That announcement was derailed, the Democrats explain, after the whistleblower complaint made its way to Congress and investigators began to ask questions of the Trump administration.

The Democrats also focus on key admissions from Mulvaney and Sondland. The former told reporters during an October 17 press conference that the security assistance was partially held up to strong arm Zelenskiy into investigating "corruption related to the DNC server," which was connected to the desired Ukrainian election interference investigation. "I have news for everybody: get over it. There is going to be political influence in foreign policy," Mulvaney said.

And Sondland testified on November 20 that there was a well-understood exchange between Trump and Zelenskiy. "I know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a 'quid pro quo?'" Sondland said. "With regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes."

"Perhaps even more corrosive to our democratic system of governance," the Democratic report adds, "the President and his allies are making a comprehensive attack on the very idea of fact and truth. How can a democracy survive without acceptance of a common set of experiences?"

NEXT: The Madcap Scheme to Take Syria’s Oil

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Hey Binion,

    You’re not done getting your ass ripped apart for that other dumb article you posted.

    Trying to overwhelm people with stupidity is a bad way to raise money.

    1. I am impressed he has no issue with literally zero crimes being mentioned. Bribery…which even Judge Nap says there was “ample evidence” of did not make the cut (guess Judge Nap is STILL a fucking moron). Apparently, tweeting and not playing along with the Dems is now impeachable.

      1. I saw judge Nap drinking a piña colada at Trader Vick’s, and his hair was perfect.

      2. Judge Napolitano said there was bribery? I mean, sure, in the sense that all foreign aide is bribery, but then you’d need to bring all of Washington up on those charges. Man, motivated cognition is a hell of a drug. I hate Trump, too, but let’s try to stay in the realm of reality.

        1. But is the bribery paid for out of taxes paid by Americans in the interest of our country or a person?

          1. Depends on if the cash is delivered by the pallet load or not, I guess – – – – –

        2. ” but then you’d need to bring all of Washington up on those charges. ”

          Were that the case I’d gladly go along. But we all know it isn’t.

      3. The talk of “bribery” came about because “quid pro quo” was not polling well as an impeachable offense. It is literally a propaganda pgambit.

        1. Not only that, but the bribery angle makes no sense at all. Federal bribery statutes make it a crime to be a United States public official while accepting something of value in exchange for performing an official act, and it makes it illegal to give United States public officials something of value in exchange for performing an official act. Both the briber and bribee, are liable for the crime. 18 U.S.C. Section 201.

          So, if we follow the template of the law, Trump cannot have legally bribed Zelensky because Zelensky is not a United States public official. On the other hand, it is not being alleged that Zelensky was bribing Trump. And, in any event, nothing was promised or given *to* Zelensky, but to the Ukrainian government, as a whole.

          It’s not like Trump was wiring the military aid package to Zelensky’s swiss bank account.

          There is no bribe, and there is no bribee.

          Propaganda, certainly. But they are not even making an effort to sell it as something even remotely plausible anymore.

    2. This is like a veritable ‘Parade of Horribles’. This impeachment is becoming a laughingstock.

      First, it was quid pro quo. That went nowhere.
      Then it was abuse of power. The American people said: Where’s the beef. It went nowhere.
      Then it was bribery. The people said, “What about Biden?”. It went nowhere.
      Then it was campaign finance abuse. The electorate did an eyeroll. It went nowhere.

      Today, it is POTUS Trump endangers national security. Next week, I expect Stormy to come ‘storming back’. You know, we are quickly coming to the point where people get pissed off because there really isn’t much happening they perceive as benefiting them. This is a sad-assed carnival show. Team D owns that and will have to run on it.

      Memo to KMW: You know, there is a Reason that you are only 16% to your fundraising goal. You came just another clickbait operation.

  2. How can a democracy survive without acceptance of a common set of experiences?

    Government is simply the name we give to the quid we pro to quo together.

  3. “They note that impeachment charges are not criminal charges, but instead charge the president with violating the trust of the American people.”

    Democrats “note,” Republicans “assert.”

    Is impeachment a criminal proceeding? You wouldn’t know it from this post, but the matter is not exactly settled. Check out the text of the Constitution, in Art. III –

    “The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury…”

    Then possibly they backtracked by adopting the Sixth Amendment without an impeachment exception, but while continuing to have impeachments.

    So is impeachment an implied exception to the 6th Amendment, an implication made explicit in Art. III (like “petty crimes,” which are never excepted in the Constitution but have been exempted by interpretation), or does Amendment 6 represent a rethinking of the whole impeachment-as-criminal-prosecution thing?

    So taking sides on this issue is an *assertion,* just as it would be if Republicans did it.

    1. The first abuse given in the report is Trump firing a political appointee holdover in Yanovich (sp?). This is their start. The report is beyond comical. They even have the temerity to claim obstruction by Trump threatening to use executive privilege and not participating in the sham on the second part.

      1. Trump even swiped her red Swingline stapler.

        1. And he burned down Cheryl’s she-shed.

      2. You mean, like Nixon’s third article of impeachment?

        1. Nixon resigned baby jeffrey. They never settled the charge on obstruction. Why are you so ignorant on basic facts? Just because the dems attempted it with Nixon doesnt mean it is a valid article. You disingenuous fuck.

          1. So now we’ve reached the point in the Team Red defense where they relitigate Nixon’s articles of impeachment in order to protect Trump. Got it.

            1. I seem to recall that there were a few other issues about Nixon, something about covering up a burglary committed on Nixon’s behalf for the purpose of tapping Democrats’ phones.

              Illegally spying on one’s political opposition … I mean, who does that?

            2. Wow jeff. You are beyond stupid. The nixon articles of impeachment were never litigated. That is a fact, since he resigned. How dumb are you, honestly?

              1. I did not mean “litigate” in the purely legal sense. I meant more in the historical sense – to re-evaluate or to revisit.

                Do you want to re-evaluate the propriety of Nixon’s articles of impeachment, just so you can help save Trump?

                1. chem….well if you want to revisit Nixon, then I would say this. By 1974, the country was almost transfixed. I mean, pretty much everyone, regardless of political persuasion, was saying Nixon had to go. That is a fact. Nixon had the good sense to resign, because he knew there were 67 votes in the Senate to remove him.

                  Fast forward to today. There is nothing like the consensus there was back in 1974. There just isn’t. And it is not a matter of educating the public, because the media has been trying to ‘educate’ us for at least three years now. Their lesson plan really sucks.

                  There may come a time where POTUS Trump truly does something so far beyond the pale, that the country (not just media and Team D) wants him out ASAP. That time is not here, and this Ukraine horseshit is not it. My take is the country is saying: Um, nope. POTUS Trump might be an asshole, but he hasn’t done anything warranting removal.

                  These actions by Team D are going to permanently alter our civil discourse. And for what? Some bullshit call? Policy disagreements? I mourn the fact that we are tearing our beloved Republic apart. At a time where we need adults, we have toddlers running the show.

                  1. You just wasted all that effort on Pedo Jeffy. He will continue to write the same thing over and over no matter how many times his arguments destroyed. No matter how humiliating it is for him.

                    He is that fucking stupid.

              2. Jesse, you always resort to insults and personal attacks, because that is all you have. Your arguments are weak to non-existent, and your powers of persuasion are less developed than the neural system of a flatworm.

                1. JesseAz who?

                2. Jesse, you always resort to insults and personal attacks, because that is all you have.

                  your powers of persuasion are less developed than the neural system of a flatworm.

                  Wow man you really devastated him by offering no argument and instead resorting to insults and personal attacks.

                  1. Eunuch gonna eunuch

            3. By the way, do I get to call you team blue because of how ignorant to facts you are?

              1. I don’t have a team.
                You, however, are squarely on Team Red, and I don’t think anyone here doubts that.

                1. Partisans like Jesse only see the world in an us v. them mentality. If you are not on their team, you simply must be on the enemy team. There is no other possibility.

                  1. Who the hell is this Jesse feller you all keep mentioning? Sounds like a real douchebag!


                    Coming from the two retards (well, 2 if we’re still pretending this isn’t a sock) who reflexively call anyone who doesn’t support impeachment a Republican shill while literally never once in their entire time posting at offering any criticism of any Democratic politician, ever.

                  3. Chip, you’re backing up Pedo Jeffy. FFS, we know you’re an idiot, but goddamn dude, don’t start digging.

                2. Sure.

                  Another sufferer of “above-the-fray” syndrome.

                  Comparing Trump to Nixon is definitely the sign of a neutral observer.

                  Completely deluded, and full of shit to boot.

                  1. The irony, of course, is that what Hillary Clinton did with the FISA court is far more comparable to what Nixon did with the CIA and the DNC.

                    Go figure.

  4. “How can a democracy survive without acceptance of a common set of experiences?”

    Like escorting a transgender man of color to get an abortion before going to Starbucks for a latte?

    1. Eddy gets it.

  5. Regardless of your view on the impeachment process, we can agree that Tom Shillue does a great impersonation of Adam Schiff.

    1. he looks like that terrible president from like Season 2 of 24

    2. Can’t wait to see his Nadler.

  6. Still not answering how you’re supposed to investigate a corrupt political rival (who isn’t just some outsider, but someone who was part of the previous administration) or whether Obama should have been impeached for investigating candidate Trump.

    1. Here is the Dem’s logic.

      Before Biden announced his candidacy, Trump could have requested an investigation regarding influence peddling. That would be perfectly OK but once Biden announced, it is an impeachable offense to request such an investigation. It is called candidatorial immunity. Make sense?

      1. Setting aside the question for the moment of whether it is legal or not for Trump to do what he did.

        Do you think it is at all problematic for a politician of the ruling party to be using the levers of power to investigate a politician of the opposition party? I mean, that is the kind of shit that banana republics and authoritarian states pull.

        1. Not even the democrats on this report argue it was illegal to ask about the Bidens. Why are you setting that question aside baby jeffrey?

          You know what is also the shit banana republics do? Use nobel interpretations of the law to go after political opponents like democrats do. They did this with Steven’s, with Perry, and now Trump. The fact that you think there is no sniff of corruption in Hunter getting paid 3 million dollars to be on a board of a country he doesnt know in an industry he doesnt know shows how desperate and partisan you are. You are literally implying it is illegal to root out corruption in a competing political party. You are so laughably childlike with your thoughts I just feel sorry for you.

          1. Blah blah blah.

            Let me ask the question again. Maybe this time you’ll answer it.

            Do you think it is even a little bit problematic for a politician of the ruling party to be sending investigators against the politicians of the opposition party? Even a little bit?

            1. If there is justification for it, no. So issue here is whether there was a justification. So let’s put the Biden boys under oath and start finding that out.

              1. What is your standard for “justification”?

                That Hunter Biden was paid a large salary? That isn’t actually illegal you know, not even in this country, let alone in Ukraine.

                1. It is a giant, flapping, burning red flag of corruption, dipshit.

                  1. What specifically is the alleged corrupt act that you think ought to be investigated?

                    Again, just being paid a high salary isn’t corruption per se.

                    1. Again you ignore that the 300 page just released by Schiff doesnt list a criminal act vs trump, then run and ask what Hunter did illegally.

                      How did you become so dishonest?

                    2. So, what did Hunter Biden do that was illegal?

                    3. What did Hunter Biden do for Burisma that was legitimate? Was he given a shockingly highly paid position on the board because of his expertise in the Ukrainian oil industry?

                    4. It is perfectly legal for a company to overpay underqualified employees, both in the US and in Ukraine.

                      I think it’s obvious that Burisma paid Hunter Biden so as to invite favorable treatment from the US government.

                      I’m still waiting to hear what Hunter Biden did that was allegedly illegal. It sounds like what he did was legal but shady. Sinecures aren’t illegal.

                    5. I think it’s obvious that Burisma paid Hunter Biden so as to invite favorable treatment from the US government.

                      Yes. That’s called “corruption”.

                    6. Yes. That’s called “corruption”.

                      So what law did Hunter Biden break?

                    7. What specifically is the alleged corrupt act that you think ought to be investigated?

                      I think it’s obvious that Burisma paid Hunter Biden so as to invite favorable treatment from the US government.

                    8. So just the salary itself is evidence enough to justify an investigation? Even if there is no evidence of illegal behavior? Even if the Ukrainians themselves said that Hunter Biden didn’t break any laws?

                      This is starting to sound like “he’s obviously guilty so let’s investigate the shit out of him” that some people are using to justify investigations into everything that Trump is doing.

                      And if your position is going to be “I think people in positions of power shouldn’t enjoy the benefit of the doubt and should be investigated for behavior that merely appears to be corrupt, even if it is not corrupt per se”, then I AGREE with you – but only if that same standard is applied to everyone. Biden, Trump, Obama, Hillary, etc.

                      But if your position is going to be “investigate the shit out of the Bidens, but leave poor Trump alone, he’s the poor poor victim of those mean Democrats”, then I can’t take that position seriously.

                    9. These funny red cap wearing partisan douchebags commenting on here can’t come to grips with the notion that American citizens are allowed to do shady shit but American Presidents are not. Pretty simple actually!

                    10. Sinecures aren’t illegal.

                      And yet you want Trump impeached on the allegation of sinecures. Jesus fucking Christ cytotoxic try to keep your own argument straight.

                    11. And if your position is going to be “I think people in positions of power shouldn’t enjoy the benefit of the doubt and should be investigated for behavior that merely appears to be corrupt, even if it is not corrupt per se”, then I AGREE with you – but only if that same standard is applied to everyone. Biden, Trump, Obama, Hillary, etc.

                      Except that you are literally defending NOT investigating the Bidens, in the same way that you literally defended NOT investigation Hillary’s email scandal, and the same way you literally defended NOT investigating Samantha Power illegally unmasking, and the same way you literally defend NOT investigation any allegation of wrongdoing if the perpetrator is a Democrat. Because you are a partisan shill.

                      And your sad attempt to make it into a BOTH SIDES SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED argument when you are literally using the initiation of an investigation by a Republican as evidence of corruption and grounds for impeachment is so comically fucking stupid it could only possibly come from you. Congratulations on the own goal.

                    12. “So what law did Hunter Biden break?”

                      Does this idiot actually think “you can’t name the specific statute so nyah nyah” is an argument?

                      It isn’t. Stop it.

                    13. chemjeff radical individualist
                      December.3.2019 at 9:48 pm
                      So, what did Hunter Biden do that was illegal?

                      I don’t know that Hunter did anything illegal regarding his arrangement with Burisma.
                      I do know that what the company and Hunter’s father did was unethical on its face, and very much appears to be textbook corruption.

                2. This shows how completely retarded you are. You think there isnt even a hint of corruption on the Bidens. You ignore that the actions taken by the Bidens were when they were in charge. You’re a fucking kdiot baby jeffrey. Full stop. Fucking idiot.

                  1. What, specifically, did Hunter Biden do with respect to Ukraine, that you believe is a corrupt act?

                    Being paid a high salary is not a corrupt act per se.

                    So what is it?

                    1. I think it’s obvious that Burisma paid Hunter Biden so as to invite favorable treatment from the US government.

                    2. What, specifically, did Carter Page do with respect ot Russia, that you believe was a corrupt act?

                      See how hilariously fucking stupid it is when your very argument is a complete own goal?

                3. Another stupid observation from Pedo Jeffy. It’s worth being investigated because his father bragged in video about getting the investigation into his sone company fired in exchange for foreign aid.

            2. You do realize that’s exactly what the Obama administration did to Trump don’t you?

              1. Well I’m glad you see that it’s problematic when Obama does it.
                Do you see that it’s problematic when Trump tries to do it?

                1. Trump didn’t.
                  He suggested Ukrainians investigate corruption in Ukraine

                  1. Literally after a ukranian court already ruled that they attempted to interfere on the 2016 election.

                  2. There is evidence he did more than suggest.

                    1. Nothing credible.

                    2. No, there isn’t. There is assertion with absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

                    3. We have the transcript. Name it = There is evidence he did more than suggest.

                      And be sure to provide complete context, Mike.

                    4. Now that the Democrat’s report is out, I can refer you to it for an outline of the evidence.

                    5. Evidence? You testimony like this?


                      Thank you Simone.

                  3. He suggested Ukrainians investigate corruption in Ukraine

                    If that is all he did, then nobody would be having a cow over it. (Well, maybe only a few people.)

                    But he did more than “suggest” that Ukrainians investigate “corruption” in some broad sense.

                    1. “If that is all he did, then nobody would be having a cow over it”

                      The freak outs over Trumps other relatively benign behavior strongly suggest otherwise.

                    2. But he did more than “suggest” that Ukrainians investigate “corruption” in some broad sense.

                      By… giving them all of the aid that was assigned to them by congress, as well as arming them when Obama wouldn’t?


                    3. The aid was released after the matter became public, and at that barely in time to make deadlines. Some aid (about $14 million in aid, if I recall the number correctly) was lost because of missed deadlines.

            3. You mean like asking for an independent investigation like Mueller? Like that baby jeffrey you fucking idiot? How many Democrats are on record saying everything trump does is a crime? And you talk about banana republic. I literally gave you 2 other examples you completely ignored you fucking ignorant POS.

              1. You mean like asking for an independent investigation like Mueller?

                That would have been far preferable compared to Trump sending his personal lawyer, don’t you think?

                If Trump wants an investigation into the Bidens, justified in the context that the Bidens allegedly broke some law, shouldn’t it be at least a minimum qualification that the investigator is on the government payroll, to avoid conflicts of interest?

                1. If Trump wants an investigation into the Bidens, justified in the context that the Bidens allegedly broke some law, shouldn’t it be at least a minimum qualification that the investigator is on the government payroll, to avoid conflicts of interest?

                  Holy fuck dude. I know you think Ukraine is United States vassal state ever since the latest talking points hit Democratic Underground, but we don’t actually pay the Ukrainian government’s investigators or prosecutors, which are the only people who were asked to do any sort of investigation of Hunter Biden.

                  1. Would it not make more sense to start and coordinate the investigation of an American citizen in America? Ukraine could be brought in to investigate any aspects of the alleged wrongdoing that took place in Ukraine. But, also, since there is talk of Bidens being up to corrupt activities involving China, that could be investigated, too.

                    1. Would it not make more sense to start and coordinate the investigation of an American citizen in America?

                      Since this isn’t as generalized as your desperately trying to make it, no.

                2. He sent Giuliani because so many people have been leaking. So he sent someone he could trust to keep his mouth shut. Did you whine like the little bitch that you are when Obama sent Carter, or someone like that to talk to foreign leaders? You do k ow that it’s a fairly common practice among all presidents, right?

                  But then you’re Canadian. So you probably don’t

                  1. Giuliani is someone who can be trusted to keep his mouth shut and be discreet? Are we both talking about Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York?

                    1. Really speaks to how untrustworthy you and your masters have proven to be

            4. chem…I will answer you directly: No

        2. Wait, now your against the investigation into trump in the run-up to 2016. Right.

          1. You mean, investigating Carter Page?

            1. Samantha Power unmasked hundreds of people, the NSA and FBI spied on Papadopalous, and Trump’s campaign was infiltrated by intelligence assets during the Carter Page investigation?

              Lol. It’s nice when you just straight up acknowledge that you’re nothing but a partisan shill.

              1. He’s really stupid too. And dishonest. And a self admitted child rape enthusiast.

                So much to despise about the little turd.

        3. Do you think it is at all problematic for a politician of the ruling party to be using the levers of power to investigate a politician of the opposition party? I mean, that is the kind of shit that banana republics and authoritarian states pull.

          You mean like the Obama administration planting multiple intelligence assets in Trump’s campaign, spying on all of his associates with a secret FISA warrant obtained on the back of oppo research, and illegally unmasking hundreds of American citizens?

        4. It isn’t problematic in the slightest and has been occurring for decades. The only way such investigations become problematic is in societies where we can use that information to disappear or blackmail people. Assuming the worst case scenario for the sake of argument, Trump wouldn’t have anything at all. It’s hard to argue that this information benefits him because:
          1. We already knew of Biden and were concerned about corruption prior to Trump.
          2. The existing evidence hasn’t convinced anyone to change their mind.

      2. Except of course talking to anyone about anything that came close to the Mueller investigation would also be impeachable for obstruction, witness tampering, etc.

    2. That’s simple.
      The president orders the FBI to start an investigation.
      Or the president orders the Attorney General to appoint an independent counsel.

      He doesn’t do it by demanding a foreign government do it for him, and sending his own personal lawyer to conduct some “investigation” which is riddled with conflicts of interest.

      1. Independent counsels are used when the government investigated itself not when it investigates a politician. By your logic there should be an independent counsel appointed every time the FBI investigates a dog catcher for bribery.

        You are the most appalling dumb Ass on planet earth. How do you say this shit with a straight face?

        1. I see you’ve taken some lessons from Tulpa – trying to derail the entire conversation by attempting to litigate some side issue.

          Fine, whatever, maybe an independent counsel isn’t an option in this case. If that is in fact the case, then perhaps Trump should have ordered the FBI to investigate Biden.

          The implication in all of this, seems to be that Trump had no other reasonable option but to demand an investigation using foreign aid as leverage and using foreign governments to do it for him and using his own personal lawyer to do the deed. Why is that? There are plenty of other avenues available. He is in charge of the entire executive branch you know.

          1. If that is in fact the case, then perhaps Trump should have ordered the FBI to investigate Biden.

            Because the same organization that surveilled his campaign as part of an effort to defeat his election would have carried out his orders faithfully, impartially seeking out evidence that, if found, would hurt the Biden campaign?

            Why don’t you suggest that Trump ask the DNC to investigate Biden? It would be as credible.

            1. Fine, so in Trump’s mind the FBI is totally compromised and so he can’t trust anyone there. So the answer is… use foreign aid as leverage, and send his personal lawyer to do the deed? That’s the only other option?

              1. It, of course, isn’t the only option but it is an option.

                Irregular channels have featured in just about every presidency; and using leverage to ensure the good gets done would be perfectly reasonable too (this is assuming Trump did indeed use the foreign aid in this way, rather than putting it on hold till other European countries chipped in as he did with other foreign aid packages.)

                1. He is making a circular argument and will come back to the same discredited points over and over as if they are new. This is why I just beat him down and barely engage him.

                  If there is any justice, he will be raped and murdered by illegals.

              2. If there’s a shady-looking deal involving people in both the US and Ukraine, and US authorities can’t be trusted to investigate, who, exactly, would be more appropriate to have investigate than Ukrainian authorities?

                I guess you think Trump should have just had his campaign hire a British opposition research firm to collect lies from KGB assets about the Bidens?

                1. Of course, Ukraine officials are known for their lack of corruption, so Trump knew they would conduct a more honest investigation than the Department of Justice or FBI?

                2. and US authorities can’t be trusted to investigate

                  LOL – Trump *IS* the US authority! He is the guy in charge!

                  If Trump is so powerless, then WTF is he even doing there?

            2. If Trump is not in control of his own administration’s agencies, perhaps he should be doing something about that rather than worrying about Hunter Biden.

              1. If Trump is not in control of his own administration’s agencies, perhaps he should be doing something about that rather than worrying about Hunter Biden.

                In this post, Mike disingenuously argues that Trump should openly practice the spoils system so Democrat partisans in the executive branch don’t undermine his agenda, and knowing full well the DNC mouthpieces in the media would immediately call for his impeachment over it.

                1. If his own administration’s agencies are hostile toward him he should most definitely practice spoils and get people on there that will carry out his orders. That’s what any leader of an organization is entitled to do if the leadership is full of insubordination.

                  1. And yet you and jeff would be amongst the first howling if trump were to remove them (see Comey and Yovanovich).

                    1. Exactly. It’s like he honestly thinks people can’t see through his passive-aggressive special pleading.

                    2. No, I wouldn’t. He’s the chief executive of the Executive branch. If he really does have a problem where his own departments are filled with people who are subverting his goals, he can replace them. He would have (and he really has had) the problem of finding competent, loyal people to fill the slots.

                    3. So because some people would complain even if Trump did things the right way, therefore, Trump’s totally justified in doing things the completely wrong way? Is that your argument?

              2. Like what exactly, fire the FBI director, which you argued 2 years ago was itself an act of corruption and impeachable?

                1. I did? Let me guess, I argued this using a different name, because I’m somebody else’s sock puppet?

                  1. No, you’re sinply disingenuous like your pal jeff.

                    1. My disingenuousness is so powerful it can make non-existent comments by me become real. How about this, why don’t you or Kris Humphries actually find these comments I supposedly made and link to them here?

              3. Agreed….Firing a good portion of the entrenched bureaucracy would be a good start.

              4. And if it’s just difficult and slow to reform the FBI because of US civil service law and political opposition, the President should in the meantime allow possible corruption involving the previous administration and the front-runner for a major party nomination go completely uninvestigated?

              5. You’re right. He should be sending a lot of traitors off to GitMo and rounding up democrats in general by the dump truck load. Just to start with.

          2. I like how you call basic facts a side issue you blithering moron.

          3. //Fine, whatever, maybe an independent counsel isn’t an option in this case.//

            It’s not a side issue when your arguments repeatedly hinge on drawing comparison or analogies to processes that you obviously don’t understand. Add up all the “side issues” and, at the end of the day, it’s clear you have no fucking idea what you’re talking about.

            Freshman year sophistry at its finest. “The details don’t matter. Just listen to me ramble!”

      2. He didnt demand shit you dishonest fuck.

        1. Yes we know Jesse. Trump didn’t do anything wrong. He’s a total victim.

          1. You used the word demand you ignorant fuck. Neither transcript shows a demand. Do I need to get you a dictionary too?

            1. To be clear, it’s only a demand if Trump outlines the quid pro quo in detail and in explicit language in a phone call with dozens of people listening in?

              To be clear, all that counts is phone call transcripts and not any testimony about other meetings that were held between Ukrainians and American diplomats?

              Also, public statements by Trump,
              Mulvaney, and Giuliani don’t count?

              1. You are one obtuse dude. Who gives a fuck what some career diplomat heard or in Sondland’s case “presumed”. This isn’t the “telephone” game.

                It’s OK to go after the Biden’s if there is evidence of corruption which could be criminal. Ukrainian oligarchs don’t pay millions for nothing and gee whiz quite possibly he was paying for a shield against an investigation? Well it worked.

                We don’t know because apparently its considered impeachable to even investigate even when their is evidence of a possible crime.

                Not anything wrong with launching a 2 year plus “get Trump” Mueller investigation based on false premises. Nope nothing wrong there.

                C’mon man.

                1. Trump could have had the Department of Justice launch a legitimate investigation into Burisma.

                  1. And the Democrats would have called that investigation a political act designed to benefit Trump’s political campaign.

                    I think we all understand that the means used here don’t actually fucking matter to you lefties. The fact that you are arguing about the “process” and “proper channels” demonstrates beyond doubt that you have nothing to hang your hat on.

                    Thanks for playing.

                    1. The Democrats could have called it whatever they want, but if it were conducted legitimately Trump would not have made himself vulnerable to impeachment.

                    2. I am not a lefty. I am a non-partisan libertarian.

              2. To be clear, what even is the issue if it was a demand? (which it wasn’t)

                1. It would be abusing the power of his office, and money allocated by Congress, to extort a political campaign favor from a foreign nation.

                  1. I don’t see how there is an “campaign favor.”

                    If Biden is as innocent as you lefties claim, then it would be a campaign disaster for Trump.

                    1. Exactly

                    2. Explain why Trump was communicating to Sondland and others he would be satisfied to get only a *public announcement* of an investigation, and didn’t care that much about an actual investigation being conducted.

                  2. Now do the entire #Russia debacle. Amazing how credulous you are when it comes to team blue talking points.

                    1. You’ll never find me defending the Democrat’s Russian probe. I think it was a fiasco, and only hurt them politically to keep DNC corruption in the news cycle instead of letting it go down the memory hole.

    3. You order the Department of Justice, which is part of your administration, to open a legitimate investigation.

      If you are POTUS and you feel you don’t have control of your own Department of Justice because it is full of Deep State operatives who will subvert your goals, maybe that’s a bigger problem to address first before going after the Bidens.

      1. Yeah, Trump should fire the career bureaucrats at the DOJ… and then get impeached for obstruction like you demanded for literally 3 consecutive years

        1. I never said any such thing. I was busy with other things in my life three years ago and not posting much at Reason.

          1. You should go back to doing those other things.

      2. A legitimate investigation which the Democrats would decry as illegitimate and politically motivated in a heartbeat. You know, the same way they are already doing with Barr and Durham.

        Keep shifting those goalposts, though.

      3. Mike….help me out here. Please explain what you see as a legitimate investigation by the DOJ. Seriously, can you tell us what are the characteristics of a legitimate investigation?

  7. Glad there’s not even a pretense of objectivity or evenhandedness in the piece. Makes it easier to evaluate.

    1. Of all Binions articles on the impeachment, this is the one where he pretty much quotes what the Democrats said. No spin, just summarizing what THEY said.

      1. Quotes, regurgitates without examination. Same thing.

        By contrast let’s see his coverage of the Republican report. Hmmmmmm.

        1. Yes, the other story about the Republican report did have a lot more spin and judgementalism.

    1. Ditch TR and chisel in DJT.

  8. This article, when combined with Binion’s earlier article about the Republican response, provides a perfect example of the glaring lack of objectivity in Reason’s impeachment coverage.

    Democrat claims and accusations no matter how specious are taken at face value, while Republican rebuttals are ridiculed and treated as nothing more than partisan posturing.

    It not particularly shocking that Reason’s impeachment coverage would be so nakedly partisan; impeachment is a political process, after all. But if I wanted to read HuffPo or Salon I’d actually go to those websites.

    1. Then why do you come here? You only appear to bitch about how Reason is too lefty for your tastes.

      And as I mentioned on here many times before, the libertarian imperative is to always support impeachment. If you don’t get that, then this place really isn’t for you.

      1. I’m convinced it is at least partly a type of brigading of Reason.

      2. LUB IT OR LEEB IT!

      3. And as I mentioned on here many times before, the libertarian imperative is to always support impeachment.

        Which is why you defended Obama against Republican attacks for 8 years and said that investigating Hillary Clinton’s email scandal was a partisan witch hunt, right you disingenuous lying fat sack of shit?

      4. “And as I mentioned on here many times before, the libertarian imperative is to always support impeachment”

        On what page in the gospel of libertarianism does it say that, eunuch?

        1. I’ve certainly never heard that before.

      5. Because I otherwise agree with about 90% of what Reason publishes.

        But if we’re going with the “No True Scotsman” definition of libertarians, I would assume that also includes not automatically accepting what career NSA and CIA employees say as God’s Own Truth.

      6. //The libertarian imperative is to always support impeachment.//

        Yea, well, that’s exactly why libertarians like you are often referred to as “autists” that never grew out of their high school anarchy phase.

  9. Poor Billy, drawing the short straw again.

  10. ‘Member when Democrats told us all that it would be a waste of time and tax dollars to prosecute top Democrat politicians for felonies and misdemeanors that were actually backed by evidence?

    1. No

      1. Maybe if you pulled your head out of your ass first.

  11. Paddypower, the bookies in women-have-rights Ireland that took a beating when The Don won, are laying 5 to 4 odds he does NOT get impeached.

  12. Hmmm…nothing about how Adam Schiff got phone records for Devin Nunes? No concerns about how the Democrats SPIED on the ranking Republican of the committee?

    1. Shhhhh. If obama can spy on Congress, Schiff can too.

    2. Can you provide a link?

    3. Is this the article where you read about it?

      The author, Elizabeth Vaughn, claims, “Schiff refused to say how he was able to obtain these records.” Other articles say they were obtained from AT&T and Verizon, but don’t give much detail of how or under what legal justification.

      1. No no, this is where Jesse et al. are getting the claim that Schiff SPIED on Devin Nunes:

        Why, just look at the headline:
        “Shock: Adam Schiff Investigated Devin Nunes’s Phone Records”

        If you want to know where they get their talking points, first stop should be Breitbart

        1. So…. what are we saying here? That it didn’t happen because someone at Breitbart reported on it?

          1. What I”m saying is, the truth is probably less sinister than Breitbart is making it out to be.

            1. You shouldn’t take the word of anonymous sources with an axe to grind unless it comes to impeaching the president, right cytotoxic?

            2. Explains why Schiff said that he did it and explained why. Because there was nothing to hide.

              Schiff really should be called to testify about his NUMEROUS issues involving this.

            3. Just a government official obtaining phone records of private individuals not currently under investigation. Nothing to see here… as long as you’re a diehard progressive who embraces actual abuse of power.

  13. It’s too bad all you GOPers couldn’t get it together enough to impeach Obama for… well, something or other. Maybe you lack organizational capability. When I think of the terrible things Dear Leader has to endure from these peons in the Democrat Party… well… it makes me want to bomb a federal building with a bunch of toddlers in it. I’m so mad!

    1. How dare those Republicans not twist the law and impeachment process to go after obama!!! Use lawfare!!!

      Your argument is hilarious.

      1. Oh, Jesse. Yes, the Republicans would never use the impeachment process for political purposes. That’s never happened, lol.

        1. I know, right?
          It’s not as if plenty of Republicans were demanding impeachment of Obama, particularly with regards to Benghazi and Fast & Furious.

          And they kinda had a point. Maybe instead of conducting endless hearings on Benghazi, the Republicans should have decided to draft articles of impeachment instead.

          1. He was talking about the Clinton impeachment you fucking retarded sack of shit.

            1. And of course, he’s leaving aside that president Clinton actually perjured himself and was impeached for demonstrable misconduct, not on the basis of Chinese whispers among butthurt mid level administrative holdovers from the prior administration.

          2. “It’s not as if plenty of Republicans were demanding impeachment of Obama”

            I missed the impeachment hearings of those. How’d they go?

        2. Referring to Clinton’s impeachment for actual crimes? You mist have been inconsolable for weeks.

  14. “They note that impeachment charges are not criminal charges,”

    Then why do they supposedly require high crimes AND misdemeanors ?

    1. The Constitution doesn’t spell out what those are. Therefore words can mean whatever we want them to.

      1. High crimes and misdemeanors has a well established meaning in common law, and, yes, it encompasses abuse of office that isn’t necessarily breaking a criminal law.


        “The [Constitutional Convention of 1787] adopted ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping ‘suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,’ granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

        1. I’m on board, but only if we impeach everyone else who has done one of those things.

          1. Yea Mike is partisan so he’s not for that.

          2. I’m fine with that.

            1. Sure you are.

        2. Does “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” count?

          1. No. That was never said by any democrat.
            It is a made up quote used by racists and alt-right bigots to attempt to slander dear leader.

  15. The greatest irony of all is that Reason normally are reflexively dismissive of the opinions of career bureaucrats. From the cops to the military to practically every government agency at every level, Reason automatically applies a healthy layer of skepticism to anything a public employee says.

    Not so with impeachment. Every statement by career federal bureaucrats about Donald Trump has been treated as factual and objective; questions about their motives have been dismissed while glaring holes in their testimonies have been ignored.

    It has been remarkable to see the transformation. Reason has finally found government employees that they can trust without reservation.

    1. They were dismissive though. Every time a witness said they had no direct orders to withhold funding Reason dismissed the testimony. When the OMB rep stated this was a normal review Reason dismissed it.

      1. The OMB rep testified that it was not normal for a huge aid package to be held up for weeks without lots of communication about why it was being held up.

        1. Because Ukraine is a corrupt shit hole and maybe we need some assurance that they are cleaning their act up?

          Now was it unusual for a VP to demand a prosecutor get fired in return for aid?

          But investigating that is somehow impeachable

          1. Once again, it is the way Trump chose to pursue an investigation.

            1. Ah, the “proper channels” argument rears its head again. As though an internal investigation would never be characterized as politically motivated and the Democrats would simply nod along in agreement.

              Who the fuck do you think you’re kidding?

              1. They would disagree and spin the investigation in the news. But, so what.

            2. So what about Schiff’s conflicts of interest and outright lies as part of this process? Why do you keep forgetting about that? It’s almost as if you really don’t have any principles and are willing to cling to whatever narrative necessary.

              1. What are his conflicts of interest?
                What are his outright lies?
                If you say what they are, I might agree with you. Don’t know what you’re referring to, though.

            3. Yes, those proper channels that constantly lie leak, and criminally abuse American citizens, including the president of the US.

              Yeah, let’s stick with ‘proper channels’.

              1. Is President Trump the head of the Executive Branch of the Federal government or not?

  16. In short, the Democrats admit they’ve got nothing.

    “A politician used his power to try to promote his own political fortunes” is an even worse grounds for an impeachment attempt than “A politician tried to cover up that he got a blow job in his office from a quite-willing staffer.” After all, there are some politicians who don’t do the latter; the former standard disqualifies every single one.

    (Yes, yes, Democrats can rant on prettily about what the impeachment is “really” about, how the way Trump did it crossed ethical lines. They’ll have just as good a time as Republicans who ranted about how Clinton’s crimes were perjury and obstruction of justice.)

    1. Note the utter meaninglessness of the term “abuse of power “. Is that a crime? No because if it was, they would say it was a crime. So what is it? It is nothing

      1. Do you think power can be abused in ways that aren’t criminal?

        For example, if a manager “asks a favor” of one of his employees to wash his car and mow his lawn, do you think that is an abuse of the manager’s power over his employees, even if no crimes were committed?

        1. No. It is really that simple. If it is legal it is by definition not an abuse. What are you abusing of you have the authority to do it?

          1. The abuse, in the case of my example, is the use of the manager’s power over his employees to demand that they perform tasks that have no reasonable connection to their place of employment, but purely for the manager’s personal gain. The clear implication here is that the employees are not completely free to refuse the manager’s “request”, and that if the employees do refuse, that the manager will use the refusal against them in personnel decisions at the workplace.

            1. Using an unconstrained power granted by the constitution is not abuse because you dont like it dumbass. The courts ruled at a state level on this fact in Texas vs Perry. The democrats trying to say replacing an obama political appointee with his own pick as abuse is beyond retarded. And you agree with that. Because you are beyond retarded.

              1. Stick to the example.
                I’m not talking specifically about what Trump did or didn’t do with respect to Yovanovich.

                Is it possible to abuse one’s power even if the act is not illegal?

                1. If Pluto is a dog, then…what is Goofy?

                2. In the example you gave? No this is not an abuse of power for a manager to ask a favor of an employee.

                  I will go further and say that, even if the manager had a bonus to pay the employee, it is not an abuse of power for the manager to ask a favor of the employee.

                  And if the employee receives his bonus despite never mowing a manager’s lawn or cleaning a manager’s car by what *principle* do you insist that the manager did something improper by even asking for a favor?

                  1. By the imaginary principle, where everything and anything is an “abuse of power” if you believe in it hard enough.

                3. //Is it possible to abuse one’s power even if the act is not illegal?//


    2. In short, the Democrats admit they’ve got nothing.

      It’s a show about nothing.

      1. Now I’m imaging a comedy sketch where the Seinfeld gang are running impeachment hearings…….

        That would be funny shit.

  17. House Democrats say the president “endangered national security.”

    Well no shit, Sherlock – why do you think the CIA and the FBI and the NSA were all working together to keep him from taking office? They knew from Day One that Trump was trouble and the American people shouldn’t be hanging out with his sort.

    1. Wait, is this sarcastic?

      1. That is up to you, isn’t it?

    2. They endangered security by giving Ukraine the javelin system which Obama refused to send over.

  18. How can a democracy survive without acceptance of a common set of experiences?

    It can’t, but we’re so far down that road there’s no turning back. The USA will be breaking up. Let’s hope it’s done peacefully.

    1. It will be peaceful. Everyone is to into getting coffee every morning and playing with their phones to physically fight in a civil war.

      1. Not me, I’m bored of all that.

      2. But, if it’s not peaceful, we can be assured that Mike Laursen would survive by being dutifully above the fray. He would float over the carnage, like an ethereal referee, with a clear view of the destruction.

    2. I hope it’s mercilessly bloody, personally. I don’t think the unarmed urbanites who can’t live for 12 hours without a staff of illiterate Mexicans to hold their dick for them have really thought out the wisdom of going to war with people who are self sufficient and own all the guns.

      1. Truth be told, if it comes down to that, the Mexicans will just take over the cities and the soy boys will be relegated to bargaining away their wives and girlfriends for safe passage to the red country. Of course, once they arrive in the red country, they’ll be shot on the spot for their obsequiousness and lack of balls. That problem with being a subservient, weaseling cuck is that you are neither respected by your friends or your enemies.

        1. Pretty much. It certainly won’t end well for Pedo Jeffy.

  19. Wo, wait a minute, are they planning to impeach Donald Trump or what?

  20. “The Feds can’t investigate me, I’m running for President!”

    1. #LibertariansForDeepStateImmunityFromInvestigations

      1. Yeah, literally no one has called for that.

        1. Yeah, literally that’s exactly what you and the Reason staff are calling for. Literally. Not figuratively. You literally are arguing that Joe Biden cannot be investigated by Trump while he is a candidate for president because it invites the appearance of corruption. You personally, and the Reason staffers whose jizz you guzzle, have said exactly that.

          1. Well said, sir.

    2. Was there any attempt at having the Feds investigate Biden?

      1. Yes, or no – should there be one?

        1. I would welcome any corruption on Biden’s part being exposed. I’m not sure whether it would be a waste of time and money, though, since it has been a few years since Biden was Vice President. If an investigation had been done earlier, it would be more likely to be effective.

  21. “Wait, are you Democrats aware that this impeachment stuff might affect the election?”

    “Hmm…we never thought of that, I suppose it might.”

    “Is that why you’re agitating impeachment now? Political motives and a desire to influence the election?”

    “Nonsense, we’re using our constitutional prerogatives in an attempt to hold wrongdoers to account. If we cut some corners, or if we happen to incur some benefit from our service to the public, that’s just the way it happens, and it bears no comparison to Trump’s politically motivated investigation of so-called corruption by Biden.”

    1. Leftists Always Project

  22. For purposes of context, the articles of impeachment against both Johnson and Clinton included some charges along the lines of “abuse of power” or “saying bad things about Congress” in addition to claims about things that could be real crimes. Since both were acquitted on all articles voted on by the Senate, we can’t say how much merit there was to those claims as bases for impeachment and removal, but the Senate/Chief Justice didn’t dismiss them either. The trial in the Senate against Johnson occurred around May of 1868, an election year (Grant won).

    1. Hell, Johnson did not even run in 1868.

  23. So, does that mean Clinton also endangered national security when her staff approached multiple foreign groups – including the Russians – for dirt on Trump to benefit her election.

    And settled on accepting utter falsehoods made-up by professional reputation wreckers when they couldn’t come up with anything real?

    1. Billyboy will be by shortly to explain ‘that’s different.’

  24. How can a democracy survive without acceptance of a common set of experiences?”

    Oh, that’s just Sondland wanting to go back to a simpler time. A time when the Big 3 networks were all that was available and Cronkite told the masses the news they needed to know. When gatekeepers could tell you which books were ‘great literature’. When the prols took their soma and voted like they were told to.

    Great days for democracy those were.

  25. One thing I am surprised about…. Schiff is the face of this “investigation”. Schiff pontificates about the evil that is asking a foreign government for dirt on a political opponent…… yet we have the audio of a prank call made to Schiff in which he personally asks for dirt on Trump from people purporting to be Russian agents.

    How in the world is this not the second header on every single impeachment hearing article?

    “Despite having attempted to get dirt on Trump from people he thought were Russian agents, Schiff alleges that….”

    How is that not the framing every single time?

    Instead, outlets like CNN claim this is “debunked” or fact check it as false…. Not because it didn’t happen, or because Schiff didn’t want to get dirt on Trump from foreign agents.. .but because Schiff claimed that he was going to get the FBI involved when called out on it. As if that is the magical difference.

    1. Principals trump principles in the Age of Trump.

  26. “…House Democrats on Tuesday released their impeachment report, which directly accuses President Donald Trump of inappropriately pressuring Ukraine into helping to advance his 2020 reelection efforts…”

    Oh NOOOO!
    Why would any incumbent use the incumbency to aid re-election???

  27. Thank’s for post this most useful Information. It’s very helpful
    My website:

  28. How come the little weasel doesn’t have a snarky title for this article? “Impeachment report shows democrats good, orange man bad” or something?

  29. How about the Democrats sending articles of impeachment to the Senate next week, and the Senate voting to remove Trump by Christmas. That gives the Republicans the moral high ground, and almost a year to find someone completely un-Trump like to run in 2020.

    1. They have somebody – Bill Weld. I might even forgo the Libertarian candidate to vote for Weld.

      1. Why are you responding to your other sock.

  30. Can the Senate just go ahead and vote “not guilty” now so the House can maybe look at some real legislation? You know, maybe fund the government or pass USMCA, or address the legal and illegal immigration issues?

    1. The idea that a lot of Dem candidates would be barred from campaigning due to a trial would be amusing to me.

    2. You know, I used to think that way, too. Then I thought….you know what, if the Congress does absolutely nothing aside from CRs to keep government going…is that really so bad? My answer is: No, not really. The Republic will survive.

      Seems to me that a Congress fixated on impeachment is a Congress not doing legislative mischief (malpractice?).

  31. Impeachment does not have to over an objective violation of the law. A legal violation is easier to establish directly and objectively as there is established standard to judge by. The Congress impeaching over a standard they are making up on the fly would seem to have to be something so outrageous it would get bipartisan support. An impeachment finding based on an amorphous violation of the public trust on a party line vote would be deficient.

  32. Again Ukraine is manipulated into foreign interests. They have this bad luck, similar as Poland, being located just between the devil and the deep blue sea.

  33. Isn’t pretty much every act of a politician done to ‘benefit his re-election?’

    What makes this one so special?

    1. Withholding military aid to Ukraine to extort Ukraine into publicly announcing an investigation against his 2020 Presidential campaign rival.

      1. Is that suppose to be any different than publicly announcing Mueller’s Russian-Collusion investigation?

        I guess its different since one was entirely carried out without a single squirm while the other I guess was grounds for impeachment.

  34. “pressuring Ukraine into helping to advance his 2020 reelection efforts” — The speculative accusation this entire sh#t-show rests upon.

    countered by –
    “This impeachment sh#t-show is all about thwarting the 2020 re-election of President Trump.”

    Who started the, “I know you are; but what am I” mentality driven sh#t-show trial cases to begin with?????

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.