Yes he currently does represent America as he is the head of state ... 

@Bold Straw man, never said he was above the constitution. Likewise, the opposition in congress is also not above the constitution. It's that the constitution grants him the sole power to represent America since he is the highest official ... 

One person can represent America since every other elected official does not represent the union. Senators only represent a state and the house members can only represent a district so what's left is the president ... 

You don't determine who or who hasn't crossed the line, that's for the others out there to do so. Trump is fine since he's unlikely to get convicted, what's not fine is the opposition trying to unduly undermine American leadership across the world in the face of a strong geopolitical rival that could set new terms. I asked before and I'll ask again, would you prefer Trump going down even if it means giving the keys of world hegemony to an undemocratic state or would you prefer to combat the rise against these states even if it means having Trump at the helm ?

You take it for granted that America will still remain the world leader without Trump since he is arguably the best chance in decades to combating the rise of a powerful hostile regime ... 

@Bold It's not just that. A potential master race will ultimately lead to the formation of the most powerful civilization. Only the best civilization may prevail while weak civilizations should perish ... 

Humans are designed to exterminate each other for the greater good to prove that ideas from a certain group are superior to the other groups. It's what we do best ... 

Even if Trump's genuinely concerned about Ukrainian corruption (he's not), per the National Defense Authorization Act, only the Secretary of Defense has the power to allow or deny disbursement of aid. His department reports on Ukraine's progress on anti-corruption efforts and a decision is made. In this case, John C. Rood, undersecretary for policy at the DoD, informed Congress in May that Ukraine had indeed taken measures to reduce corruption, thereby qualifying for the assistance, no ifs or buts. Trump ignored his own Defense Department's positive evaluation, and then blocked the aid when the law bars anyone but the Secretary of Defense from doing so. And if genuine concern for corruption cannot be his rationale for blocking the aid, the only other possibilities are either extreme gullibility toward anything that comes out of Rudy's mouth, or extortion to get Zelensky to damage a political opponent.

https://web.archive.org/web/20191203024648/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/23/trump-mulvaneys-claim-that-corruption-concerns-held-up-ukraine-aid/

Joe Biden 1 billion dollars will be withheld from Ukraine unless you fire the prosecutor. He admits it himself. As a Law Student you should know that is Bribery. Offering something of value for a political action. And he admits it on tape. Ukraine is the third most corrupt Country in the world. So corrupt even the IMF cut off funding from it. Billions of dollars of US aid has gone missing in Ukraine. So you can assume that Trump withheld it for a Biden investigation which has not been proven. But assumptions as far as I know dont hold up in a Court of Law. Pretty sure you need to prove crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.

Bottom line though is even if you prove that he withheld aid for an Investigation into Biden (which hasnt been proven). Its his responsibility to look into a potential Felony. And there is a law that corruption reform is required for foreign aid. It is also the President’s responsibility to ensure American tax dollars arent being spent for corrupt purposes.

I'm sorry professor, drinkandwim (I have to assume you're a professor since you're telling law school students what they should know) but I must say I'm vastly confused here, I'll let you know what I've learned so far, and you can tell me where I'm wrong.  I'm only a 1L after all, so I'm sure your experience in the field must dwarf mine.

As a law student, I do not know that that's bribery. I know that that is inducement, which is a key element of any contract.  A contract requires both sides give something of value to the other, aka consideration.  If nothing of value is offered, then there is no valid contract.  An inducement only amounts to bribery if the inducement is encouraging one to do something illegal, or seeks to improperly influence an official in their capacity as a public officer.  Firing a prosecutor is not illegal, and assuming the prosecutor was corrupt, (which there is plenty of evidence to suggest as he was the subject of protests in the streets, he regularly attacked anti-corruption organizations, and his underlings were found with huge stashes of cash and diamonds), then there would be nothing improper about inducing Ukraine to fire him.  I also might add that as vice president, Joe Biden could in no way shape or form block aid to the Ukraine.  At most, he could try to convince President Obama or those within the state department to withhold the aid.  I'm not sure how it could be a felony for Joe Biden to withhold money from Ukraine since he literally could not withhold money from Ukraine.  Would you kindly clarify which article of the constitution or statute gives the vice president, who essentially has no power aside from tie breaking Senate votes, the ability to withhold money?  Otherwise, I can't see how this would be a felony.  At worst it could fall under high crimes and misdemeanors, which could be an impeachable, but not a criminal offense. 

I'm also very confused about bringing up courtrooms.  As far as I was aware, an impeachment trial is held by congress, is not a criminal proceeding, and there is no set standard of evidence.  Please show me where I'm mistaken on this.

I'm also confused on it being the president's job to look into felonies.  I imagine there are quite a few felonies being committed in the United States at any given time, not to mention in every foreign country, and it seems like investigating every particular potential felony would be too much work, even for a clearly competent man like Mr. Trump.  I believe that the FBI was established to investigate domestic felonies, and the CIA for international crimes. Not to mention the state department and various congressional committees.  It seems to me that it would be far more efficient to use these agencies for investigations, rather than Mr. Trump and his personal lawyer.  Can you clarify where exactly it is indicated that a President is personally responsible for looking into felonies?  What other felonies has Trump been investigating personally using his personal resources?  I assume that it wouldn't only be felonies that involve his political opponents because that would seem awfully suspicious.  

I'm glad to hear though that our watchful President is ensuring that none of my hard earned tax dollars are supporting corrupt regimes! I have to assume that Mr. Trump also demanded corruption reform from every other nation that receives US foreign aid.  What investigations did he demand from Mozambique?  Mexico?  Venezuala?  Brazil?  Argentina?  Saudi Arabia?  Lebanon?  Indonesia?  The Philippines?   Pakistan?  Bangladesh?  Afghanistan? Israel, Gaza, Iraq, Japan, Congo, India, Columbia?

I assume that Mr. Trump must have demanded that all of those countries also investigate specific instances of corruption in order to procure foreign aid, since as you said, that is a requirement.  Or do none of those nations have any issue with corruption?  Cause that would be a load off my mind.  If he only did this in one instance, and that one instance was one that directly involved a political opponent, I must confess it would raise my eyebrows.

Look forward to your continued assistance in my effort to understand the law <3.  But please include statutes and decisions that you've assuredly study.  I need to know what to cite on my tests after all.  It may be unfair but See drinkandswin vgchartz does not count as a valid citation, despite your vast legal expertise.

I have mixed feelings.  On the one hand in a just world there definitely should be articles of impeachment.  On the other hand, this is almost certainly not going to be given real consideration in the Senate, so what end does it really serve?

Trump is clearly guilty, but I don’t know if it is something that he should be removed from office for. I would certainly love it if he was, and I’m no democrat. Trump is not a good president or somebody that should be in charge of anything. He appears to have a narcissistic personality disorder.

I think best case is they take away his right to hold future office... which would force the republicans to pick a competent person to run... but that is beyond a long shot. For trump to leave office the democrats are gonna have to beat him.

You're far more optimistic about the motives and message it sends than I. If successful, it will send the message that a political party can remove the President who belongs to the opposing party simply for politically-driven reasons, and because they simply don't like him. You can argue the specifics of their "case" all you like, but the fact is they were throwing out the word 'impeachment' from day one of him being in office, long before any of the supposed reasons they've come up with existed. They enjoyed taunting that they were going to go for impeachment over Russian collusion. That was a dud, so they came up with something else. Does it not trouble you or send up any red flags that their reasoning for why he needs to be removed has changed over the months and years, and continues to slide around as this process unfolds? The best they have is "obstruction of justice", which was him defending himself over claims that ended up not being true. What a joke.

What message does it send when there was an obviously impeachable offense then he gets off anyway?

The report of the Russian investigation did not say the claims were untrue, but that they could not be confirmed or denied. And because it could not be confirmed the house did not draft articles of impeachment.  They investigated the issue, just like they investigated the issue with Hillary's servers.  There is no doubt that many prominent republicans hated Hillary.  That does not mean there was no cause for an investigation.  Obviously with the Russia investigation, there were some very improper things going on as there were several arrests, so it was well worth investigating.  Whether or not they dislike Trump is irrelevant.  Instead of making ad hominem argument, try addressing the actual facts.

Your argument is similar to saying "don't you find it funny that they wanted to put OJ Simpson in jail for murder, then that was a dud, so they wanted to put him in jail for armed robbery?"  The reason changed because they suspected that he committed a crime, investigated it, found out that it couldn't be proven he did, then  they suspected he committed another one, so then they investigated that one. Similarly, they suspected Donald Trump did something improper, they investigated it, could not confirm or deny it, then he was accused by several reputable people of doing something else improper, so they're investigating that one.  The reason is changing cause he keeps doing different shady shit. 

Lets be honest, no matter what the articles of impeachment are, it was not going to be given any real consideration in the Senate.  I believe making these articles very simple and easily defended puts a lot of onus on the Senate to dispute those claims and also make it simple for the public to understand why we are here today on these matters.  One thing is very clear is that Senate Republicans have made it clear they will do just about anything to continue to allow Trump to abuse his position.  Its the main reason why Trump has little if any respect for them because he knows they will always support anything he does out of fear.  The ones that do care, well as we have seen will leave congress instead of going against their party.

It would be interesting to see if Trump would win another term how many republicans not run for reelection as they rather quite then stay complicite to this president.