It must be around here somewhere

Has anything actually HAPPENED since Pelosi's tax-funded collectible pens?

Don't insult the play. If anything, use the movie. :-)

If you were, disregard that last sentence.

Let me help you out! https://intelligence.house.gov/report/

And, if you’ve got time: The 600+ page version, with dissenting views included in the interests of fairness & balance
https://docs.house.gov//20191216/CRPT-116hrpt346.pdf

And, as we know, neither of these reports contains everything because so many docs are still being withheld and so many have still have not testified

Yes, and neither report contains evidence of a criminal nor impeachable offense. The House report is filled with hearsay, presumption, and opinion, none of which is considered evidence. It contains no first-hand testimony or incriminating documentation.

The whole case for obstruction is even weaker. The House asked the President to let his advisors testify and he said no. That is his right under Executive Privilege. If the House was serious, they would have issued subpoenas and then went to court to argue their case. The house did not issue subpoenas for testimony. The one subpoena they did issue, they canceled once it was going to be fought in court. The House knew they did not have prima facia case and would not get a favorable ruling.

As far as wanting more documentation and witnesses in the Senate, if the House did not have enough documentation and witnesses to make their case, how did they have enough evidence to impeach?

The trial in Senate is limited to the two charges in the Articles and the evidence used to make those changes. The Senate may ask for clarification, but they do not have to look for more evidence than the House already has obtained to warrant the charges as stated in the Articles.

A catch-22.

This can all be solved by putting all the evidence on the table right now.

Last I heard the big argument was over whether Bolton would be permitted to testify. He’s already said he wants to. The others I would like to see are Pompeo, Mulvaney, Giuliani, and Trump himself.

Pence? Why not. If he didn’t have any involvement, and I haven’t read anywhere that he did, then his testimony will be really short.

It’s not that hard. Just bring all these folks in over the course of 2-3 days, have them testify, and let the elected representatives of the people decide.

Impeachment can only pass if 2/3 of the Senate votes, which has a snowball’s chance in hell. If Trump is really as clean as you say he is, it’s a virtually zero-risk option.

Otherwise we are setting a really dangerous precedent that Presidents are above the law and can evade any real accountability whatsoever with two magic words: “Executive privilege.”

If Pompeo, Mulvaney, Giuliani, et al's testimony is important, why didn't the House subpoena them and go to court to present their case during the inquiry?

If their testimony is the only way of proving Trump guilty, how did they pass the Articles without having enough evidence?

So if they had enough evidence to file Articles of Impeachment, then they shouldn't need additional testimony or documents. If they must have more testimony and documentation, then the Articles are not sufficient and should be dismissed. From what I have read and heard, they don't have any evidence that raises to the level necessary

As far as invoking Executive Privilege, Regan did it 3 times, GH Bush 6 times, Clinton did 14 times just during his impeachment trial, and Obama invoked Executive Privilege140 times especially during "Fast and Furious" and Benghazi.

Executive Privilege is a right of all Presidents to protect confidential discussions with their advisors.
As an equal branch of government, the House does not have unlimited authority over the Executive branch. If they don't agree with EP they have the right to go to court and have it overturned.

1. Faced with historically unprecedented levels of stonewalling from the White House, House Dems were faced with one of two options: go to the courts to battle about the scope of executive privilege, which would have taken months, or proceed anyway with impeachment so as not to lose momentum. The House addressed this issue by passing Article II - Obstruction of Congress as a separate count. The Trump Administration is in the wrong here for invoking executive privilege so ridiculously broadly, so I do not fault Dems for whichever path they chose.

2. There’s no threshold level of guilt that the House needs to reach before passing Articles of Impeachment. Under the Constitution, the House has the “sole power of impeachment,” and the Senate tries the case. The entire case simply does not need to be essentially over and proven in the House before it’s submitted.

3. Executive privilege is a complex topic — but in effect, it’s understood as something that should be reserved for matters of the highest importance and, it is at its strongest when dealing with sensitive matters of national security. The privilege can be invoked to block certain lines of inquiry, but not necessarily to totally block witnesses from testifying at all. It certainly can’t be waved around as a get-out-of-jail-free card to essentially flout all Congressional oversight. There’s surprisingly little firm case law on this, because the scope of the privilege is usually negotiated between the legislative and executive branches, but in this instance such negotiations totally broke down. That’s why prior administrations’ claims of executive privilege are not entirely apt comparison. In those prior instances, with the possible exception of Clinton who was also impeached for “process crimes,” the disagreement between the branches with respect to the executive privilege was resolved without resort to impeachment. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

We’re already deep into uncharted waters, and the Judicial Branch may ultimately be called upon to weigh in on these matters. But it’s worth remembering: the Judicial Branch is just one of the three branches. A raging battle over executive privilege involving all three branches of federal government at once would strain our constitutional system like never before. A better outcome would be if the Trump Administration simply voluntarily dropped its opposition and just willingly relinquished the documents and witnesses.

Okay: Find me historical precedent for this!

And Clinton’s impeachment doesn’t count because... ya know... he actually testified. In fact, the impeachment articles against him were based on his perjury.

And the rest of it and Starr’s recommendations to Congress were all in the wheelhouse of “process crimes” that you love to downplay.

Good article about this I meant to include in my other comment https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/11/21/us/politics/impeachment-witnesses.amp.html

It's actually quite simple. If the Dems in the House didn't have enough evidence to prove their case, they shouldn't have rushed to draw up the articles of impeachment.

When Bill Clinton was impeached, actual laws that he had broken were referenced in the articles of impeachment. You seem quite capable of finding those on your own, hence the lack of a link.

What you're saying boils down to the sham articles were just a way for incompetent Dems to get their foot in the impeachment door, so to speak.

That's not how it's supposed to work, which is exactly why the Founders wanted the Senate to run the trial, as opposed to the House, which is, after all, the lower chamber.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starr_Report

“Actual laws Clinton had broken.”

I agree the Clinton comparison is instructive, but not for the reasons you state. You might need to look at this again.

Look at Ken Starr’s report and you’ll find 11 stated possible grounds for impeachment. What is the running theme of all 11?

They’re all “process crimes” connected with an underlying investigation. Perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and the like.

The analogous “process crimes” in the Trump impeachment are nearly captured in Article II — Obstruction of Congress. And if you dig moderately deep and compare the two, you’ll find the Trump Administration’s failure to cooperate with this impeachment investigation is way more wide-ranging than the ways Clinton allegedly failed to cooperate.

We are high-key, in real time, witnessing the most profound conflict between the Legislative and Executive branches on the scope of executive privilege in our nation’s history. We are in truly uncharted waters constitutionally, and it’s because of the Trump Administration’s stonewalling.

The biggest difference of all between the two IMO? Bill Clinton sat for a deposition.

While Trump? He has not given testimony under oath, and at this rate — under these softball bespoke Senate rules that are currently being crafted for his benefit — never will.

Recall that when it came time to draft the impeachment articles, the House Republicans “got” (but then the Senate ultimately acquitted) Bill Clinton not on any “actual” crime, but on perjury and obstruction of justice. In large part due to a deposition Clinton had already sat for.

So: until Trump sits for a deposition or mans up and hauls his own ass in front of the Senate, the comparisons with Clinton are not favorable.

Then there’s that pesky Article I — Abuse of Power. Which has tremendous substance, even if there’s no underlying “crime.” Why would there be? Only the President can do stuff like this. With rare exceptions like the War Powers Act, Congress doesn’t write laws in advance restricting presidential conduct. When the President goes too far, that’s what the remedy of impeachment is for.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-105hdoc310/pdf/CDOC-105hdoc310.pdf

Here’s a link to the original Starr report to the House, which the Wikipedia article I cited summarized accurately.

Wikipedia is a fast and reasonably reliable way of finding information.

It is not worth it to me spend the 5 extra minutes digging up the primary source that the Wikipedia article refers to every time merely to avoid the inevitable objection from you.

I would rather you object so I can prove it to you every time until you maybe start to get the picture that Wikipedia is not unreliable.