US House Speaker Announces Formal Impeachment Inquiry

[PointOfViewGun]

It's obvious that you can't deduce an inflection from a deflection. Mulvaney was stating that every time any President engages in foreign policy with any country there is going to be a quid pro quo. You're claiming that Trump tied funds to a request to investigate 2016 election interference and corruption investigations in Ukraine. That didn't happen.

That's literaly what Mulvaney described. Why you try to deny something so basic is beyond me.

Here's the transcript of Mick Mulvaney's Thursday press briefing — decide for yourself whether he confirms Trump’s Ukraine phone call was an illegal quid pro quo

Karl: "So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that it was ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?"

Mulvaney: "The look-back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate."

Karl: "For withholding the funding?"

Mulvaney: "Which ultimately then, flowed. We were worried if we didn't pay out the money it would be illegal, it would be unlawful. That is one of those things that has a little shred of truth in it that makes it look a lot worse than it really is. We were concerned about, over at OMB, about impoundment. I know I put half of you to bed, but there is the Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974 that says if Congress appropriates money, you have to spend it. We knew that money had to go out the door by the end of September, or we had to have a really good reason not to do it. And that was the legality of the issue."

Karl: "But to be clear, what you just described is a quid-pro-quo: the funding will not flow unless you're getting an investigation into the Democratic server happened as well."

Mulvaney: "We do that all the time with foreign policy. We were holding up money at the same time to the Northern Triangle countries so they would change their policies on immigration. This speaks to an important point because I heard this yesterday and I can never remember the gentleman who testified. Was it Mckinney? I don't remember, he testified yesterday...he said yesterday that he was really upset with the political influence in foreign policy. I have news for everybody: get over it. There's going to be political influence in foreign policy. That is going to happen. Elections have consequences, and the foreign policy is going to change from the Obama administration to the Trump administration."

[Gaidin]

If you look closely you willsee that there are two paragraphs in my statement. The first is concerning constitutionality. Since the President hasn't done anything illegal it is unconstitutional to brings charges against him. The President has the Constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy how he sees fit.

High crimes and misdemeanors are determined by the House as they impeach, not by the lower tier of the law. This was literally written ironically by the guidance of Hillary Clinton when it came to Nixon and was followed again ironically for Clinton and will likely be followed again for this.

US Archives.

Of all of the 83 articles of impeachment voted out of the House in the United states, fewer than one third of them involve actual federal crimes.

The second paragraph is about historic precedents in American Congressional affairs. In that respect, this should be handled by the Judiciary Committee, not the Intelligence Committee, which wasn't even in existence when the first impeachment process occurred.

Initial investigations do not nor ever have to be followed or initiated by Judiciary Committees. I need only point to both Nixon and Clinton for precedent for this, nevermind House rules themselves. Given evidence was found by Special Prosecutors in both of these cases and given to the House. And House rules allow for evidence to be discovered by other committees. Given this all started with an IC whistleblower and extend to State activities(or lack thereof), it seems relevant the initial investigations start with the IC and Foreign Affairs committees. With evidence being passed to Judiciary.

You know, just like in Nixon and Clinton before Impeachment resolutions are written and voted on.

Of course, you're a person who can't quite understand what a deposition is, so...you're not going to be able to follow any of this logic either. So, we'll see where this goes.

[B. W.]

That's literaly what Mulvaney described. Why you try to deny something so basic is beyond me.

Here's the transcript of Mick Mulvaney's Thursday press briefing — decide for yourself whether he confirms Trump’s Ukraine phone call was an illegal quid pro quo

Once again, there is nothing in that transcript that says Trump told the Ukrainian president that funds would be withheld if Biden wasn't investigated. Nothing!

At the time of the phone call the Ukrainian President wasn't even aware that the funds were held up in OMB discussions making it impossible for the type of quid pro quo you are insinuating.

High crimes and misdemeanors are determined by the House as they impeach, not by the lower tier of the law. This was literally written ironically by the guidance of Hillary Clinton when it came to Nixon and was followed again ironically for Clinton and will likely be followed again for this.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...o-trump-228107

Of all of the 83 articles of impeachment voted out of the House in the United states, fewer than one third of them involve actual federal crimes.


Initial investigations do not nor ever have to be followed or initiated by Judiciary Committees. I need only point to both Nixon and Clinton for precedent for this, nevermind House rules themselves. Given evidence was found by Special Prosecutors in both of these cases and given to the House. And House rules allow for evidence to be discovered by other committees. Given this all started with an IC whistleblower and extend to State activities(or lack thereof), it seems relevant the initial investigations start with the IC and Foreign Affairs committees. With evidence being passed to Judiciary.

You know, just like in Nixon and Clinton before Impeachment resolutions are written and voted on.

Of course, you're a person who can't quite understand what a deposition is, so...you're not going to be able to follow any of this logic either. So, we'll see where this goes.

I know Hillary was involved in Nixon's impeachment and I've already mentioned it in this thread. You can make all the arguments you want, but you'll never be able to justify the "whistle blower" not being called to testify when a process has been started that has the ultimate goal of unseating a legitimately elected President.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth:

At the end of the day, the specific question of “quid pro quo” doesn’t matter much in the question of impeaching President Trump. Impeachment is politics, loosely predicated on wrongdoing. If Congress determines that an action is impeachable, it’s impeachable.

That said, the impeachment inquiry targeting Trump is specifically focused on his interactions with Ukraine and, secondarily, whether he withheld aid or a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to force Zelensky to announce new investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election or into former vice president Joe Biden.

Evidence that Trump and his team did exactly that keeps mounting. On Thursday, Tim Morrison — until this week a special assistant to Trump — will testify before the House impeachment inquiry and reportedly confirm prior testimony in which an explicit quid pro quo was alleged. By itself that’s remarkable. But at this point it’s simply a few more logs tossed into an already raging bonfire.

There are, by our count, at least eight instances in which an explicit quid pro quo has been alleged publicly, even setting aside acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney’s assertion to that end earlier this month. Four of those instances have been corroborated by additional witnesses according to media reports, including two instances involving Morrison.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...eps-piling-up/

[Gaidin]

I know Hillary was involved in Nixon's impeachment and I've already mentioned it in this thread. You can make all the arguments you want, but you'll never be able to justify the "whistle blower" not being called to testify when a process has been started that has the ultimate goal of unseating a legitimately elected President.

Impeaching Trump doesn't unseat his presidency. It puts his VP in. Or did you miss that part of the Constitution as well? And quite frankly, if you don't like the Whistleblower Protections, call your congressman. Let's see how long it takes to rescind them. Then let's see how many bad laws get passed and how much waste, fraud, and abuse happens.

Furthermore, let's look at the Crminality issue, which my link addresses directly. The phrase 'high Crimes and Misdemeanors' may connotate criminality to someone like you. That's fine, but that takes away some of the context of the writing. It leads many to believe that only an indictable crime can be an impeachable crime. It would lead some to establish an indictable standard, possibly a 'beyond-reasonable-doubt' standard when there is already a strangely bipartisan standard that achieves this to successfuly convict someone via impeachment. You only need a majority to impeach someone and start a trial. That is a partisan vote. You need 2/3 of the Senate to convict. No way about it that is historically a bipartisan vote and very difficult to achieve. And no matter given the politics of the past, even today, and possibly the future, that is much more difficult than 'beyond-reasonable-doubt'.

Either way, a requirement of criminality would require familiar criminal laws and concepts to serve as standards in the process. This would be a problem concerning the applicabity of standards of proof pertaining to the trial of crimes. It has also been argued that because Treason and Bribery are crimes, 'other High Crimes and Misdemeanors' must be crimes under the rule of construction. But that requires a unifying principle. Here that principle is criminality or conduct subversive of constitutional institutions and government. Worth noting: The Constitution was ratified in 1787, bribery was not a federal crime until 1790 for federal judges, 1853 for members of Congress, and 1863 for other civil officers. This suggests that conduct not amounting to federal bribery may nonetheless amount to constitutional "high Crime and Misdemeanor" form of "Bribery".

The impeachment of a federal officer must occur only for reasons at least as pressing as those needs of government that give rise to the creation of criminal offenses. But that does not mean that elements of proof, defenses, and other concepts control the process. It also doesn't mean that federal codes are the place we turn to to provide a standard. Impeachment is a Constitutional remedy. Framers intended the language should reflect grave misconduct.

This goes by the historical meaning of the words "high Crimes and Misdemeanors". They have a different meaning from the ordinary term "crimes" and "misdemeanors". "High misdemeanors" refer to a category that subvert the system of government, used by the English impeachment cases to charge officials with a wide range of criminal AND non-criminal offenses. Hamilton acknowledged Great Britain as "the model from which impeachment has been borrowed". George Mason referred in the debates to the impeachment of Warren Hastings, then pending before Parliament. Mason, who proposed the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors", specifically stated intent to encompass "attempts to subvert the Constitution."

Published records of state ratification conventions don't reveal an intention to limit the grounds of impeachment to criminal offenses.

James Iredell from North Carolina:

...the person convicted is further liable to a trial at common law, and may recieve such common-law punishment as belongs to a description of such offenses if it be punishable by that law.

George Nicholas of Virginia:

If he deviates from his duty, he is responsible to his constituents... He will be absolutely disqualified to hold any place of profit, honor, or trust, and liable to further punishment if he has committed such high crimes as are punishable at common law.

Impeachment and criminal law serve fundamentally different purposes. Impeachment is the first step in a process, removal from office, possible disqualification from holding future office. There is no purpose to impeachment involving personal punishment. It's purpose is to maintain government, the Constitution itself provides that impeachment is no substitute for criminal law as there is no immunization of the officer from criminal liability.

The general purpose of criminal law also make it inappropriate as the standard of removing a public officer. Criminal law sets a standard of conduct. It does not set itself to the abuses of office of any public officer. In an impeachment proceeding a public officer is called to account for abusing powers that only the public officer possesses.

While the failure to act may be a crime, the traditional focus of criminal law is prohibitory(Don't Do This). Impeachment conduct, on the other hand, may include failure to discharge *affirmative* duties imposed on the public officer. Unlike the criminal case, then, the cause for removal, may be based on his entire course of conduct in office.

There is too much evidence behind the constitutional purpose of "Treason, Bribery, and High Crimes and Misdemeanors" to suggest that it is limited to indictable offenses. And would frustrate the entire purpose of the existence of state and federal law when it comes to handling impeachable public officers. State and federal laws are not written to preserve the nation against abuse of public office by the appointed or voted officers. That is the job of Congress and their Constitutionally granted powers.

[PointOfViewGun]

Once again, there is nothing in that transcript that says Trump told the Ukrainian president that funds would be withheld if Biden wasn't investigated. Nothing!
At the time of the phone call the Ukrainian President wasn't even aware that the funds were held up in OMB discussions making it impossible for the type of quid pro quo you are insinuating.

I'm not insinuating anything. Mulvaney was. Once again, was Mulvaney lying when he pointed at a quid pro quo?

[B. W.]

Impeaching Trump doesn't unseat his presidency. It puts his VP in. Or did you miss that part of the Constitution as well? And quite frankly, if you don't like the Whistleblower Protections, call your congressman. Let's see how long it takes to rescind them. Then let's see how many bad laws get passed and how much waste, fraud, and abuse happens.

Furthermore, let's look at the Crminality issue, which my link addresses directly. The phrase 'high Crimes and Misdemeanors' may connotate criminality to someone like you. That's fine, but that takes away some of the context of the writing. It leads many to believe that only an indictable crime can be an impeachable crime. It would lead some to establish an indictable standard, possibly a 'beyond-reasonable-doubt' standard when there is already a strangely bipartisan standard that achieves this to successfuly convict someone via impeachment. You only need a majority to impeach someone and start a trial. That is a partisan vote. You need 2/3 of the Senate to convict. No way about it that is historically a bipartisan vote and very difficult to achieve. And no matter given the politics of the past, even today, and possibly the future, that is much more difficult than 'beyond-reasonable-doubt'.

Either way, a requirement of criminality would require familiar criminal laws and concepts to serve as standards in the process. This would be a problem concerning the applicabity of standards of proof pertaining to the trial of crimes. It has also been argued that because Treason and Bribery are crimes, 'other High Crimes and Misdemeanors' must be crimes under the rule of construction. But that requires a unifying principle. Here that principle is criminality or conduct subversive of constitutional institutions and government. Worth noting: The Constitution was ratified in 1787, bribery was not a federal crime until 1790 for federal judges, 1853 for members of Congress, and 1863 for other civil officers. This suggests that conduct not amounting to federal bribery may nonetheless amount to constitutional "high Crime and Misdemeanor" form of "Bribery".

The impeachment of a federal officer must occur only for reasons at least as pressing as those needs of government that give rise to the creation of criminal offenses. But that does not mean that elements of proof, defenses, and other concepts control the process. It also doesn't mean that federal codes are the place we turn to to provide a standard. Impeachment is a Constitutional remedy. Framers intended the language should reflect grave misconduct.

This goes by the historical meaning of the words "high Crimes and Misdemeanors". They have a different meaning from the ordinary term "crimes" and "misdemeanors". "High misdemeanors" refer to a category that subvert the system of government, used by the English impeachment cases to charge officials with a wide range of criminal AND non-criminal offenses. Hamilton acknowledged Great Britain as "the model from which impeachment has been borrowed". George Mason referred in the debates to the impeachment of Warren Hastings, then pending before Parliament. Mason, who proposed the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors", specifically stated intent to encompass "attempts to subvert the Constitution."

Published records of state ratification conventions don't reveal an intention to limit the grounds of impeachment to criminal offenses.

James Iredell from North Carolina:

George Nicholas of Virginia:


Impeachment and criminal law serve fundamentally different purposes. Impeachment is the first step in a process, removal from office, possible disqualification from holding future office. There is no purpose to impeachment involving personal punishment. It's purpose is to maintain government, the Constitution itself provides that impeachment is no substitute for criminal law as there is no immunization of the officer from criminal liability.

The general purpose of criminal law also make it inappropriate as the standard of removing a public officer. Criminal law sets a standard of conduct. It does not set itself to the abuses of office of any public officer. In an impeachment proceeding a public officer is called to account for abusing powers that only the public officer possesses.

While the failure to act may be a crime, the traditional focus of criminal law is prohibitory(Don't Do This). Impeachment conduct, on the other hand, may include failure to discharge *affirmative* duties imposed on the public officer. Unlike the criminal case, then, the cause for removal, may be based on his entire course of conduct in office.

There is too much evidence behind the constitutional purpose of "Treason, Bribery, and High Crimes and Misdemeanors" to suggest that it is limited to indictable offenses. And would frustrate the entire purpose of the existence of state and federal law when it comes to handling impeachable public officers. State and federal laws are not written to preserve the nation against abuse of public office by the appointed or voted officers. That is the job of Congress and their Constitutionally granted powers.

Whew! First of all whistle blower protections were never intended to protect people who brought forward hearsay evidence, for obvious reasons. The Attorney in charge of that department changed the rule so this could happen. There is evidence he, along with Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and the leaker were in discussions before the leaker came forward.

Going further, Adam Schiff read a fabricated version of the transcript on the floor of the House (which posters on this thread still refer to as the actual transcript and the news media reported it as the actual transcript) By the standards you laid out, it is Schiff that qualifies for impeachment by dilerately introducing a false statement into the record as if it were a true statement.

This is just another rehash of what we saw in the Mueller investigation; a never ending progression of"witnesses" and changing of the goal posts. First it was quid pro quo, then bribery, then obstruction; etc.

It is just another attempt by Democrats to undermine a sitting President.

Individual States have different standards. Those have no place in this discussion because this is a federal issue, not a state issue.

I'm not insinuating anything. Mulvaney was. Once again, was Mulvaney lying when he pointed at a quid pro quo?

I answered the question directly. Not much else I can do if you can't read it.

[Gaidin]

Whew! First of all whistle blower protections were never intended to protect people who brought forward hearsay evidence, for obvious reasons. The Attorney in charge of that department changed the rule so this could happen. There is evidence he, along with Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and the leaker were in discussions before the leaker came forward.

Going further, Adam Schiff read a fabricated version of the transcript on the floor of the House (which posters on this thread still refer to as the actual transcript and the news media reported it as the actual transcript) By the standards you laid out, it is Schiff that qualifies for impeachment by dilerately introducing a false statement into the record as if it were a true statement.

This is literally what the Senate trial is for. I really don't care what you say. If you can't process what a pre-trial hearing is about you have no place here. Donald Trump will be able to present his evidence at the Senate. During. The. Trial.

The House votes on the Impeachment. Not Trump.

The rest is a good red herring.

[PointOfViewGun]

I answered the question directly. Not much else I can do if you can't read it.

That answer was demonstrated to be false. I don't really understand the drive behind defense of such a fallacious position.

[B. W.]

This is literally what the Senate trial is for. I really don't care what you say. If you can't process what a pre-trial hearing is about you have no place here. Donald Trump will be able to present his evidence at the Senate. During. The. Trial.

The House votes on the Impeachment. Not Trump.

The rest is a good red herring.

It is hardly an inquiry if the questions allowed are limited to only what Adam Schiff wants to be asked. No contrarian witnesses are being allowed to testify as to the truthfulness and motivations of Schiff's witnesses. This is third world country dictator stuff. The Dems are revealing themselves to be complete socialists.

You are missing the point here. There shouldn't be a trial in the Senate because this shouldn't be happening in the first place. The Dems are doing it in an attempt to hamper Trump's ability as President.

The leaker's lawyer even tweeted in 2017 that there would be a coup against Trump and CNN would be instrumental in helping in come about. Nothing biased about that?

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog..._fox_news.html

That answer was demonstrated to be false. I don't really understand the drive behind defense of such a fallacious position.

I know you don't understand.

[Elfdude]

The questions asked are not only what Adam Schiff wants to be asked. The rules allow for equal time for republicans and democrats. Meaning if Adam schiff asks his line of questioning for the maximum of 45 minutes, republicans get exactly that time to do the same. Your conspiracy nonsense is BS dude and just plain false. Stop reading blogs for information. Newsflash American thinker is a spin website which publishes absolutely false information. It is not a source that anyone above the age of 5 has any business thinking is credible.

[Gaidin]

The questions asked are not only what Adam Schiff wants to be asked. The rules allow for equal time for republicans and democrats. Meaning if Adam schiff asks his line of questioning for the maximum of 45 minutes, republicans get exactly that time to do the same. Your conspiracy nonsense is BS dude and just plain false. Stop reading blogs for information. Newsflash American thinker is a spin website which publishes absolutely false information. It is not a source that anyone above the age of 5 has any business thinking is credible.

I was gonna let him get blindsided by this in the hearings. Since, you know, he won’t read the resolution himself.

[B. W.]

The questions asked are not only what Adam Schiff wants to be asked. The rules allow for equal time for republicans and democrats. Meaning if Adam schiff asks his line of questioning for the maximum of 45 minutes, republicans get exactly that time to do the same. Your conspiracy nonsense is BS dude and just plain false. Stop reading blogs for information. Newsflash American thinker is a spin website which publishes absolutely false information. It is not a source that anyone above the age of 5 has any business thinking is credible.

I was gonna let him get blindsided by this in the hearings. Since, you know, he won’t read the resolution himself.

I've read the resolution and it's pretty clear that Schiff can restrict the questions that can be asked, not to mention that Schiff can also decide what witnesses the Republicans can subpoena.

What you guys are saying is that the whistle blower will testify ad the Republicans won't be restricted in their questioning. I guess we'll find out tomorrow.

[Gaidin]

I’ve already countered this.

Defense presents a case at Senate.

Either you think Roberts isn’t neutral, or Congress can’t protect the ID of someone testifying in spite of having done so in the past.

[Ludicus]

On a side note, the impeachment will inevitably affect the 2020 democratic race.
Following this reasoning, there is a supreme irony in the fact that Trump's impeachment is the last thing Biden wants: Bernie Sanders 'Best' On Health Care, the Economy, Environment and Immigration in a new 2020 Poll

A new poll finds that, among 1,115 adult respondents living in the United States...Among independents and self-identified Democrats (these questions were not asked of Republican respondents), Bernie Sanders was the preferred candidate in every policy category, which included "immigration," "health care," "the environment" and "the economy and jobs."
Although Sanders was a clear preference among possible Democratic primary voters on a number of policies, the democratic socialist candidate ranked second overall, with 15 percent saying they would vote for Sanders were the primary held today, compared to 22 percent for Biden and 11 percent for Warren.
A possible explanation can be found in several of other polling questions, which focused around more subjective metrics, like the concept of "electability" against President Donald Trump. Though they may prefer Sanders on the issues, 29 percent of respondents in the new poll said Biden is "most likely to beat Trump in the general election,"
this latest poll suggests even widespread agreement on the candidate with the best policies doesn't necessarily equate to an overall polling lead"

[B. W.]

The questions asked are not only what Adam Schiff wants to be asked. The rules allow for equal time for republicans and democrats. Meaning if Adam schiff asks his line of questioning for the maximum of 45 minutes, republicans get exactly that time to do the same. Your conspiracy nonsense is BS dude and just plain false. Stop reading blogs for information. Newsflash American thinker is a spin website which publishes absolutely false information. It is not a source that anyone above the age of 5 has any business thinking is credible.

I was gonna let him get blindsided by this in the hearings. Since, you know, he won’t read the resolution himself.

It is as I said. At the very get go, the Republicans complained that they would not be allowed to call all their witnesses. Going further, Schiff suspended Republican questioning three times, twice within ten seconds of the beginning of their opening questioning and then gave that time to Democrats.

Schiff opened and closed the proceedings with the same lie. He stated that he had no knowledge of the "whistle blowers" real name. This is a big problem for Democrats. If what Schiff said is true, it means the Democrats voted for a resolution on impeachment proceedings based on a hearsay witness that nobody in Congress knows the name of. Either the Democrats believe that their voters are incredibly stupid or that the Democrats are as stupid as the voters who elected them.

The two star anit-Trump witnesses presented only hearsay evidence and in the case of Ambassador Taylor, he was either lying when he gave his original deposition or he misspoke because the Republicans presented clear evidence that his testimony was false in the deposition.

The Democrats repeatedly put forward the idea that using secondary back channels channels for diplomatic efforts was incredibly unusual. This flies in the face of past Democratic Presidents use of that option. In one of the most formidable moments of the 20th century Democratic President John F. Kennedy used Armand Hammer to deliver a message to Soviet leader Khrushchev during the Cuban missile crisis.

Democrats are also known for interfering with foreign leaders to try and undermine Republican presidents foreign policy efforts such as when Ted Kennedy went to Russia to try and undermine Reagan's policy. The Dems aren't above interfering in foreign elections either, such as Barrack Obama did in the Israeli elections.

Suffice it to say that the Democrats opening salvo was a dud.

[Ludicus]

as when Ted Kennedy went to Russia to try and undermine Reagan's policy

For the sake of truth, that's correct. Forbes, 2009 Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit - Forbes
--
I have already said it,the Democratic Party is committing a political harakiri.Republicans want Hunter Biden and Devon Archer to testify in order to better understand " the nature and extent of Ukraine's pervasive corruption". Can't deny, it would be interesting to hear Hunter's testimony.
It is worthwhile to mention that the whistleblower will remain anonymous and to be protected from harm ...from the Republican gangsters (insert irony here).

[Gaidin]

And it's like I've said. That's more a defensive testimony and something done in the trial. There's all manner of counter witnesses(including the Bidens and the Whistleblower while taking countermeasures to hide the identity) that can be called in the Senate. The House doesn't need to do that to achieve an impeachment vote.

[Roma_Victrix]

The two star anit-Trump witnesses presented only hearsay evidence and in the case of Ambassador Taylor, he was either lying when he gave his original deposition or he misspoke because the Republicans presented clear evidence that his testimony was false in the deposition.

They did, did they? Which clear evidence is that again? Refresh my memory. Name specifics, please.

In either case, it is undeniable that the military aid was withheld from Ukraine for months on end. Even the Trump White House tacitly admitted to this, with the open public admission of it last month by Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.

The Democrats repeatedly put forward the idea that using secondary back channels channels for diplomatic efforts was incredibly unusual. This flies in the face of past Democratic Presidents use of that option. In one of the most formidable moments of the 20th century Democratic President John F. Kennedy used Armand Hammer to deliver a message to Soviet leader Khrushchev during the Cuban missile crisis.

That example is kind of extraordinary, isn't it? Kennedy's back channel was used to avert a literal nuclear apocalypse, mutually assured destruction, and laying waste to civilization itself. Meanwhile, in the example we have right now, why did Trump seem to desperately need Zelensky to publicly announce investigations into the Bidens and Burisma? How on Earth is that comparable to something as grave as a nuclear missile crisis? You're reaching here pretty hard, I must say.

On a side note, the impeachment will inevitably affect the 2020 democratic race.
Following this reasoning, there is a supreme irony in the fact that Trump's impeachment is the last thing Biden wants: Bernie Sanders 'Best' On Health Care, the Economy, Environment and Immigration in a new 2020 Poll

That's the funniest part about all of this, if any of it can be found to be amusing. Trump had his sights on the wrong guy. Biden is already fading and his financial war chest is small compared to that of Bernie Sanders, who has by far the largest pool of individual donors among any 2020 Democratic candidate.

[Gaidin]

That's the funniest part about all of this, if any of it can be found to be amusing. Trump had his sights on the wrong guy. Biden is already fading and his financial war chest is small compared to that of Bernie Sanders, who has by far the largest pool of individual donors among any 2020 Democratic candidate.

It should be noted, you're missing the domino effect. Every Senator in the race, including Sanders, will not be able to actively campaign, for being forced to be inside the beltway 6 days a week for what some are taking a rough guess would be 4-8 weeks should the House manage to vote this through. Biden is one of the two high polling candidates that would be able to still keep his campaign moving in a worthwhile fashion. The other being Buttigieg.