Is this why Trump has been impeached?

As I have previously suggested to my readers, since I now live in Israel, I try not to get involved in US politics. But the US drive to impeach US president Donald Trump is so historic an event, I cannot stay away from this event. It's simply too big to ignore, no  matter where I live.

I'm sure you know the basics of this impeachment. I won't rehash anything. But I do want to offer the occasional comment from afar. Perhaps distance provides some perspective.

I realize some of my readers could be offended by what I will say. After all, one doesn't have to live in Washington, DC to understand how passions about Trump run high--very high. I hope my readers will not abandon me over this issue. I hope you remain loyal to this blog.

Here's a comment about this Trump impeachment process: in the US Senate impeachment trial now unfolding, the US House of Representatives has seven 'Managers' whose job it is to serve as 'prosecutors' against Trump. If I understand matters correctly, these seven Managers will today, Friday, January 24, 2020, finish presenting the Democratic case against Trump. These seven Representatives, all Democrats, all chosen specifically by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), include: Jason Crow (D-Colorado), Val B. Demings (D-Florida),  Sylvia R. Garcia (D-Texas), Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York), Zoe Lofgren (D-California), Jerrold Nadler (D-New York) and Adam Schiff (D-California) (here). 

According to one source, US Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), three of these seven US House Managers in the Senate impeachment trial (some 42+ percent of the House 'Prosecutors') voted against lethal aid to the Ukraine--and these same three (Nadler, Jeffries and Lofgren) now lead the call to impeach Trump for, arguably, simply delaying the same lethal aid which they themselves refused to send? (here). Indeed, what's worse, delaying aid because of Ukraine's recent past history of corruption--or voting against it altogether? 

What's going on here? Is this why Trump is being impeached--over a policy dispute? 

Certainly, some have believed that, during December's House impeachment hearings, several anti-Trump 'witnesses' (few of whom had any face-to-face interactions with Trump, never spoke to Trump, but condemn him for impeachable offences anyway) were actually arguing that they condemn Trump because they, the professional diplomats, disagreed strongly with Trump's policy decisions (at least, that's the way it looked to some).  Is this the impeachable offense?

In the end, the impeachment Articles spoke specifically of Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress. Obstruction of the Congress is a separate issue. But is this policy dispute over Ukraine the real reason behind Trump's alleged Abuse of Power?

Remember, at app 10:25 EST yesterday, Thursday, January 23, 2020, Representative Adam Schiff said that this President "needs to be removed [from office] because Trump chose Rudy Giuliani over his own intelligence agencies and national security advisers" (here). Schiff then added, "that makes Trump dangerous" (ibid).

Really? Dangerous? A President does not have the power to send special envoys on special missions? Plus, if a President does use such envoys, he can be removed from office?

Really? How many times have other US Presidents used special, even private, envoys? A hundred times across American history? A thousand times?

Democrats claim no, no and no, again. That's not the reason for this impeachment. They say Trump's Abuse was his effort to influence a foreign leader to get for Trump dirt on a potential political opponent (Joe Biden). But was Trump's interest in a potential Biden-Ukraine connection just about a potential political opponent--or about real corruption in a place that had been one of the most corrupt countries in the world; a corruption that could have included the-then US Vice President (Biden and his family members) working behind the scenes?

More to the point, if what Schiff said, above, is not the point for impeachment (that Trump needs to be removed because he didn't rely on his own advisers, etc), then why make that remark? How does it relate to 'Abuse of Power'? If Schiff is saying that such a remark is in fact related to 'Abuse of Power', is such a connection legitimate? 

Does Congress really want to create a basis for the impeachment of a President that will literally tie the hands of all future Presidents? What is the message here--that a President cannot choose his own foreign policies, and cannot choose whom he wishes to perform delegated tasks?

Has Congress become this stupid? Something is wrong here.

Very wrong.