Whistleblower:Trump made "troubling" promise to foreign lead

No- I couldn't read it because I don't subscribe

I can't answer that. It was a summary of a 30 minute call.

You are talking about the party that wouldn’t accept a Certificate of Live Birth and actually submitted numerous legislation because of it lol.

Just posting my research into what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States


Impeachable offenses: "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"
See also: High crimes and misdemeanors
The Constitution limits grounds of impeachment to "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors".[2] The precise meaning of the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is not defined in the Constitution itself.

The notion that only criminal conduct can constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment does not comport with either the views of the founders or with historical practice.[1] Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, described impeachable offenses as arising from “the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”[3] Such offenses were “political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”[3] According to this reasoning, impeachable conduct could include behavior that violates an official’s duty to the country, even if such conduct is not necessarily a prosecutable offense. Indeed, in the past both houses of Congress have given the phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” a broad reading, “finding that impeachable offenses need not be limited to criminal conduct.”[4][1]

The purposes underlying the impeachment process also indicate that non-criminal activity may constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment.[1][5] The purpose of impeachment is not to inflict personal punishment for criminal activity. Instead, impeachment is a “remedial” tool; it serves to effectively “maintain constitutional government” by removing individuals unfit for office.[6][1] Grounds for impeachment include abuse of the particular powers of government office or a violation of the “public trust”—conduct that is unlikely to be barred via statute.[6][4][1]

In drawing up articles of impeachment, the House has placed little emphasis on criminal conduct.[1] Less than one third of the articles that the House have adopted have explicitly charged the violation of a criminal statute or used the word “criminal” or “crime” to describe the conduct alleged.[1] Officials have been impeached and removed for drunkenness, biased decision-making, or inducing parties to enter financial transactions, none of which is specifically criminal.[1] Two of the articles against Andrew Johnson were based on rude speech that reflected badly on the office: President Johnson had made “harangues” criticizing the Congress and questioning its legislative authority, refusing to follow laws, and diverting funds allocated in an army appropriations act, each of which brought the presidency “into contempt, ridicule, and disgrace.”[7] A number of individuals have been impeached for behavior incompatible with the nature of the office they hold.[1] Some impeachments have addressed, at least in part, conduct before the individuals assumed their positions: for example, Article IV against Judge Porteous related to false statements to the FBI and Senate in connection with his nomination and confirmation to the court.[1]



Congressional materials have cautioned that the grounds for impeachment “do not all fit neatly and logically into categories” because the remedy of impeachment is intended to “reach a broad variety of conduct by officers that is both serious and incompatible with the duties of the office.”[6][1] Congress has identified three general types of conduct that constitute grounds for impeachment, although these categories should not be understood as exhaustive:



(1) improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office;

(2) behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and

(3) misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain

So I guess now we wait to see what comes from the whistleblower....

I think Pelosi has resisted for a long time for this reason and also because most people don't really have an appetite for it.

Let's face it, Trump has one more year (sorry RichB , not 6 ) and we are going to be in full election mode before all of these investigations and articles/reports are done.

So it's not like impeaching him hastens anything. He is going to finish his term (and the Senate will never vote to remove him from office)