[Cardfan1]

^^If one is willing to leapfrog the facts of the case, and concentrate solely on the emotional blather which constitutes the House's justification for impeaching the President, then you might have a point. Oh but there is the one nagging fly in the ointment. The House prosecutors rested their case.

Past that IMHO, your historical impeachment synopsis is nothing more than a liberal talking point version of same. Matter of record; > Adam Schiff lied, over and over again. >The so-called whistle blower is by all reports an employee of the intelligence community with a demonstrated ax to grind against the Administration. >The entire case is a matter of highly debatable interpretive slander based in assumptions. I. E. the testimony of Ambassador Sondland, whom had to admit under oath that said testimony was based entirely on his own "presumption." I mean, we all got an opinion here.

I believe the argument being made about the Constitution (that you keep ducking BTW) is in order to legally impeach a President it takes more than a political ax to grind. It takes proven transgressions of the high crime and misdemeanor category. Not a bunch of self absorbed sniping subordinates with delusions of grandeur. All willing to forfeit their last remaining shred of personal integrity for an opportunity in the impeachment limelight. There is no proof at all. Again. The prosecution rested their case when they transmitted the articles to the Senate. Now demands are being made to have the Senate extend the prosecution. The President was denied due process in the House, and now the calls are being made to continue to deny due process in the Senate.

The impeachment process was meant to be the picture of due process, in classical trial format. With the Senate filling the role of the silent deliberative jury. Enter today's Democrat drama queens and their supporters and you get the circus presently afoot. But I'll tell you something we actually do have with regard to all of this should the Dems prevail. An existential Constitutional crisis.

President Trump's so-called polarizing style is 100% a mischaracterization, front to back--- top to bottom. Unlike Obama, the true special interest President, Trump is guilty of nothing more than representing all Americans equally, that and border security, economic boom times, a resurgent military, historically low minority unemployment rates, resuscitated retirement programs, and generally putting America first. Everything the Dems are spouting to the contrary are manifestations of 'the resistance,' and just about as un-American as one could get.

Sondland, Vindman, Hill, Taylor, Morrison, etc. all testified to what they felt was the expectation from the Trump administration. I imagine this mission statement wasn't written down and put on White House letterhead considering the corrupt nature of the action.

Like I've said many times on here Bolton, Mulvaney, and Pompeo are probably the only ones who can testify Trump's definite purpose. Well...Giuliani, but he has attorney-client privilege.

Coercion or bribery would not fit as a high crime or misdemeanor? What about soliciting foreign interference? Both seem to fit here. High misdemeanor in governmental terminology has to do with maladministration.

Due process is in a criminal trial.

I wasn't debating any of the Trump administration's accomplishments. Just speaking on him as a candidate versus the Democratic candidates.