If Bill Clinton can avoid removal by arguing "what the definition of 'is' is," you can bet the Senate will basically accept any tenuous argument Trump puts out. And in the case of this Ukraine convo, it doesn't seem like there is a true smoking gun statement from Trump like, "if you prosecute Biden we'll get some money flowing your way."

Isn't the point of an investigation to investigate? There is clearly a sufficient amount of circumstantial evidence, there is some small amounts of hard evidence that the conversation happened, and pretty much the way the Whistleblower said it did. People may think it's not a big deal, that their personal opinion, but the point would be a President using his position of power to influence another country into doing something for his own benefit in an election. Last time I checked, that used to be considered bad form. On top of that, if other people, whichever side of the political fence, have done similar, get them on the hook in whatever process they should go through as well.

The point of this investigation is to impeach.

That's not really true - it's to establish if there are grounds to issue articles of impeachment, it's not a forgone conclusion that there are until articles are issued.

After all, 'high crimes and misdemeanors' basically amounts to whatever the Congress at a given time says it does.

Does an impeachment inquiry give Congress more authority when demanding to see documents? If so then I'm all for it especially if President Trump has to testify under oath. Clinton was impeached on 2 counts, not because he had sex with an intern at work, but that he lied about it under oath and obstructed justice.

Before the next election I think the voters need to know where the President's financial interests lie. Just like in the case of Nixon the investigation itself may be enough without the need to vote on articles of impeachment. Nixon had a high approval rating at the start of his impeachment but as the proof of wrongdoing emerged his support collapsed and the "smoking gun" tapes were not discovered until well after impeachment inquiries had begun.

20 years ago Lindsey Graham had quite a different view on what 'high crimes and misdemeanors" meant. That definition is significantly different now, at least in his view.

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/polit...r-ebof-vpx.cnn

This has been years in the making, to do it an not impeach? Just can not see it happen.

Thought this was amusing from the Indy today:

Hillary Clinton dismissed Donald Trump as an "illegitimate president" and suggested that "he knows" that he stole the 2016 presidential election in a CBS News interview to be aired on Sunday.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9122986.html

Still fixated with Clinton, I see.

CBS, Indy who.

I realise she is irrelevant but as all this goes back to election night hard to ignore.

Wow I've learned a lot from this thread. So the whistle blower was a Democrat? What about all of the people inside the administration that provided the information pipeline to the whistle blower? Were they all Democrats too? Why does Trump have so many Democrats working in a Republican White House?

I had assumed the whistle blower was an apparatchik, I am not so sure now. It could be someone close or high.

NY Times says it was a CIA employee, then assigned to the White House, who is a Ukraine expert,

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/u...?module=inline

I'm sure that the White House has deduced exactly who he is and that they'll carefully "leak" his name sooner or later.

Thanks

NYT seems to be getting a lot of stick for leaking his details, his or her? Lawyer is NOT happy.

New York Times Loses Subscribers In The Wake Of Whistleblower Story Controversy

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonatha.../#49fd67bb250f

Somehow I don't think it will bother them too much. Not bad for the "Failing" New York Times:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ne...age-2019-02-06