No high crimes and misdemeanors. Haven't shown that his intention in asking Ukraine to investigate was for his own political interest and not the country's. (It can be beneficial to both and still be completely legal. If not, many if not most presidents should have been impeached) The subpoenas they issued weren't even valid because of procedural errors. Most of the testimonies were people's opinions. Ambassador Sondland was the only one to testify who had first hand knowledge. He testified that Trump specifically said no quid pro quo. (In reality there was a quid pro quo, but there is nothing wrong with a quid pro quo per se. Again, it has to be shown that Trump's intent was for personal advantage against a political rival and not to investigate corruption on behalf of the country.)
To commence the investigation was ill-advised. But an ill-advised investigation is not what needs to be demonstrated.
Let's break this down.
Extorting Ukraine and obstructing congress falls under the definition of high crime and misdemeanor.
Everyone under oath swears that he had the intention of extorting Ukraine. Anyone who would have spoken directly to Trump about it is blocked from testifying. Why are they blocked from testimony? Is it because they don't want to make Trump too innocent? Jesus tap dancing Christ, his former national security advisor is releasing a book with a chapter on it. Contemplate this... no one who would exonerate Trump is being asked to testify. Why is that?
Trump specifically said "no quid pro quo"? Oh. Case closed. Because if the defended said they didn't do it then that's it.
Oh hold the phone. Procedural errors! Holy Shit, man. I'm sorry. I didn't know. These monsters didn't accurate fill out the A0 88 authorization for a subpeona? MADNESS! Obviously conspiracies to defraud the public and cheat in an election pale in comparison to not having a notary public notarize the subpoenas.
And, oh my lord. I just found this out with some research. I have no choice but to go full #MAGA after this atrocity. I don't mean to upset you so please sit down before you read this. Those monsterous house democrats failed to honor House Rule XI, clause 2(j)(1). THIS WILL NOT STAND! I'm booking a flight to DC and I'm demanding the immediate resignation from Adam Schiff.
This is a dark day my friends. They say that there's two things that people will never forget. The first being where they were on 9-11 and how they found out that the Democrats didn't follow House Rule XI, clause 2(j)(1)
Let's break this down for you again. Actually first, think about whether deciding to impeach, then casting about for a reason is likely to lead to reliable results.
Beating the opposition to death with a boot would also probably be considered a high crime and misdemeanor. The issue is, in order to prove that Trump "extorted Ukraine" you would have to prove that Trump's intent was to gain a personal advantage against a political rival and not to investigate corruption on behalf of the country. The case for that is weak at best. A bunch of partisans stating under oath that they feel Trump meant to "extorted Ukraine" is not strong evidence. Also, they could have subpoenaed anyone, they just needed to go through the legal process like any other subpoena. I'm baffled why you think it's OK to throw due process out the window.
And yes, you can't charge him with Obstruction of Congress when that charge is based on him not complying with subpoenas that are not valid due to procedural errors. Again, you seem to think it's OK to throw out due process if the person being charged is a bad man and it will take too long. That's ludicrous. Even without the procedural error, not complying with subpoenas was no crime whatsoever as no court had validated the subpoenas anyway. (Now I get that you think he SHOULD have complied and maybe you're right. But THAT's not what's at issue. The issue is whether he broke the law.)
You completely missed the point regarding Sondland's testimony. The point was, he was the only one with first hand knowledge and that was his testimony. It wasn't true, I said so in my previous post. There was a quid pro quo. Quid pro quos are common. Millions of them happen every day. If quid pro quos were impeachable every president would be impeached. Trump shouldn't have said there was no quid pro quo, but that's not what they impeached him for and it's not impeachable anyway.
The book is expected to state that there was a quid pro quo which creates a problem for Trump and the Republicans because they've been trying to defend the no quid pro quo position. What the book is unlikely to do, is establish that Trump's intent was to gain a personal advantage against a political rival and not to investigate corruption on behalf of the country.
If it does establish that, perhaps Congress should have waited till it came out so they could have had something solid to base their charges on.
It seems you don't understand how the legal system works very well. It has checks and balances for very good reason. You can't just throw out the checks and balances because Trump's a bad man and impeaching him legally will take too long.
Poll