Page:Impeachment of Donald J. Trump, President of the United States — Report of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives.pdf/341

 This is indeed the relevant language of U.S. CONST., Art. II, Sec. 4, and it shows the inherent weakness of the current case.

Because Democrats found no evidence of treason or bribery against President Trump, but had already promised his impeachment to their liberal base, they felt they had no choice but to default to two amorphous articles: "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress."

"Abuse of power" is a non-criminal act, and it is significant that Democrats made this their first article. As Prof. Turley testified to Judiciary: "[This country] has never impeached a president solely or even largely on the basis of a non-criminal abuse of power allegation. There is good reason for that unbroken record. Abuses of power tend to be even less defined and more debatable as a basis for impeachment than [specified] crimes..In this case, there needs to be clear and unequivocal proof of a quid pro quo."

That does NOT exist here.

Democrats know there is zero direct evldence in the record of these proceedings to show that President Trump engaged in any "scheme" of any kind, or that he intended in his dealings with Ukraine to "influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage." No impeachment should ever proceed on the basis of mere hearsay, speculatlon and conjecture that would not even be admissible in a local traffic court.