1) There's no question about it. So far, they have found no wrongdoing.
2) That is how interpol, interfipol, etc. work. They are requests for help through official channels.
3) The bottom line is that they did not establish anything in the hearings.
4) Burisma was being investigated, and the Bidens had the investigation shut down by firing a prosecutor by holding up aid and then bragging about it to the Council on Foreign Relations.
5) No it is not. It was created so that rival powers could not buy the presidency.
6) It's legal to hire Hunter Biden and pay him copious amounts of money without directly stipulating that the money is for lobbying the US government. It is illegal if it results in a quid pro quo that requires an official act that benefits a private interest. That's why the Bidens are in trouble and Trump is not.
7) If that were the case, it's likely Trump would have been convicted of some crime at some point. However, that hasn't been the case. He's spent the last 10 years running a TV show on NBC. It's not that I don't think NBC isn't corrupt, but they generally do things according to the law. So how are you going to prove your case?
Eight) Once again, you have a layer of indirection right in your charge that more than likely doesn't get anywhere near Trump.
9)Right. They don't want a loose cannon, and Trump is okay with it.
10) That's fine. Trump was attacked on the Trump-Russia story. He has every right to counter-attack. He has every right to get rid of anyone who isn't on board with that too.
11) That isn't even close to the worst corruption in American history. A far better example, which isn't even the worst, is paying off the Clintons directly and indirectly to approve the sale of uranium to Russia--something Mueller was in on too.
12) Eh? Whatever. It would be nice if you could get just one witness under oath to testify that the president broke a specific law of the United States Code or Code of Federal Regulations.
1) Turn on your TV, you know, the impeachment hearings?
2) Trump didn't use any of the normal channels.
3) More fiction.. The witnesses all bore witness to wrongdoing, and the report included the phone logs, which adds weight to their testimony.
4) You've packaged a number of lies into a short space. Give my congrats to the professional liar who gave you that stinker. The EU, the US, and the IMF had been pressuring Ukraine for months to clean up their act. Obama sent Biden, pursuant to official US policy, to clean up the corruption. "The intent makes the crime".
5) The principle is the same, and it's right there in the historical record. They did not want a president to betray the country.
6) No, Trump is being impeached, and the FBI concluded their investigation of Biden because they didn't find anything. "favor to ask, though"... You have it exactly backwards.
7) Way to miss the obvious. The stature of limitations will limit what can be done. Btw, rich people routinely fly under the radar if they get good lawyers..
If he loses, he will spend the rest of his life in court. Or commuting for jail to court, and back. Nixon avoided that fate by resigning. Trump isn't half as smart as Nixon.
Eight) An interesting assertion, perhaps you could support that, I could use a good laugh. That violates Emoulements, putting your interests ahead of the country's interests, along with side issues like obstruction of justice.
9) Giuliani could be the camel that broke the elephants back. He's still at it, and it stinks to high heaven.
10) They didn't want to go to jail.
11) Uranium One was for idiots only. It was unbelievably stupid. No uranium went to Russia. There is no connection between any of the parts of the supposed controversy. And there was no betrayal of the country.
"But, as the NRC explained at the time, “no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.”
"We don’t even know if Clinton was involved in the committee’s review and approval of the uranium deal. Jose Fernandez, a former assistant secretary of state, told the New York Times" (If you look into the timeline, it's unlikely she had any direct involvement.)
This bit of fiction was written by a Breitbart propagandist, which should tell you all you needed to know.
Look, if you want to actually say something that isn't a lie (just for a change of pace) try Andrew Johnson. There was a lot of corruption in the 1800s. But your basic problem will remain, they didn't betray the country. That adds a qualitative difference that you can't get away from.)
12) You love this lie, you keep repeating it. The Constitution does not restrict Congress in any way. That was deliberate, as we have told you many times. It would not be possible to construct a set of laws to cover every possible eventuality.
That is just too much brain dead propaganda for one post. Seriously.