People are still waiting for Democrats to deliver on their impeachment “scandal.” In week two of the impeachment investigation, the case is firmly closed — Democrats are trying to impeach President Trump for merely doing his job. Here is what we learned:

1. Temporarily holding aid from Ukraine to ensure compliance with anti-corruption standards was wise.

This entire investigation began because, supposedly, there was a quid pro quo. Democrats sold their playbill to this circus with the narrative that withholding foreign aid to Ukraine was somehow a bad thing. But we learned that it was entirely the opposite and the best possible leadership that Trump provided.

Both witnesses in Tuesday morning’s hearing, Lt. Col Alexander Vindman and Jennifer Williams, testified that Ukraine aid was held temporarily to ensure it's approval was consistent with Trump administration priorities and national security interests. Transparency International ranks Ukraine 120th out of 180 countries on corruption, listing places such as China, Vietnam, Brazil, Egypt, and Cuba as less corrupt than Ukraine. President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine was first elected only a few months ago. For the United States to wait and see before releasing foreign aid was not only wise but also in compliance with U.S. aid policy guidelines and simply smart of Trump to serve America’s best interests.

One can only imagine what might have been the Democrats’ accusation if aid to Ukraine was not temporarily held. Collusion? Corruption? Something else Schiff made up or took out of context? It’s become obvious that the Democrats will oppose any decision Trump makes, regardless of what that decision is. Vindman even testified that the president alone makes U.S. foreign policy decisions and that Burisma is a corrupt company that employed Hunter Biden, son of former Vice President Joe Biden.

The hearing on Tuesday made it very clear that Trump is working on behalf of the public and the best interests of the United States. That’s only an impeachable offense when you’re a Democrat.

2. Democrats are using career deep-state operatives to pretend they have important witnesses, but even those witnesses failed dramatically.

Vindman oddly characterized the July 25 phone call as a “demand” that Ukraine could not ignore, which Vindman based on his own military experience taking orders within a chain of command. This was wholly misleading. Ukraine is not our subordinate, but rather, has sovereignty as an independent nation. It is our ally but it is not within our chain of command.

Liberal pundits, of course, commented that there is a “power disparity” between the countries, but this argument is absurd. The United States is the world’s leading nation, so by that logic, liberals are suggesting the president of the United States is the world dictator and can issue demands that other nations’ leaders can’t ignore. So shouldn’t we have world peace by now?

Moreover, the two individuals on the phone call, Trump and Zelensky, both affirmed there was no pressure or “demand,” much less a quid pro quo. Democrats keep trying to use outside speculation of how these presidents “must have felt,” but we have heard directly from Zelensky, and we also have the transcript of the phone call, which both Vindman and Williams testified was accurate (the only two witnesses so far who heard it live).

Then, when asked directly if she was a Never Trumper, Williams stuttered and pivoted by saying she wasn’t sure the exact definition of that term. Wouldn’t a more appropriate response for an employee of the government be to say with absolute confidence that they serve the United States' interests and that foreign policy is set by the currently elected president, regardless of party, because voters choose who represents us? Her clear discomfort was embarrassing.

Other witnesses last week, including former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, weren't witnesses to anything, just used by Democrats to put on their false charade.

3. The Democrats are approaching this impeachment investigation as a biased, partisan attack on Trump, furthering their #resistance that began even before Trump took office.

The most awkward moment of the morning hearing was House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff interrupting valid questioning of Vindman. The California Democrat interrupted to say that the purpose of the hearing was not to disclose the identity of the so-called whistleblower. It’s become clear by now that Schiff spoke to the whistleblower and likely coordinated with him in advance of filing the whistleblower report. Schiff is petrified that people will find out his ulterior motives to undermine the president. He isn’t acting as an unbiased arbiter and allowing the hearings to proceed by uncovering truth and fact. He is directing the made-for-TV dramatic circus to produce the outcome he and Speaker Nancy Pelosi prefer.

Throughout the hearing, Schiff interrupted to “advise the viewers” on issues such as the definition of bribery and remind us that we should, of course, be watching this hearing through the distorted lens he prefers. Democrats have been conducting polls and focus groups to see which charges play best for the public. CNN and other media outlets breathlessly ask the question of whether the impeachment investigation has "moved the needle" for voters in swing states.

This is disgusting. Our constitutional vestment of power in the House is not designed to be used in concert with partisan political tactics to benefit one party. Remember, this is not a personnel hearing, not a policy debate, and not a popularity contest.

As Trump continues to express, this impeachment investigation is not about the law, the Constitution, or facts and truth, but solely about one thing — the 2020 election. Democrats are scared to death that they have no leader, no message, and no candidate. So they’re conducting a three-ring circus to try to impeach Trump’s leadership, hoping you won’t recognize their sleight of hand.

Tuesday was another win for Trump. The Democrats have nothing except their corruption.

Jenna Ellis (@JennaEllisEsq) is a constitutional law attorney and the senior legal adviser for the Trump 2020 campaign. She is the author of The Legal Basis for a Moral Constitution.