Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

Apparently the hearings would seem to be mostly over. The impeachment appears to based on one man's presumptions, Sondland. Most of the other intelligence committee's witnesses, including Sondland, acted upon Sondland's presumptions as facts. This would negate the majority of the testimonies as based on Sondland's presumptions. The remaining witnesses including three of the four professors were based on emotional responses or differences of opinion on foreign policy. None of it has definitively proven anything. No meaningful facts to support impeachment. The only voice of reason in the entire process has been Professor Turley with his warning of a rush to judgement.

Quid pro quo? Bribery? This for That. There is not one bill in congress, not one treaty, most foreign aid, most human interaction, not one negotiation about anything that does not contain expectations of something in return. That's the very definition of quid pro quo. The difference between acceptable and unacceptable quid pro quo is intent.

The charges come down to one thing and one thing only..... intent. Was President Trump motivated by the assurance by President Zelensky of an investigation of corruption in Ukraine, a requirement of the foreign aid, or, was President Trump motivated by an effort to smear an opponent in the 2020 e******n? One may believe they know what Trump's intent was, one way or the other, but no evidence has been presented to prove what his actual intent was. Presumptions and assumption do not prove intent. The question of President Trump's intent has not been proven.

Should the Democrats impeach President Trump based on their assumptions of his intent then certainly,
Biden, should he be elected, could just as easily be impeached on day one for his dealings with Ukraine and Burisma on the same basis of the belief in Biden's corrupt intent to enrich and protect his son. Certainly every future President, politician, judge or anyone else could be impeached and/or removed from their office or job based on assumptions of intent.

CarryOn

Excellent post! Spot on!

Singularity

Those witnesses and that evidence have been withheld that might give us facts in this regard. Purposeful obstruction and stonewalling to prevent the evaluation of requested revelatory evidence is to me an indication of the cognizance and consciousness of guilt.

CarryOn

If the dems are so convinced of that, then why don't they wait out the court decisions on those witnesses' testimonies? What is the rush to judgment here without all the facts on such an important issue ... especially if they truly believe that those testimonies would provide the solid proof they are looking for that would change the public's mind, as well as force Republicans to v**e differently?

Singularity

The charge, essentially, is that Mr Trump has effectively, repeatedly and determinedly sought to influence the outcome of US e******ns in his own favor on a number of occasions both in 2016 and at present. And that he continues to illegally attempt to double down on these attempts in the upcoming e******n in 2020. His attempts are a clear and present danger that grows more pernicious as the e******n approaches.

It is not one straggling subpoena or a couple of recalcitrant witnesses. He has written an overriding directive to his entire administration ordering them in effect to completely resist this investigation.

CarryOn

The dems have absolutely no proof that he "sought influence in his own favor ... in 2016" based on two years and $30 million worth of investigations into the matter. That is a nonissue and there are no facts to prove it. There are also no facts at all to prove that he sought to influence the 2020 e******n in his favor, except in the minds of the Trump-hating dems who are determined to grab onto any bit of presumption, assumption, hearsay, and opinion that they can twist into something that they can make sound like a crime. The transcript of the call was released and there is no "smoking gun" as the dems are trying desperately to convince everyone, including themselves. And none of the witnesses admitted, under oath, that they had any proof or personal knowledge of any impeachable offense. If the transcript was the "smoking gun," then schiff would not have had to rewrite it to say what he wants everyone to believe. All he would have had to do was to read the real transcript itself, word for word, and that would have been enough.

So if these witnesses ... Bolton, Mulvany, and others ... have personal knowledge of wrongdoing and facts that would help their flailing case, as nadler and schiff continue to claim ... are ordered to testify, then it would behoove nadler and dems to wait until their testimony is heard. They might even gain a few Republican v**es if the testimony is as damning as they seem to think it will be. All to their advantage ... if they're right ...

Singularity

They are expressly obstructed. Ordered by the President to not respond to the congressional oversight committees.

The President was given an opportunity to provide input, exculpatory or explanatory just this week. He demurred.

Availing oneself of the right to remain silent cannot be legally held against one. But deliberate obstructive acts that signal consciousness of guilt may require looking into. As in official investigation.

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

Why should Biden be elected? And not Pence or Nikki Haley or even McConnel.