Honest answer, the evidence is both circumstantial and pretty strong that Trump did something that he shouldn't have. Is it enough to impeach the President? With that said, we need to have Bolton, Mulvaney, and Pompeo to testify under oath to what the know, it's the only way know for certain exactly what the facts are. Can you imagine what would have happened if Obama had ordered the State department not to give any Congressional testimony or documents to Congress regarding Benghazi? Would he have been impeached?
Flame suit on! 😄
.................... Squidge...............Honest answer back to ya....Circumstantial evidence whether it be strong, medium or light along with the OPINION that Trump did something that he should not have,,,,,is not grounds for impeachment. You are correct.
Ok then.....Turnabout is fair play......Along with Bolton, Mulvaney and Pompeo to testify under oath as to what they know,,,then how abouts calling to testify under oath as well Adam Schiff, the so called WHISTLE BLOWER, Hunter Biden, the Ukraine officials who stated no pressure and no PRID PRO QUO and actual and true EXPERTS on the Constitution such as ooooh like say Mark Levin, Jay Sekulow, Greg Jarrett, Alan Dershowitz?? NOT THREE TRUMP HATING BIASED LIBERAL PROFESSOR HACKS who all donated to the DNC.
If the demCRAPS had LEGIT evidence under the Constitution of crimes committed by Trump, then why the closed door hearings by Schiff WITH NO DUE PROCESS accorded the POTUS???
If the demCRAPS had a great case beyond all reasonable doubt and justified under the guise of the US Constitution that in fact Trump committed impeachable offenses, then WHY the closed door hearings with NO rights of due process accorded the POTUS?
If the dems had the goods beyond all reasonable doubt, they would have done their best to EXPOSE FULLY the crimes of the POTUS in OPEN HEARINGS!!
![[Linked Image from i.redd.it]](https://i.redd.it/a80zfiozrb341.jpg)
