My comment relates to the vague Constitutional standard and the legal description of the allegations contained in the articles, not the factual basis of the allegations. — Hanover

The deliberately vague nature of the description of impeachment in the Constitution is attributable to the fact that the framers couldn't, and knew they couldn't, envisage the circumstances in which such a remedy might be required. So the description is high-level and open-ended, stipulating only 'high crimes and misdemeanours', although it does specifically mention 'bribery and treason', both of which are clearly arguable for Trump (anyone remember the infamous Helskinki Press Conference, where Trump sided with Vladimir Putin against his own intelligences services live on international television?)

There is considerable evidence of impeachable acts by Trump, including hours of testimony by State Department employees (or ex-employees, as some have been fired for impeding Trump and Giuliani's allegedly corrupt intent.)

Hence, he's being impeached.

You act like there's this clear impeachment process, yet one doesn't exist. If there is one, why is the House trying to negotiate a process with the Senate? In a courtroom, the State doesn't have to negotiate a procedure with the accused. Explain that. — Hanover

This is not ordinary civil law. Impeachment is a unique measure intended to provide the other co-equal branches of Government with the means to remedy crimes and abuses by the President. (Judges can also be, and have been, impeached.)

In regard to the negotiation of rules - Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer wrote a letter to Mitch McConnell requesting that John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney be called to testify (amongst several others) on the basis that they were in the position to know what had happened. McConnell immediately rejected this request saying that it would amount to running the whole trial again. The falsehood here is that neither of these individuals testified, and furthermore, Trump had issued a blanket ban against any form of cooperation (which incidentally suggests Trump's guilt, as had such testimony been exculpatory, then Trump would have no reason to suppress it.)

Furthermore both McConnell and Lindsay Graham made statements to the effect that they are 'taking direction from the White House', that they had no intention of acting impartially, and that, in effect, they were guaranteeing a rubber-stamp acquittal of Trump with minimal testimony. (Although McConnell has been forced to backtrack at least partially, saying that he will leave the possibility of further testimony open, depending on what happens when the senate trial starts.)

So I think it is quite proper for the Democratic Party to refrain from forwarding the Articles of Impeachment for consideration until these concerns are addressed. If Trump is acquitted in the Senate, he will doubtlessly crow about 'total and complete exoneration', and God knows what he will do then. Suspend the Constitution? Declare a state of emergency? Who could stop him, if he's been allowed to treat Congress and the Constitution with such blatant contempt?

What “actual crime” did Trump commit? — NOS4A2

Aside from the clearly illegal conduct which form the basis for the actual charges, Trump has committed many impeachable offenses in office.

...history teaches that there are three kinds of corruption in national politics: money, power, and sex. Amazingly, in less than one term, Trump has racked up ample material for impeachment on all three. ...

His effort to keep porn star Stormy Daniels from publicizing their relationship made him an unindicted co-conspirator in a crime that sent his former lawyer to jail. And if any of the almost 20 women who have accused him of sexual harassment ever had their day in court, there might be other reasons—including criminal misconduct—to impeach the man who bragged on tape about grabbing women’s genitals with impunity.

...Trump could also be impeached for corruption of money. His brazen efforts to profit from the presidency are a daily spectacle, culminating in his breathtaking (and since withdrawn) decision to host a summit of world leaders at his Miami golf club. This is a clear violation of the Emoluments Clause in the Constitution, which, bizarrely, Trump recently called “phony.” Unlike Grant and Harding, Trump is the one being paid in this corrupt use of his office.

And of course, it is corruption of power that is leading to Trump’s impeachment. In the Ukraine affair, there is evidence of an impeachable offense: attempting to coerce a vulnerable foreign government into providing dirt on a political opponent. This is a more serious abuse of power than even the Watergate robbery and its cover-up. And it is only one of this president’s many abuses of power, including contempt of Congress and the obstruction of justice revealed by Robert Mueller’s inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Donald Trump has hit the Corruption Trifecta

Senator Chuck Schumer said on Monday that newly released emails showing that military aid to Ukraine was suspended 90 minutes after President Trump demanded “a favor” from Ukraine’s president were “explosive.” They strengthened, he said, Democratic demands for far more internal administration documents ahead of Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial.

The emails, made public over the weekend, included one from a White House budget office aide, Michael Duffey, telling Pentagon officials to keep quiet “given the sensitive nature of the request.”

The timing of the email — just an hour and a half after Mr. Trump raised investigations of his Democratic rivals with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine — added an element to Democrats’ contentions that they say become clearer with every new release of evidence: Mr. Trump abused the power of his office to solicit Ukraine to help him win re-election in 2020.

“What happened over the weekend has only bolstered the case that documents should be produced and witnesses testify,” Mr. Schumer of New York, the Senate Democratic leader, said at a news conference, referring to the emails released to the Center for
Public Integrity.

Referring to the request to 'keep the email quiet', this mirrors the movement of the original Call Transcript to a top-secret server immediately after the Zelensky call was concluded, which is unusual for transcripts of such allegedly routine (or 'perfect') phone communications.

All of this suggest conspiracy and cover up, although in the alternative universe which is Trump World, all conspiracies and cover-ups are executed by the CIA, FBI, Ukraine, the Democrats and the media, in that order.

The Devin Nunes theory of the [impeachment] case would be extravagantly complex: This whodunit seems to involve House Democrats colluding with a deep state whistleblower and his attorney, who had been plotting a “coup” against the president since the weeks following his election, and who was willing to conspire with Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee to sideline the inspector general and hide the whistleblower from public view. Simultaneously, Democrats have been working assiduously with Russia toward the “funding and spreading” of the Steele dossier while “cooperating in Ukrainian election meddling” all while Hunter Biden used his pre-election influence to have an impact on foreign policy under President Barack Obama, and as the “politicized bureaucracy” now conspires to deliberately undermine “the president who they are supposed to be serving,” in the form of corrupt ambassadors. It’s elementary, my dear Watson: This, per Nunes, is a sprawling “hoax” engineered by disparate “elements of the FBI, the Department of Justice, and now the State Department” along with the “corrupt media” to work hand and glove to something, something “nude pictures.” The theory of the case is that all of these entities conspired for years, together, to craft a hoax and sham “Star Chamber” in order to subvert the will of the American electorate. All that’s missing, truly, is Colonel Mustard with a lead pipe in the conservatory. ...

[This] entire impeachment defense is predicated on unsupportable claims of widespread criminal conspiracy and collusion between people who never knew each other, never could have met, never had a shared purpose, and never even committed the acts alleged, sure. But evidently when Democrats conspire to put on a coup, no words need be spoken. They can communicate through an elaborate system of tongue clicks and bow ties. ...None of which is a comment on how strong the testimony is or how outlandish the Republican defenses are. It is simply a reflection of how far many of us are willing go to prove that the conspiracy is reality and reality is part of the conspiracy.

Dahlia Lithwick

I sympathize with all the American voters who would like to vote for a female president but strongly think/believe that not just any female will do.

I sympathize with all the Trump voters who wanted a radical change, but have gradually come to see that not just anyone will do.

When the aim is to correct the problems of monetary corruption within American government, electing someone who has practiced corrupt business practices governed by personal financial gain, electing someone who openly brags about bribing government officials, is to elect someone who already is part of the problem. Expecting someone who has personally benefitted from corrupt elected officials to actually take action to end such corrupt practices is expecting someone to shoot themselves in their own foot.

Wake up America!

Big News! Trump utters a true statement!:

I never understood wind. You know, I know windmills very much. I’ve studied it better than anybody I know. It’s very expensive. They’re made in China and Germany mostly—very few made here, almost none. But they’re manufactured tremendous—if you’re into this—tremendous fumes. Gases are spewing into the atmosphere. You know we have a world, right? So the world is tiny compared to the universe. So tremendous, tremendous amount of fumes and everything. You talk about the carbon footprint—fumes are spewing into the air. Right? Spewing. Whether it’s in China, Germany, it’s going into the air. It’s our air, their air, everything—right?

So they make these things and then they put them up. And if you own a house within vision of some of these monsters, your house is worth 50 percent of the price. They’re noisy. They kill the birds. You want to see a bird graveyard? You just go. Take a look. A bird graveyard. Go under a windmill someday. You’ll see more birds than you’ve ever seen ever in your life. You know, in California, they were killing the bald eagle. If you shoot a bald eagle, they want to put you in jail for 10 years. A windmill will kill many bald eagles. It’s true.
source

He is correct that the world is tiny compared to the universe. (That may be the only correct statement in his rant).

What “actual crime” did Trump commit? First it was bribery, extortion, “a classic Mafia-like shakedown” as Schiff called It, and of course the media’s obsequious base followed right along. Now it’s...obstruction of congress? Sorry, but there never was any actual crime to begin with, just a snivelling, well funded political corporation known as the DNC living out its fantasies. — NOS4A2

It was you who said that Trump committed "word crimes", and you implied that word crimes are distinct from and therefore not "actual crimes". This is false, as hate speech laws clearly demonstrate, word crimes are actual crimes. If you accept that Trump committed "word crimes", as you said, why not accept that Trump ought to be punished for such word crimes?

You know we have a world, right? So the world is tiny compared to the universe. — Donald Trump

The universe is at least three times bigger than the world!

His actions during the trial, and what can be proven about his actions pertaining to the trial, and what the consequences could theoretically be for such behavior in an impeachment trial, are matters yet to unfold and to be decided by a Supreme Court review (likely). Problematically, he likely will not be telecasting his collusion with Trump's defense team, so we won't be able to prove a lick of it (and again, there are not formalized laws dealing with such behavior in a senate-run trial to begin with, so it all refers back to what the Supreme Court might say about it). — VagabondSpectre

"The majority opinion, by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, held that the courts may not review the impeachment and trial of a federal officer because the Constitution reserves that function to a coordinate political branch. Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution gives the Senate the "sole power to try all impeachments." Because of the word sole it is clear that the judicial branch was not to be included. Furthermore, because the word try was originally understood to include factfinding committees, there was a textually demonstrable commitment to give broad discretion to the Senate in impeachments."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._United_States
Referencing Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993).

What “actual crime” did Trump commit? — NOS4A2

Impeachment is not just for violations of statutes, as you seem to imply. In Federalist 65, Hamilton discusses impeachment and refers to "offenses which proceed from the conduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse of violation of some public trust."

Violating the Constitution certainly qualifies as an abuse of the public trust: the President is Constitutionally required to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed".

It was you who said that Trump committed "word crimes", and you implied that word crimes are distinct from and therefore not "actual crimes". This is false, as hate speech laws clearly demonstrate, word crimes are actual crimes. If you accept that Trump committed "word crimes", as you said, why not accept that Trump ought to be punished for such word crimes?

Hate speech? Sorry, bub, not in America.

Impeachment is not just for violations of statutes, as you seem to imply. In Federalist 65, Hamilton discusses impeachment and refers to "offenses which proceed from the conduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse of violation of some public trust."

Violating the Constitution certainly qualifies as an abuse of the public trust: the President is Constitutionally required to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed".

The person I was responding to implied Trump committed actual crimes. He didn’t.

Which part of the constitution did he violate?

What “actual crime” did Trump commit? — NOS4A2

You seem to be a little daft. I think it's quite clear that president Trump most likely committed the crimes he's been accused of, abuse of power, and obstruction of Congress. Even though what is probably the most incriminating evidence, has not been revealed, the evidence which has been published is significant..

Yes, these are fundamentally "word crimes". A person of authority, being in a position of power has the capacity to give orders. And, to use Hanover's analogy, it is just as clear that for a person of authority to give an unlawful order is a crime, as it is clear that for a person to unlawfully take what belongs to someone else (theft) is a crime.

You, NOS4A2, are undeniably wrong, to suggest that a "word crime" is not an actual crime.

You seem a like a pantywaist. Neither are high or low crimes or misdemeanors. Neither are mentioned in the Constitution.

Which part of the constitution did he violate? — NOS4A2

Oath of office, in Article II, Section 1: "I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" and Article II, Section 3: "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" in conjunction with the 5th Amendment's due process clause.

How did he violate the constitution?

Neither are high or low crimes or misdemeanors. Neither are mentioned in the Constitution. — NOS4A2

The Constitution doesn’t specify what counts as high crimes and misdemeanours. You’ll have to look outside the Constitution to understand what the framers meant by the phrase.

The Constitution doesn’t specify what counts as high crimes and misdemeanours. You’ll have to look outside the Constitution to understand what the framers meant by the phrase.

So not only are they not crimes, they are not even mentioned in the constitution. This is really all we need to know about the whole affair.

By acting contrary to his Constitutional duties. Investigating a US citizen without due cause violates due process.

Trump also seems to have violated the Impoundment Act, and to have done so for corrupt purposes, which violates faithfully executing the laws. For that matter, he violates faithful execution of the law whenever he proclaims the legal guilt of a political opponent (including claims they are guilty of treason).

By acting contrary to his Constitutional duties. Investigating a US citizen without due cause violates due process.

Trump also seems to have violated the Impoundment Act, and to have done so for corrupt purposes, which violates faithfully executing the laws. For that matter, he violates faithful execution of the law whenever he proclaims the legal guilt of a political opponent.

He never investigated any US citizen. The hold on aid was lifted before the expiry date.

The evidence for obstruction is overwhelming in both this impeachment proceeding and the Mueller investigation. Watch the congressional hearing testimony concerning it and what counts as high crimes and misdemeanors. Or keep on sticking your head in the Fox news sand...

So not only are they not crimes, they are not even mentioned in the constitution. This is really all we need to know about the whole affair. — NOS4A2

High crimes and misdemeanors are mentioned in the Constitution. I'm just saying that you have to look at something other than the Constitution to learn what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means. Just like the term "bribery". Only "treason" actually has a Constitutional definition.

The evidence for obstruction is overwhelming in both this impeachment proceeding and the Mueller investigation. Watch the congressional hearing testimony concerning it and what counts as high crimes and misdemeanors. Or keep on sticking your head in the Fox news sand...

Repeating the Democrat’s talking points doesn’t make them any more true.

He was violating due process by asking for an investigation without probable cause.

Taking the action of initiating an investigation is wrong. It doesn't just become wrong when the next step in the chain is executed.

High crimes and misdemeanors are mentioned in the Constitution. I'm just saying that you have to look at something other than the Constitution to learn what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means.

I’m aware of and agree that one needn’t commit any crimes to be impeached, but because there is no apparent crime nor constitutional violation we have entered the court of opinion.

I’m aware of and agree that one needn’t commit any crimes to be impeached, but because there is no apparent crime nor constitutional violation we have entered the court of opinion. — NOS4A2

The (accused) constitutional violations are that of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The House has decided that they are examples of high crimes and misdemeanors. You'll have to look into what the framers meant by the phrase to determine if they're right.

He was violating due process by asking for an investigation without probable cause.

Taking the action of initiating an investigation is wrong. It doesn't just become wrong when the next step in the chain is executed.

The United States has a mutual legal assistance treaty with Ukraine.

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/12978-Ukraine-Law-Enforcement-MLAT-7.22.1998.pdf

As for due process, there has been no investigation, and therefor no due process has been violated.

The (accused) constitutional violations are that of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The House has decided that they are examples of high crimes and misdemeanors.

It is the weakest impeachment case in American history. It’s a dangerous precedent. This will be an indelible stain on the Democrats for years to come.

It's not about democrat talking points... the irony... as I said... listen to the relevant testimony, particularly the testimony of the professors of Constitutional law and how they explain the interpretation of "high crimes and misdemeanors"...

It is the weakest impeachment case in American history — NOS4A2

Are you aware that Clinton was only found guilty of lying about a blowjob?

To anyone interested... the "On Bullshit" thread offers a perfect explanation of NOS's contributions here...

His testimony is not at all about what's true, but rather it's about convincing the audience, by whatever means necessary...

It's not about democrat talking points... the irony... as I said... listen to the relevant testimony, particularly the testimony of the professors of Constitutional law and how they explain the interpretation of "high crimes and misdemeanors"...

I have listened to the testimonies. Not sure what your point here is.