He’s done all those things and more — but the impeachment articles are narrowly tailored to the charges with the most solid backing evidence. It’s a smart strategy. With a shotgun approach, impeachment would have been more difficult and divisive.
Meaning they had no other evidence, so they had to choose ambiguous charges. The debate today was golden. Dems looked like idiots saying over and over that the charged were uncontested, all the while the Republicans were contesting them.
It ended not long ago, with Democrats postponing the vote (I think they're scared that they don't have the numbers to pass it).
And if you looked you might also find a crumble of evidence or two in this 300-page House report.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6566093-House-impeachment-report-PDF.html
If that was evidence, they would have used it in the articles they voted on. The house report is a joke. Exactly one of the witnesses was actually a witness. That one witness testified that quid-pro-quo was only his opinion. Everyone else was testifying to hearsay.
I'm not gonna have time to do a dissertation right now, but here's Ex. A in support of Article I.
I keep citing this portion of the Zelensky call because it's Trump's own words, published via an official White House transcript. Not his lawyers, not his lackeys, no hearsay, no speculation, no BS. To me, this is the smoking gun that shows Trump sought to apply the pressure of his office to have Hunter Biden ("Biden's son" in his own words -- a telling phrase) investigated for his own political purposes.
There is certainly other evidence in support of both Articles. Here's a good a place as any to start. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6566093-House-impeachment-report-PDF.html
THE DEMS/MEDIA SPENT ALL THAT TIME SCREAMING ABOUT BRIBERY, QUID-PRO-QUO, & COLLUSION... .. AND THEN LEFT ALL THAT OUT OF THEIR LITTLE SHAMPEACHMENT ARTICLES.
