No legal actions was against nim. He just flee the country because he afraid for his life.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/02/ukraine-parliament-ousts-president-yanukovich-2014222152035601620.html

https://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/as-yanukovych-flees-kyiv-parliament-takes-charge-337361.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/23/ukraine-crisis-yanukovych-tymoshenko-live-updates

I mean come on does anyone double-check the facts on anything they are about to say?

Yes, sadly you is one who don't check facts and fall to cheap propaganda. 

According to the Ukraine constitution there's no procedure of impichment of president. To change a constitution you need a Constitutional Court, which was disbanded by new 'authorities'. 

So currently it is impossible to impeach president in Ukraine legally. Voting in Rada was made under the gun barrels and with a men in masks with baseball bats which is not a very democratic procedure too.

So right now like it or not Yanukovich is still the only legal president of Ukraine, if you respect international law and Ukraine's constitution.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100263469/william-hague-has-been-cavalier-with-the-facts-in-his-support-for-the-ukraine-rebels/
Look here, please. Your authorities plain lying.

I can not find one source that says this happened.  Also what propaganda have I fallen for? LOL.  The parliament did vote to impeach him.  This is a fact.

Article 111 states the parliament has the right to initiate a procedure of impeachment "if he commits treason or other crime."  He clearly did several times.  So they were using the 2004 version of the constitution that he didn't sign. I wonder why he wouldn't sign that...Oh because he had already fled the country.

Please stop making yourself look rediculous by claiming the Ukrainian parliament was wrong to impeach a president who had already murdered his people and fled the country.

I'm sorry, but its you look ridiculous now. In my country you can't just say a man is guilty and put him in a jail. You need an legal investigation and a court decision to do it. It was no investigations yet nor regarding who killed people on the streets nor regarding snipers. Russia insist that such investigation must be in place but new 'authorities' prefer kill themselves.

Btw, do you know that famous rebel Sashko Byliy was killed by new authorities some days ago? According to their statements he shot himself in his heart twice when they tried to arrest him.

Guys, you seriously don't understand what you've started by actively supporting Maidan from the west...

The problem is both the jump and the conclusion, when you go from stopping atrocity and the genocide of 12,000 people to "we can bomb anything in your whole country, reduce it to middle-age, to the point you accept your only option that is to accept total independance, and just by a referendum within this independant region with an hostile foreign ethnic majority you lose it forever".

So here in Ukraine, lots of minister claim there root to be in the Nazi party that is guilty of the extermination of 6 millions judes (and so many other people based on race), invasion of Russia, and the claim that slavian are sub-people.

That's different starting point, no one yet killed. 12,000 people murdered is horrible. Even 1 person. But in term of magnitude, 12,000 is far nearer to zero or to an accident than to a mass systematic genocide of millions that made the word genocide and any claim to be nazy horrible. So, you have a similar situation like "prevention of genocide" on going, and if you jump to the same unilateral conclusion, except for the bombing it's a pretty similar pattern.

40% isn't really that far off 60%... and it happened more recently...

and acknowledgement doesn't really solve what happened, a more extreme case, but I think the Native americans would say as much.

Also a case of how you'll work with people who do that stuff if your stuck with them.  (Because of course.)  and one with way more time behind it.

(And by the way I totally do support NA independence if they vote for it via refferendum.)

Couple things you missed.... pretty big things.

1)  The chart you posted wasn't a poll of Transnistra citizens opinions.   It was a poll of the Moldovian citizens on the future of TMR.

Note how it says Moldova there... and note how other polls either say Modolva or TMR based on who was polled.

A similar poll would be if you asked what all Ukrainians outside Crimea thought should be the future of Moldovia.

So Moldovians outside of TMR, wanted TMR to leave about as much as Crimean's were polled to want Crimea to leave. 

They didn't chart the TMR vote, but noted that 50% voted for Independence and >33% Independence.    The 33% for independence part is more important here then you would think.  ~5% undecided.

So that's...   ~12%  of polled TMR that wanted to be part of Moldova in some form or another OR the Ukraine..  Compaired to 55% of polled Crimean's wanting to be part of Ukraine

The TMR people voting to be part of Ukraine looks like it's sitting around 4% on the graph, but it's hard to say since they don't specifically mention it.   Though it's ALSO worth noting that they mention the Ukranian supporters put more trust in the pro Russia Candidate then the pro Moldovian one.  So really that vote could also be seen as a support for independence/russian joining.

2) The poll in 2006 wasn't 98% in favor or joining russia.   It was a two part split refferendum with two optionss

1)  Renounce independence and possibly get rid of autonomy.

2)  Stay Independent and maybe later join Russa.

The same trick was used in Puerto Rico recently by the local government to make it look like PR wanted to be a state when in reality they overwhelmingly want to keep the status quo.  

But either way, the voting percentage the polling you qouted gave option 2 was in fact 83%.   Which is quite a bit farther along...

Which when you consider the margin of error, no Ukranian option and undecided people not voting and all the reports of people going around harrassing voters and inconsitencies, a more overwhelming win isn't that unsurprising.

You think that's ok?  (If it's true).   Also I said they were following the 2004 constitution that allowed it.