The only "crisis" is in the mind of the moronic Democrat "leadership" in the House. Their own rules call for a floor vote to invoke the impeachment process, requiring a simple majority. Now, suddenly, Speaker Pelosi's left Schiff, Nadler, et al, to make that decision themselves. It's a clear attempt to keep Republican members from issuing subpoenas, calling witness, etc., and participating in the process. If Pelosi thought she had the votes, a resolution would have been voted on already. Even the Democrats took a floor vote, when Nixon was investigated, as did the Republicans when Clinton was impeached.

While it's a small matter, for what Nixon was investigated, it's a moot point, since no vote of impeachment was taken. Only public votes count.

There is no obstruction, since the Executive Branch has the sole authority to conduct foreign affairs; and conversations with other world leaders are necessarily conducted in camera to avoid such idiocy. If the Congress wants to "rein in" the President, do it with legislation. They've been abrogating their powers to the Executive since the 1930's. Don't b**** and moan now, and not act. Congress doesn't get it both ways. While they are a co-equal branch of government, they're not a super branch.

The President is quite correct in not participating in fishing expeditions or witch hunts.

The public does not get to vote on impeachment. Only the House and the Senate conducts the trial and then they get to vote. The charges here are abuse of the office of the Presidency and that is an impeachable offense. You do not need a crime. You do not need a quid pro quo.
If you want to know why legislation doesn't work, ask Mitch McConnell who has crushed 200 bills passed by the House and sent to the Senate.
Impeachment is specifically in the Constitution so it cannot be Unconstitutional.
As to a "super-branch", no they're not but the Constitution gives them the power to vote for impeachment so doing so, cannot be unconstitutional, regardless of what America's Crazy Uncle Rudy says.

The public does not get to vote on impeachment. Only the House and the Senate conducts the trial and then they get to vote. The charges here are abuse of the office of the Presidency and that is an impeachable offense. You do not need a crime. You do not need a quid pro quo.
If you want to know why legislation doesn't work, ask Mitch McConnell who has crushed 200 bills passed by the House and sent to the Senate.
Impeachment is specifically in the Constitution so it cannot be Unconstitutional.
As to a "super-branch", no they're not but the Constitution gives them the power to vote for impeachment so doing so, cannot be unconstitutional, regardless of what America's Crazy Uncle Rudy says.

The public does not get to vote on impeachment. Only the House and the Senate conducts the trial and then they get to vote. The charges here are abuse of the office of the Presidency and that is an impeachable offense. You do not need a crime. You do not need a quid pro quo.
If you want to know why legislation doesn't work, ask Mitch McConnell who has crushed 200 bills passed by the House and sent to the Senate.
Impeachment is specifically in the Constitution so it cannot be Unconstitutional.
As to a "super-branch", no they're not but the Constitution gives them the power to vote for impeachment so doing so, cannot be unconstitutional, regardless of what America's Crazy Uncle Rudy says.

You and the others have summed it up pretty well! This hyperventilating over nothing just demonstrates the utter panic that has set in among Democrats. They are terrified of the coming Barr indictments and don't know what else to do. There is less evidence of Obstruction here than in any one of the specific citations of the Mueller report.

And as usual, Ellie Lady is absent from defending her post, not addressing any of the valid points. Leaving a defenseless Frankie to hold down the fort. Oh well.....

As you know, it is impossible to substantiate something that does not exist. Is it constitutionally acceptable for the House speaker to initiate an impeachment “by means of nothing more than a press conference”? In short, yes.

The constitutional text on this issue is spare. The Constitution simply says that the House has the sole power of impeachment. Ultimately, if the House wants to impeach someone, it needs to muster a simple majority in support of articles of impeachment that can be presented to the Senate. How the House gets there is entirely up to the chamber itself to determine. There is no constitutional requirement that the House take two successful votes on impeachment, one to authorize some kind of inquiry and one to ratify whatever emerges from that inquiry. An impeachment inquiry is not “invalid” because there has been no vote to formally launch it, and any eventual impeachment would not be “invalid” because the process that led to it did not feature a floor vote authorizing a specific inquiry.

No Steven, Better minds than ours have presented this opinion:

The fourth view is that an indictable crime is not required, but that the impeachable act or acts done by the President must in some way relate to his official duties. The bad act may or may not be a crime but it would be more serious than simply "maladministration." This view is buttressed in part by an analysis of the entire phrase "high crimes or misdemeanors" which seems to be a term of art speaking to a political connection for the bad act or acts. In order to impeach it would not be necessary for the act to be a crime, but not all crimes would be impeachable offenses.