“The questions presented by this impeachment inquiry are whether President Trump sought to exploit that ally’s vulnerability and invite Ukraine’s interference in our elections? Whether President Trump sought to condition official acts, such as a White House meeting or U.S. military assistance, on Ukraine’s willingness to assist with two political investigations that would help his reelection campaign? And if President Trump did either, whether such an abuse of his power is compatible with the office of the presidency?”

[OCS: And the evidence was little more than fourth-hand hearsay based on the child’s game of “telephone.” Perhaps summarized best by Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) who observed …

“Ambassador Taylor recalls that Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I conveyed this message to Yermak on Sept. 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky.  We got six people having four conversations in one sentence, and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding. I’ve seen church prayer chains that are easier to understand than this.”]

“With the sidelining of Yovanovich, the stage was set for the establishment of an irregular channel in which Giuliani and later others, including Gordon Sondland — an influential donor to the President’s inauguration now serving as Ambassador to the European Union — could advance the President’s personal and political interests.”

[OCS: It appears that the President of the United States could no longer trust his Ambassador, his State Department, or members of his Administration to faithfully execute his orders, especially when it came to policy matters which were set and executed under the purview of the Presidency. Every President has had private individuals serving in “unofficial roles.”]

“After the call, multiple individuals were concerned enough to report it to the National Security Council’s top lawyer. The White House would then take the extraordinary step of moving the call record to a highly classified server exclusively reserved for the most sensitive intelligence matters.”

[OCS: Considering the number of leaks of classified information concerning the President’s calls with world leaders and conversations in the White House and Oval Office, it seems prudent that the President would employ additional security to protect classified information from those leakers who held lower-level security clearances. Especially since all access to this particular server is logged and examined.]

Although we have learned a great deal about these events in the last several weeks, there are still missing pieces. The President has instructed the State Department and other agencies to ignore Congressional subpoenas for documents. He has instructed witnesses to defy subpoenas and refuse to appear. And he has suggested that those who do expose wrongdoing should be treated like traitors and spies.

These actions will force Congress to consider, as it did with President Nixon, whether Trump’s obstruction of the constitutional duties of Congress constitute additional grounds for impeachment.”

[OCS: Schiff continues to cloak the whistleblower who started this inquiry in anonymity and refuses to make him available to the Committee Republicans for cross examination. From published reports we know that the individual is not entitled to whistleblower status, works for the CIA, worked with CIA Director Brennan (a principal in the Trump/Russia proceedings, worked with Joe Biden, had no first-hand knowledge, discussed the matter with others, and colluded with the House Intelligence Committee staffers working with Adam Schiff to bring the present claim.

Additionally, exerting Presidential prerogatives, perks, and privileges such as “separation of power” or “executive privilege” do not constitute obstruction because the Congress cannot exert direct power over the Executive Branch of government.

Nixon's inquiry was based on a series of well-defined criminal activities, not an ad hoc investigation to find reasons for impeachment of an unpopular president.]

“These are the questions we must ask and answer. Without rancor if we can, without delay regardless, and without party favor or prejudice if we are true to our responsibilities.” Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of a country America was to become, ‘A Republic,’ he answered, ‘if you can keep it.’ The fundamental issue raised by the impeachment inquiry into Donald J. Trump is: Can we, keep it?”

[OCS: This question is best asked of Adam Schiff and the House Democrats who appear to be guilty of everything that they are projecting onto President Trump.

Quid pro quo bribery – there is Joe Biden confessing in public, on video, to telling the Ukraine President that unless he fires a state prosecutor looking into a corrupt company that pays his son millions, apparently for access to government officials, that he will withhold a $1 billion loan guarantee. And, then laughs when the Ukraine prosecutor is fired.

Process – in spite of procedural protections that the Democrats demand, they do not reciprocate and have denied minority Committee members to fully participate in the inquiry.

Election tampering – it is well documented that a representative of the Democratic National Committee colluded in the 2016 election with Ukraine officials in the Ukraine Embassy to act against then-candidate Donald Trump in favor of Hillary Clinton.]

US Embassy pressed Ukraine to drop probe of George Soros group during 2016 election’’

While the 2016 presidential race was raging in America, Ukrainian prosecutors ran into some unexpectedly strong headwinds as they pursued an investigation into the activities of a nonprofit in their homeland known as the Anti-Corruption Action Centre (AntAC).

The focus on AntAC — whose youthful street activists famously wore “Ukraine F*&k Corruption” T-shirts — was part of a larger probe by Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s Office into whether $4.4 million in U.S. funds to fight corruption inside the former Soviet republic had been improperly diverted.

The prosecutors soon would learn the resistance they faced was blowing directly from the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, where the Obama administration took the rare step of trying to press the Ukrainian government to back off its investigation of both the U.S. aid and the group.

“The investigation into the Anti-Corruption Action Center (sic), based on the assistance they have received from us, is similarly misplaced,” then-embassy Charge d’ Affaires George Kent wrote the prosecutor’s office in April 2016 in a letter that also argued U.S. officials had no concerns about how the U.S. aid had been spent.

At the time, the nation’s prosecutor general had just been fired, under pressure from the United States, and a permanent replacement had not been named.

A few months later, Yuri Lutsenko, widely regarded as a hero in the West for spending two years in prison after fighting Russian aggression in his country, was named prosecutor general and invited to meet new U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch.

Lutsenko told me he was stunned when the ambassador “gave me a list of people whom we should not prosecute.” The list included a founder of the AntAC group and two members of Parliament who vocally supported the group’s anti-corruption reform agenda, according to a source directly familiar with the meeting.

It turns out the group that Ukrainian law enforcement was probing was co-funded by the Obama administration and liberal mega-donor George Soros. And it was collaborating with the FBI agents investigating then-Trump campaign manager Paul ManafortPaul John ManafortEx-Trump campaign official testifies Stone gave updates on WikiLeaks email dumpsPaul Manafort's former son-in-law sentenced to 9 years in prison for scamming Dustin Hoffman, others NSC official testified there was 'no doubt' Trump pushed quid pro quoMORE’s business activities with pro-Russian figures in Ukraine. <Source>