The chief of staff's declaration represented an about-face in the White House defense on the Ukraine affair. Until now, Mr. Trump's main argument has been that the whistleblower who described his July 25 phone call with Mr. Zelensky and his subordination of U.S. diplomacy to his reelection campaign had gotten it all wrong: There was no quid pro quo. But testimony to Congress by half a dozen present and former State Department and White House officials, and a rough transcript of the phone call, have fully confirmed the whistleblower's memo.

The new defense outlined by Mr. Mulvaney: Okay, we did it. So what?

The chief of staff argued that every administration seeks concessions from foreign governments in exchange for aid or meetings with the president. That's true " but the difference here is that Mr. Trump was demanding help for his personal political cause, not for the United States.

There is still more to learn about the Ukraine affair. But this much is now undisputed: Mr. Trump conditioned U.S. defense aid, as well as a visit to the White House, on the Ukrainian president's help in providing him with political dirt.

It was a quid pro quo. It was corrupt. And Mr. Trump is now confessing it, in the cynical expectation that Republicans will not hold him accountable. If he is right, our political system will be grievously damaged.

#9 | POSTED BY HELIUMRAT

Constitutionally illiterate.

HRat, I know that you're a learned fellow who often talks about subjects and things of which I have no clue, but on this topic, you need to actually read how the impeachment process is designed and stop believing though who lie to you every day.

Cliff notes: Impeachment is a two part process where the House acts as a grand jury and decides whether to "indict" a high government official for specific "high crimes and misdemeanors" - which doesn't mean exactly as it sounds. There is no need for an actual statutory crime behind an article of impeachment. The details are like et_al recites in post 5.

If the House votes to pass any Article of Impeachment then a trial commences in the Senate, where the House acts as the prosecution and the accused has his own defense with all the attendant rights you refer to above. But only at trial. Just like with a grand jury, an accused has no rights to do anything, they don't even have a right to know they are being investigated, although that's impossible due to the nature of impeachment.

"believing those who lie to you every day."

They are hiding their "witnesses" and the names change every day. More come out and then vanish? No cop on Earth would take tthis to a judge.

Err... no, the witness schedule is published in advance. Every single non-public hearing is attended by the Republicans on the respective committees. They are given the same amount of time to question witnesses as are the Democrats. It's just done behind closed doors so that each witness does not know exactly what the other witnesses have said so they cannot coordinate stories. Just like grand juries do every day.

Once it's no longer necessary, the transcripts of the hearings/depositions will be made public with needed redactions to protect secrets. At that time everyone can read it for their own and make up their own minds without influence of anyone should they want to.

Frankly, this is fairer to the subject of the investigation since both party's committee members aren't allowed to speak publicly about details and observations beyond very general points except when a witness makes an opening statement which is given to the public.

Impeachment has nothing to do with criminal standards, the Constitution says nothing close to that. Read the Federalist Papers or peruse some of the Colonial debate over Impeachment that occured as our Founders wrestled with the language of the Constitution.

#22 from your link:

The precise way in which the House proceeds to impeachment is not dictated by the Constitution. As our colleague David Priess wrote, the House of Representatives voted on Feb. 24, 1868, to impeach President Johnson without an investigation and without even debating specific articles of impeachment. It was only after the impeachment vote that a committee was appointed to draft a set of precise articles and return them to the full House.

On the legal side, courts generally defer to Congress on how it organizes itself and its work.

There have been multiple threads about the rule changes and their effect on the House progression of the impeachment process.