the 45th is The Fourth US President to officially Face Impeachment.

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Democrats introduce two articles of impeachment against Trump [https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/10/politics/impeachment-articles-announced/index.html]

Democratic leaders announced Tuesday they will bring two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, charging him with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress to set in motion the third impeachment of a US president in history.

The announcement marks the culmination of an intense, fast-moving investigation into the President's dealings with Ukraine and represents a historic choice for lawmakers with less than a year before the next election.

The six House Democratic chairs who have led the investigations against the President this year formally unveiled the impeachment articles on Tuesday morning with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

"Today, in service to our duty to the Constitution and to our country, the House Committee on the Judiciary is introducing two articles of impeachment, charging the President of the United States Donald J. Trump with committing high crimes and misdemeanors," House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler said.

Democrats charge that Trump abused his office by pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political rivals ahead of the 2020 election while withholding a White House meeting and $400 million in US security aid from Kiev. And they say that Trump then obstructed the investigation into his misconduct with a blanket blockade of subpoenas and refusing to allow key senior officials to testify before Congress.

Tuesday's announcement sets the stage for a dramatic impeachment vote on the House floor next week, after the House Judiciary Committee debates and approves the articles beginning on Thursday.
House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff said the evidence against Trump was "overwhelming and uncontested," and argued Democrats cannot wait for the judicial branch to rule on the witnesses and documents the Trump administration is blocking from Congress.

"The argument why don't you just wait amounts to this: why don't you just let him cheat in one more election?" said Schiff, a Democrat from California. "Despite everything we have uncovered, the President's misconduct continues to this day, unapologetically and right now."

My thoughts. I think it was smart not to include Mueller. Politically, it looks like sour grapes to just tack it on at the end as a little bit of a gotcha.

But I think it will play out like we all think. It will pass the House, the Senate will vote it down.

I don't think I live in a land of Law and Order any more. That bad people are bad and that should be the end of it. We live in a land where bad people can be beneficial and if the bad people aren't protected, all of this goes away. [https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/09/devin-nunes-secret-recording-trump-midterms-769197]

I believe people try to abuse the word 'Partisan' when democrats take even a step out of their bed, but I've seldom seen Republicans break from Trump's party line since the get-go. This is the same Republican lead Senate who voted in another Federal Judge that was deemed not Qualified by the ABA [https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/12/04/senate-confirms-another-kavanaugh-clerk-the-aba-deemed-not-qualified-for-the-bench/?slreturn=20191110103620] because Trump wanted her in.

There is nothing more Partisan, more tribal than the Republican Politicians of late. This will be a sound-byte, and a depressing reminder that justice is only a myth, and guilt or innocence actually depends on how many Friends in High Places that you have set up.

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

It will pass the House, the Senate will vote it down.

Kind of.

See, a lot of people conflate impeachment, the act of the House to declare that the President or another office holder (such as judges or agency heads) has committed an impeachable offence, while the Senate has the duty to try said impeachments for removal. Beyond that and a few other mentions, impeachment and removal remains an extremely vague process that, for the most part, literally can be made up as it goes along (particularly in the case of presidential impeachments).

TO THE CONSTITUTION! [https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript]

The word impeachment only appears 6 times throughout the US constitution. Specifically as follows:

Spoiler: Article 1, Section 2 (the House of Representatives)

Article 1, Section 2

The House of Representatives shall chuse (sic) their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Spoiler: Article 2, Section 3 (the Senate), 2 instances

Article 2, Section 3

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Spoiler: Article II, Section 2 (the President)

Article II, Section 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Spoiler: Article II, Section 4

Article II, Section 4

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Spoiler: Article III, Section 2 (removal from office)

Article III, Section 2

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Excluding mentions where it is essentially "does not apply to impeachment", impeachment has only the following constitutional requirements:

1) Only the House of Representatives can impeach

2) The Senate conducts the trial, with the chief justice presiding if the President is being impeached

3) 2/3rds of the Senate are required to convict/remove

4) Impeachment is limited to removal, while further/other matters are to be dealt with in regular court

5) The specific threshold for impeachment is "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"

That's it. Even the threshold of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors," is [https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/what-does-high-crimes-and-misdemeanors-actually-mean/600343/] kind [https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors-constitution-president-trump-impeach.html] of [https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/24/20926891/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors-trump-impeachment-whitaker] what [https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/50-impeachable-offenses.html] you [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-crimes-explai/explainer-impeachment-depends-on-high-crimes-and-misdemeanors-what-are-they-idUSKBN1WA288] make [https://www.npr.org/2019/12/05/785253980/how-did-framers-of-the-constitution-come-up-with-high-crimes-and-misdemeanors] of [https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/may/29/justin-amash/what-counts-high-crime-or-misdemeanor-impeachment-/] it [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors].

Which creates some interesting possibilities. For example, there's no requirement that the senate's vote for removal be public [https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/11/12/path-to-removing-donald-trump-from-office-229911].

So, assuming the House does vote to impeach (which is exceedingly likely given that even the moderates within the Democratic caucus have already voted to proceed with the impeachment investigation, sans 2 members), it will go to the senate, and while it is relatively safe to say that the Senate is unlikely to vote to remove, we fundamentally don't know what will happen in the interim until the vote is held.

So grab your popcorn and call your congressperson and senators (assuming you reside in the US). It's going to be an interesting ride.

 

[Trunkage]

If you lived in a land of Law and Order, Obsidian, Clinton would have lost his job. Abuse of power is criminal and should have taken him down

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

If you lived in a land of Law and Order, Obsidian, Clinton would have lost his job. Abuse of power is criminal and should have taken him down

Something I've said long ago. And many times on this forum.

To note, many tried to explain that impeachment was about miscarriages of presidential policy and abuse of power. This is true, but I never believed perjury was lesser of a crime.

However, we literally kicked out the Illinois governor for trying to leverage some gain from Obama's vacant seat when he became president. Trump's actions are more severe due to lives being lost during his "negotiations". That is beyond reprehensible.

 

[Silvanus]

If you lived in a land of Law and Order, Obsidian, Clinton would have lost his job. Abuse of power is criminal and should have taken him down

Very tangential, but just out of interest: Adam Price, the leader of Plaid Cymru, has recently called for a law criminalizing lying from MPs. What would you think of that kind of suggestion?

 

[Schadrach]

Since he'll be the one presiding over the Senate trial, I suppose the real question is how will John Roberts handle this. Let's hope he wants to be as thorough as possible, and is willing to take as long as needed to do so.

At the same time, I think they're pulling the trigger too early - there's a real chance this is going to line up to Trump being able to use "EXONERATED! TOTALLY INNOCENT! CROOKED DEMOCRATS TRYING TO PUNISH THE MOST INNOCENT PRESIDENT EVER!" before the elections. Which would energize his voters. If that happens, there's a chance we might get stuck with another 4 years of the senile orangutan.

 

[Agema]

Since he'll be the one presiding over the Senate trial, I suppose the real question is how will John Roberts handle this. Let's hope he wants to be as thorough as possible, and is willing to take as long as needed to do so.

My opinion of him is on the positive side: he seems honourable and conscientious in his duty, and not beholden to unusual ideological positions. He's probably a pretty safe pair of hands.

At the same time, I think they're pulling the trigger too early

No choice. They effectively had to act when the evidence came through, and then they couldn't string it out.

Taking out Trump is largely a political task - the Republicans have to be convinced there is more to lose keeping him than dumping him, so it's about public support for impeachment. Unfortunately, a sizeable chunk of the populace just want it over with ASAP, and support for impeaching Trump will drop if becomes too protracted.

 

[Baffle]

Very tangential, but just out of interest: Adam Price, the leader of Plaid Cymru, has recently called for a law criminalizing lying from MPs. What would you think of that kind of suggestion?

I'd vote for it. UK politics is a mess.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

At the same time, I think they're pulling the trigger too early - there's a real chance this is going to line up to Trump being able to use "EXONERATED! TOTALLY INNOCENT! CROOKED DEMOCRATS TRYING TO PUNISH THE MOST INNOCENT PRESIDENT EVER!" before the elections. Which would energize his voters. If that happens, there's a chance we might get stuck with another 4 years of the senile orangutan.

I'm with Agema, this is the proper time.

The talks about building a stronger case goes out of the window when the White House itself prevents any efforts to do so. Who needs to listen to laws when a king from up high says you do not have to?

And even if by some miracle, six months down the line, the courts would compel people to act on the subpoena? Talking points would change.

"See? Crooked Democrats are scared to lose again so they need to cheat the system. Why not let the American people to choose to vote him out"

I stress again: elected, university educated individuals are suggesting that the solution of a corrupt demagogue is let the voting system take care of him. The same voting system they already rigged to give the cult that follows him around 3 times more voting power than the other party. The same supreme court who would only allow redrawing of voting maps after 2021 [https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/gerrymandering-fair-representation/redistricting/redistricting-2021]. Also known as: too damn late for anyone who isn't a Republican.

Again, the Senate will strike this down. These actions ate hopefully reaching independents to show them that their country is being ripped from their hands as well, and will vote accordingly.

 

[Trunkage]

If you lived in a land of Law and Order, Obsidian, Clinton would have lost his job. Abuse of power is criminal and should have taken him down

Very tangential, but just out of interest: Adam Price, the leader of Plaid Cymru, has recently called for a law criminalizing lying from MPs. What would you think of that kind of suggestion?

Yeah, so I mindful of what the statistics around politicans and lying. 75% of promises politicans keep. 15% is modified promises once they actually see the state of the country once they get in power. 5% is failed due to blockages from the opponent. And about 5% is actual lies.

For example, Trump could clearly say the wall is being blocked. I dont think he has had any intention of actually making the wall, but the Dems give him a free pass. I would imagine a lot more 'blockages' would be made apparent if this would pass. Trump would love it. Anyone who at all discusses any of his policies would give him free license to lie.

Obamacare is an example of a shifted promises due to political circumstances. Do you put him up for lying? Because that'll be a wholly different kettle of fish. Either way. If you dont, just about any attempt could be construed as not lying. If you do, any slight variation from the promise will oust you. Thus, the opposition would be incentivized to modify the policy so they can call the president a liar.

Lastly, this whole quid pro quo thing. Has the president lied over this? I think he lied but I don't think he thinks he lied. Who gets to determine whose a liar? Does the red bus become tbe lie, when it was partially true (if you leave the EU the Uk wouldn't be paying was true)? How much does a truth lie to become an actual lie?

Not against the idea. I think you'd have to think very carefully about the ramifications

 

[Silvanus]

SNIP

All good thoughts. Perhaps it could be applied solely to statements of present fact, rather than future promises, as the latter can be shifted by political necessity or changes in circumstance rather than intent to deceive.

Price cited Johnson's claim that the UK sends 350 million a week to the EU, which is of course demonstrably false.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Obamacare is an example of a shifted promises due to political circumstances.

Arguably.

Do you put him up for lying?

Given that his approach was to go after Kucinich for demanding a public option rather than Lieberman for opposing one, yeah, that's probably fair.

 

[Schadrach]

Again, the Senate will strike this down. These actions ate hopefully reaching independents to show them that their country is being ripped from their hands as well, and will vote accordingly.

That's to my point. We both know the Senate will strike it down, which means the timing amounts to whether our least favorite senile orangutan is screaming "EXONERATED! CROOKED DEMS PROJECTING! MOST INNOCENTEST PRESIDENT EVER!" or if the news is filled with all the evidence against him coming out near election time. That's why I think they should have held out and fought for their subpoenas. About 6 months likely to deal with the courts would put it around June, assuming John Roberts takes the job seriously it would likely be ongoing close to election time, which means making the Senate's vote possibly moot.

Of course, if it goes long enough Trump gets reelected, I wouldn't put them voting him out as being as unlikely - that'd give them Pence, and I think most Republicans would be much happier with President Pence. 25th Amendment, Section 4 is also a possibility. If they do that, they'd do it comparatively early in a 2nd Trump term, assuming voters would forget before the next election - they'd gain 4 more years of GOP presidency without that requiring said presidency be Trump. After all, they're not going to keep the Trump cult any longer than that anyways.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Again, the Senate will strike this down. These actions ate hopefully reaching independents to show them that their country is being ripped from their hands as well, and will vote accordingly.

That's to my point. We both know the Senate will strike it down, which means the timing amounts to whether our least favorite senile orangutan is screaming "EXONERATED! CROOKED DEMS PROJECTING! MOST INNOCENTEST PRESIDENT EVER!" or if the news is filled with all the evidence against him coming out near election time. That's why I think they should have held out and fought for their subpoenas. About 6 months likely to deal with the courts would put it around June, assuming John Roberts takes the job seriously it would likely be ongoing close to election time, which means making the Senate's vote possibly moot.

Of course, if it goes long enough Trump gets reelected, I wouldn't put them voting him out as being as unlikely - that'd give them Pence, and I think most Republicans would be much happier with President Pence. 25th Amendment, Section 4 is also a possibility. If they do that, they'd do it comparatively early in a 2nd Trump term, assuming voters would forget before the next election - they'd gain 4 more years of GOP presidency without that requiring said presidency be Trump. After all, they're not going to keep the Trump cult any longer than that anyways.

The problem with this is that you still believe Trump is going to act according to the rule of Law. He's shown over and over that he will ignore whatever he wants to ignore if he can't see the advantage of following the rules.

The Democrats have been trying to see Trump's Tax Returns, and in May, subpoenaed for them officially [https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/10/house-democrats-subpoenas-trump-tax-returns-1317459].

Of course, The White House Rejected the Subpoena [https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/17/trump-administration-rejects-subpoena-tax-returns-1331481].

That prompted the fight to move to the Courts [https://thehill.com/policy/finance/454984-what-to-know-about-the-fight-over-trumps-tax-returns]. To which Trump Lost [https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/07/politics/trump-tax-returns-lawsuit/index.html]. What did Trump do next? Go running to his pet Supreme Court to make it try to go away. The best they could do is temporarily Block [https://www.npr.org/2019/11/25/782813946/u-s-supreme-court-temporarily-blocks-release-of-trumps-tax-records] the release.

This is a salient point. He will always have his pet Supreme Court to hide behind. A few of them owe him a solid.

And these are just tax records. The Subpoena was issued in May, and we're in December now. A full eight months after the Subpoena has been issued (and publicly stated to be ignored only four days later) and a full two months after the court struck down Trump's attempt to hide his New York Taxes. With no sign of Trump actually gearing up to comply.

We don't know what they hold. But it could be just as minor as he doesn't want his ego bruised to show that he isn't as rich as he says. The truthful testimony of some of these key figures, however, have the possibly to absolutely sink him. If he's willing to ignore the federal courts of this land over ego, does anyone really think he'll relent on possibly criminal violations?

No disrespect to you when I say this, but the argument that Democrats must follow the rule of law and protocol lest everything be invalided is galling. And quite frankly, it's gaslighting. Trump and his Administration are not held to the same rules, yet the Democrats must be shackled and hamstrung by them?

But, to their credit, they continue to adhere to mandates. But if Trump himself showed over and over again that he will ignore subpoenas and courts if he doesn't like what they have to say, telling the world to wait until he's compelled to is mind-boggling.

He will gaslight, stall, file motions, and do everything he can to try to get to the election. He will not comply, as he already has not for many things.

 

[Schadrach]

That prompted the fight to move to the Courts [https://thehill.com/policy/finance/454984-what-to-know-about-the-fight-over-trumps-tax-returns]. To which Trump Lost [https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/07/politics/trump-tax-returns-lawsuit/index.html]. What did Trump do next? Go running to his pet Supreme Court to make it try to go away. The best they could do is temporarily Block [https://www.npr.org/2019/11/25/782813946/u-s-supreme-court-temporarily-blocks-release-of-trumps-tax-records] the release.

The courts ruled against him every step of the way, up to SCOTUS, who basically set a time limit for when Trump could file to have it heard before SCOTUS and blocked it until it gets resolved. This wasn't some victory for Trump using his crony court - this was only a delay.

This is a salient point. He will always have his pet Supreme Court to hide behind. A few of them owe him a solid.

If his pet court was as controlled as you think it is, they'd have accepted the case with all haste and shut it down, instead of telling him to file his petition in time for next term (willing to bet you right now that if Trump does file that petition that either they'll refuse to hear it [meaning Trump loses, because the lesser court decision stands] or that 1) Trump will lose and 2) it won't be a 5-4 vote, likely a 7-2 if even that). Also, they would have killed off the concept of "separate sovereigns" in Gamble v US, which they had every opportunity to do but voted 7-2 against. Interestingly, Ginsburg and Gorsuch were the only dissenting justices in that case - strange bedfellows indeed.

No disrespect to you when I say this, but the argument that Democrats must follow the rule of law and protocol lest everything be invalided is galling.

At that point, why bother with silly things like "courts" and "subpoenas" and "impeachment" at all? Just get a decently powerful rifle, scope it as far as you can manage, and wait till he makes an appearance somewhere where you can line up a shot. Repeat until the next person in line for the Presidency is a Democrat or you get caught. Just as good of a way for government to operate, right? I don't think so, either.

Even then, the core argument I'm making is that Democrats should have timed things for maximum election impact, because the Senate isn't going to go along with it. If the Senate was likely to go along with it, I'd be pushing for things to happen post-haste. But as it stands now, Trump benefits the faster the Senate trial happens, and is hurt only if it drags out as long as possible and the publicly presented evidence is utterly damning. You'll note I keep saying "publicly presented" evidence, because I suspect much of the evidence is going to end up being withheld from public view for national security reasons.

 

[CaitSeith]

No disrespect to you when I say this, but the argument that Democrats must follow the rule of law and protocol lest everything be invalided is galling.

At that point, why bother with silly things like "courts" and "subpoenas" and "impeachment" at all? Just get a decently powerful rifle, scope it as far as you can manage, and wait till he makes an appearance somewhere where you can line up a shot. Repeat until the next person in line for the Presidency is a Democrat or you get caught. Just as good of a way for government to operate, right?

Abraham Lincoln or JFK anyone? Don't ignore reality:

But, to their credit, they continue to adhere to mandates.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

SNIP

All good thoughts. Perhaps it could be applied solely to statements of present fact, rather than future promises, as the latter can be shifted by political necessity or changes in circumstance rather than intent to deceive.

Price cited Johnson's claim that the UK sends 350 million a week to the EU, which is of course demonstrably false.

Clearly the Civil Service has forgotten the sage wisdom, however self-serving and villainous that it may be, of the great philosopher on affairs of state, Sir Humphrey Appleby.

?A good speech isn?t one where we can prove he?s telling the truth. It?s one in which no one else can prove he?s lying?.

I swear sometimes the only reason I laugh at that show is so I don?t feel myself chilled to the bone.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

House Judiciary passes both Articles of Impeachment against Trump with 23 Yesses and 17 Noes. All of which were said on strict party lines. All 23s were Democrats and All 17s are Republicans.

 

[CaitSeith]

House Judiciary passes both Articles of Impeachment against Trump with 23 Yesses and 17 Noes. All of which were said on strict party lines. All 23s were Democrats and All 17s are Republicans.

With the elections getting near, it isn't surprising.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

The courts ruled against him every step of the way, up to SCOTUS, who basically set a time limit for when Trump could file to have it heard before SCOTUS and blocked it until it gets resolved. This wasn't some victory for Trump using his crony court - this was only a delay.

To which he'll try for another delay. I understand the Supreme Court tried to put on a show of a guideline. I just don't think Trump will follow it.

And frankly, I don't believe the Supreme Court will push it any further than motions and the like. I swear to God, I hope I'm wrong, but the Elected Republicans haven't shown me that they are as free from the partisanship they love to accuse Democrats of having.

If his pet court was as controlled as you think it is, they'd have accepted the case with all haste and shut it down, instead of telling him to file his petition in time for next term (willing to bet you right now that if Trump does file that petition that either they'll refuse to hear it [meaning Trump loses, because the lesser court decision stands] or that 1) Trump will lose and 2) it won't be a 5-4 vote, likely a 7-2 if even that). Also, they would have killed off the concept of "separate sovereigns" in Gamble v US, which they had every opportunity to do but voted 7-2 against. Interestingly, Ginsburg and Gorsuch were the only dissenting justices in that case - strange bedfellows indeed.

They absolutely can not do that. There's still a semblance of Law and Order. It's like when a corrupt cop has to bring in the gang leader who is paying him off because everyone saw the Leader beat a man unconscious. The officer can't just tell everyone they didn't see what they saw. He has to make a show of it or else he gets in trouble.

Remember, Justices can also be impeached [https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx].

I read the Gamble VS US case, and I honestly don't understand why you are bringing it up. I mean this with no disrespect. But we're talking about a random guy who had drugs and a handgun with no political sway at all, and the Partisanship of the United States with the Republicans vote Republican and the Democrats vote Democrats. We're talking about how the Republicans aren't even arguing the facts of the issue any more and are just committing themselves to acquitting the President instead of unbiasedly looking at the evidence and judging on the basis of that.

And we're talking about how even when the President was caught dead to rights, the Supreme Court extended him a lifeline for no real reason other than he's their Boy and they want to help him out anyway they can. Gamble is a guy with drugs.

I do not see the connection.

At that point, why bother with silly things like "courts" and "subpoenas" and "impeachment" at all? Just get a decently powerful rifle, scope it as far as you can manage, and wait till he makes an appearance somewhere where you can line up a shot. Repeat until the next person in line for the Presidency is a Democrat or you get caught. Just as good of a way for government to operate, right? I don't think so, either.

Even then, the core argument I'm making is that Democrats should have timed things for maximum election impact, because the Senate isn't going to go along with it. If the Senate was likely to go along with it, I'd be pushing for things to happen post-haste. But as it stands now, Trump benefits the faster the Senate trial happens, and is hurt only if it drags out as long as possible and the publicly presented evidence is utterly damning. You'll note I keep saying "publicly presented" evidence, because I suspect much of the evidence is going to end up being withheld from public view for national security reasons.

That's very far fetched. As already pointed out, I'm giving credit for the Democrats going by the book even if the book is being ignored.

But the issue is the book is being ignored. There are punishments for when that happens. And they aren't being exercised because the party in power is doing the offensives and the party in power doesn't feel like enforcing protocol.

The problem is that President is always going to Benefit from his Base. If the senate decides to oust him, it was a witch hunt, it was rigged, it was the Democrats not being able to accept that he was elected. If the senate decides to do nothing, he was obviously innocent all along.

If the democrats took their time, the Republicans would have said "If they had something, they would have pushed for it now. They are obviously trying to find something. And now that it took so long, they finally made something up."

We already seen what it looks like with the democrats moving ahead.

This isn't about Election Impact. This is about 52 U.S. Code ? 30121.Contributions and donations by foreign nationals [https://www.newsweek.com/following-trump-comments-federal-election-commission-chair-clarifies-law-foreign-contributions-1443948]

Following President Donald Trump's comments earlier this week that he would be willing to accept information about his political opponents even if were provided to his campaign by a foreign government, the chair of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has publicly released a statement reminding everyone that doing so would be "illegal."

"I would not have thought that I needed to say this," wrote FEC Chair Ellen L. Weintraub on Twitter Thursday afternoon.

Her tweet included an image of her full statement, which reads:

"Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election. This is not a novel concept. Electoral intervention from foreign governments has been considered unacceptable since the beginnings of our nation. Our Founding Fathers sounded the alarm about 'foreign Interference, Intrigue, and Influence.' They knew that when foreign governments seek to influence American politics, it is always to advance their own interests, not America's. Anyone who solicits or accepts foreign assistance risks being on the wrong end of a federal investigation. Any political campaign that receives an offer of a prohibited donation from a foreign source should report that offer to the Federal Bureau of Investigation."

The law Weintraub cites in her in her statement is 52 U.S.C. Section 30121 (a)(2), which reads: "It shall be unlawful for a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation... from a foreign national."

This is the best course because while everything looks political (and it is), the closer to Election, the more it looks like the Democrats are losing and are trying to do anything to get rid of Trump. Not to mention this is a vast abuse of power. You don't sit on this. Especially with the mindsets of your average voter. Who will honestly ask "If this was such a big deal and you knew about it then, why didn't you do anything then? This seems sketchy".

I agree with that sentiment.