Just to address a few of the points you made...
"why not bring up Pelosi and the absolute state of crisis in her district?"
This is a red herring, one of Trump's favorite distraction devices. Nancy Pelosi has ZERO control or authority over what happens in her district because she is not part of the local government. What is she supposed to do to solve this "crisis", and how is she supposed to do it? Even if she were to sponsor a bill that addressed homelessness in her district and somehow get it to pass the House, what then? There are about 400 bills sitting on McConnell's desk that the House has passed and he refuses to allow the Senate to consider.
"How about the fact that she said on live TV that in districts like hers a glass of water with a D on it could get elected, implying that people like her and AOC don't need to perform in order to get elected?"
This is the reality and the same reason why people like Devin Nunes, Steve King, "Gym" Jordan, and Matt Gaetz get reelected - they run in districts that are heavily partisan where anyone with an R next to their name is a shoe-in. That's how partisan politics and gerrymandering work.
"there is still the infamous video of Biden bragging about doing exactly what they accuse Trump of doing. While seated with the CFR, he brags about not giving promised aid to Ukraine unless they remove the investigator that was looking Burisma corruption."
That video lacks context. That prosecutor was NOT looking into Burisma corruption; he was being removed because he wasn't looking into ANY corruption, and Biden was there to represent official US policy - Ukraine would not get the aid unless that prosecutor was removed and replaced by one who would more aggressively pursue corruption. What he did had nothing to do with his son and/or Burisma.
Ask yourself this - why is it that the ONLY country with a corruption problem Trump has shown any interest in was Ukraine, and specifically the company Burisma? Why is he focused on that one company? Why is it that he didn't show any interest in Ukranian corruption at all until AFTER Biden declared as a candidate? Why is it that he withheld $400 milion in miltary aid to an ally involved in a hot war with Russia, while overlooking the corruption in Egypt, which received over $1 billion in aid?
"This is the first time in US history where impeachment of a president has taken place (partial impeachment, as no impeachment has occurred until it has been sent to the Senate) without any statutory crimes having been committed."
First of all, it's not a partial impeachment - he's been impeached, and that happened at the moment the gavel came down on the vote to impeach. To quote Mick Mulvaney, "get over it". Impeachment is forever, no matter what the results of the Senate trial are. This idea that it's not really an impeachment until the Senate gets the bill is completely false. The Constitution is clear - the House has the sole power to impeach, and the Senate has the sole power to try the charges.
Secondly, there is no requirement that a statutory crime be committed in order for a President to be impeached. Aside from the fact that there were no statutes when the Constitution was created, it cites only treason, bribery, and "high crimes and misdemeanors". That is a phrase borrowed from the British impeachment process; it referred to abuse of power and betrayal of the public trust, not actual crimes. Google "Federalist 65" to read Alexander Hamilton's explanation of why impeachment was added to the Constitution - he says nothing about breaking a law, he talks about needing to remove a president who might use the office for his own benefit; that is exaclty what this impeachment is charging. |
