And let's remember that he was talking about an impeachment in which a jailable felony had been committed. Furthermore, it was a felony that had been investigated, and every statutory element of it was supported by overwhelming evidence. Say what you will about Kenneth Star. His case was thorough, and he did his job. It would have been sufficient to easily support a criminal conviction.
What has really lost me on this impeachment (and I supported the inquiry) is the half-assed effort. Trump may have done something impeachable here. They were right to look into it. However, we can't know what actually happened unless the people with knowledge of the relevant facts are called to provide testimony, and nobody wants to call them. They certainly don't want them badly enough to show up to a friggin' hearing. Adam Schiff could have done it. Jerrold Nadler could have done it. Well, if you're not willing to do that, then I'm not going to go along with your impeachment. I'm not going to take it more seriously than the US House takes it.
I've now read the impeachment articles. They're ********. First of all, there's no mention of bribery. What happened to that? Was it just smack talk? Second, Article I sounds really terrible, but it's based far too heavily on assumptions and second hand information. This is where testimony would help, but somebody would have to make an effort. The impeachers have the burden of proof, and you can't present a case that's sloppier than a Tijuana gas station men's room and expect it to be "good enough."
Third, I read Article II. It is nonsense on its face. It's basically, "we're too lazy to walk a few blocks down to the federal courthouse, so he has to be impeached." Well, sorry guys. That's not a high crime or misdemeanor. If they had gotten court orders, and the evidence still wasn't turned over, then that would be a legitimate basis for impeachment. However, nobody gave a ****. They didn't even try. Impeachment is too important to take it so lightly.
