Senator ... you are either very naive (and my experience with conservatives is they are) or ... well I can't say that in this forum!!!!!

Quote
Trump has NEVER made a demand for loyalty like LBJ did.
Your rebuttal is Mr Trump did not use the same type language as Pres Johnson. Really??? You should have said Mr Trump never asked in any manner for loyalty, otherwise you just admitted Mr Trump does demand loyalty ... just as I said.

Quote
Wasn't The Mueller Report supposed to be the proof that Pres. Trump should be impeached? It didn't work so now you are claiming that what the "whistle-blower" said is the proof that Trump should be impeached. If the claim made by the "whistle-blower" is the proof of Trump's criminal behavior why haven't articles of impeachment been drawn up? The Democrats had some patience before calling Trump's impeachment, they waited almost 4 months before the first call for impeachment was made.
As usual the conservative delusion.

NO!!!!

SP Mueller was mandated to open "... an investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and suspicious links between Trump associates and Russian officials". So where in that mandate do you find anything about impeachment???? No ... can't find it? because it's not there.

The meme "it didn't work" is another conservative delusion. The Report should you ever read it describes in detail what was found. I'll let you regurgitate Fox News for your source but highly recommend reading the primary source.

The whistleblower filed a claim in which he described abuse of power. The ICIG thought the report after his investigation was more than credible and sent it to proper authorities. The House is in the process of gathering facts to either substantiate or refute the claims made by the whistleblower. As is your usual MO, you have made claims which are figments of your imagination.

Unlike your comments of Democrats rushing to impeach for political purposes, they are actually running a slow methodical investigation to gather the facts (you do want to know the facts?) and make a determination.

When you abuse a singular person making a call and universalize it, you have lied. One person (and I seem to recall a couple of Democrats making the call) does not make the whole Democrat caucus making a call of impeachment. The call by a handful of people would be the same as the impeachment call of Pres Obama of a handful of Republicans, not the whole Republican caucus.

Quote
The phone call, which you claim is a "blatant criminal offense" was made back in August. Now almost two months later the House has not drawn up articles of impeachment. If the criminal behavior was that blatant articles of impeachment would have been drawn up by now.
I guess you want the Democrats to manufacture the evidence. Or maybe you want the Democrats to "lynch" Mr Trump without articles of impeachment being filed or a trial in the Senate. I have to ask ... what is wrong with you!!!!!

Quote
What he has done has not warranted drawing up articles of impeachment.
Now that is naive to have said that.

Unlike Republicans who excoriated Sec Clinton without justification (remember Rep McCarthy? he said it best ... the Benghazi hearings were a way to impact her residential run in 2016) the Democrats are trying to get the facts (and so far they look bad for Mr trump) and make the determination to write the articles of impeachment. When the investigation is over, and only then, will articles be written.

What is your rush? You would continue to support Mr Trump if he shot kids in a school.

Because I don;t think you do any research (except to read right wing nut sites) for your edification here are some things.

Originally Posted by Daugherty v. Ellis
Malfeasance [is] a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do; as any wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duty; as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law; as an act which a person ought not to do; as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; as that which an officer has no authority to do and is positively wrong or unlawful; and as the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no right, or has contracted not, to do.

so what did Mr Trump do?

Originally Posted by legaldictionary.net
In a more general context, quid pro quo refers to the basis for any contract, in which there must be consideration given for the goods, services, or other thing offered.

Mr Trump offered goods, military aid and a meeting, and ecpected in return a consideration from Ukraine, opening investigations into Burisma, Bidens, and DNC and make public statement to that effect.

FEC Laws
Originally Posted by 52 U.S.C. § 30121 and generally, 11 CFR 110.20
In general, foreign nationals are prohibited from the following activities:

Making any contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or making any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States;

and further

Originally Posted by 52 U.S.C. § 30121 and generally, 11 CFR 110.20
The Act prohibits knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving contributions or donations from foreign nationals. In this context, "knowingly" means that a person:

Has actual knowledge that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are from a foreign national;

I suspect, and only because I am not an attorney nor have I read the law, but can read and reasonably interpret what I read, the call and all supporting efforts by Sec Pompeo, Sec Perry, AG Barr, and rogue attorney for Mr Trump, Giuliani and associates to further Mr Trump's illegal acts, do in fact constitute legitimate reasons to impeach any president.

But I dunno ... maybe you need to find that DNC server

ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty
America can survive bad policy, but not destruction of our Democratic institutions