In your presentation you make the case that it is immaterial who or the creditability of said whistleblower. The only relevant fact is the crime came to light.
Does the court and the constitution give you and your attorney (in your absence) the right to face your accuser? The sixth amendment, as part of the Bill of Rights, guarantees certain rights in all criminal prosecutions. One of the enumerated rights in the 6th Amendment is the right to be confronted with the witnesses against the accused. This right is known as the Confrontation Clause. The confrontation clause guarantees criminal defendants the opportunity to face the prosecution's witnesses in the case against them and dispute the witnesses' testimony. This guarantee applies to both statements made in court and statements made outside of court that are offered as evidence during trial.

Where are the "political offences" or even criminal law charges? Are you saying that he, the POTUS had no authority to request cooperation and investigation? This would be a mistake on your part, the Ukraine and the US signed an agreement (signed by William Clinton) that gives the POTUS that exact authority.
I would also point out a major detail; who was he making the request for, himself or the nation? If the request was for our nation, then there is no political offence or broken "law".If it was for himself, why would he include the distress or ordeal our nation has suffered? Thinking logically, if I want a favor done, I do not qualify my request... ordinary people simply say "do me a favor."

And then, we must deal with intent. Recall that Killary dodged criminal charges because the FBI claimed they could not find evidence of intent. In the phone call, a request was made for investigation into corruption in Ukraine. That is a fact, no walking around it. As the POTUS, this was not a breach of law. The "permission" is the contract between the USA and Ukraine signed by William Clinton. So, asking for the investigation was/is legal. So, it boils down to intent. Did the POTUS intend to use the information gathered in the investigation for his reelection campaign? If for personal use, then why ask the investigating entity to coordinate and provide the information to our Attorney General and not as a sealed dossier to himself? Also, do Democrats think the Ukraine is more proficient or speedier in their investigations than their US counterparts? It took Mueller two years to investigate possible collusion between the POTUS and Russia. Using similar methods as Mueller, the 2020 election would be over. Any dirt on Joe Biden or his son would be overcome by events, useless in the campaign.

Let me paraphrase this back to ensure that I grasp your meaning. The presumption is there was a crime, or many crimes committed by the POTUS and those crimes have been identified by an individual, the whistleblower. So far, am I understanding you correctly?

In your presentation you make the case that it is immaterial who or the creditability of said whistleblower. The only relevant fact is the crime came to light.

Does the court and the constitution give you and your attorney (in your absence) the right to face your accuser? The sixth amendment, as part of the Bill of Rights, guarantees certain rights in all criminal prosecutions. One of the enumerated rights in the 6th Amendment is the right to be confronted with the witnesses against the accused. This right is known as the Confrontation Clause. The confrontation clause guarantees criminal defendants the opportunity to face the prosecution's witnesses in the case against them and dispute the witnesses' testimony. This guarantee applies to both statements made in court and statements made outside of court that are offered as evidence during trial.

Make no mistake, charges against the POTUS are "political offenses", "crimes" against the constitution, laws, system of government, prerogatives of other institutions, or the rights and liberties of the people – as well as common law offences that might be punishable by ordinary criminal law. Ergo, he or his attorney has a right to face his accuser. His accuser is the whistleblower, not the embassy staff as witnesses, or the opinions of constitutional lawyers.

While I think Democrats feel their decision is correct, I am disappointed with their handling of any wrongdoing they feel the POTUS committed. Their legal analysis of historical evidence sometimes leaves a lot to be desired. It is frequently highly idiosyncratic and sometimes quite unsound.

Where are the "political offences" or even criminal law charges? Are you saying that he, the POTUS had no authority to request cooperation and investigation? This would be a mistake on your part, the Ukraine and the US signed an agreement (signed by William Clinton) that gives the POTUS that exact authority.

I would also point out a major detail; who was he making the request for, himself or the nation? If the request was for our nation, then there is no political offence or broken "law".If it was for himself, why would he include the distress or ordeal our nation has suffered? Thinking logically, if I want a favor done, I do not qualify my request... ordinary people simply say "do me a favor."

And then, we must deal with intent. Recall that Killary dodged criminal charges because the FBI claimed they could not find evidence of intent. In the phone call, a request was made for investigation into corruption in Ukraine. That is a fact, no walking around it. As the POTUS, this was not a breach of law. The "permission" is the contract between the USA and Ukraine signed by William Clinton. So, asking for the investigation was/is legal. So, it boils down to intent. Did the POTUS intend to use the information gathered in the investigation for his reelection campaign? If for personal use, then why ask the investigating entity to coordinate and provide the information to our Attorney General and not as a sealed dossier to himself? Also, do Democrats think the Ukraine is more proficient or speedier in their investigations than their US counterparts? It took Mueller two years to investigate possible collusion between the POTUS and Russia. Using similar methods as Mueller, the 2020 election would be over. Any dirt on Joe Biden or his son would be overcome by events, useless in the campaign.

At least you an I agree on one thing...the impeachment process is now broken which is horrible, but even more horrible is what Democrats have done to impact future presidents. The standard bar for impeachment has been lowered to emotions, a popularity contest, or more to the point "any excuse."

Let me paraphrase this back to ensure that I grasp your meaning. The presumption is there was a crime, or many crimes committed by the POTUS and those crimes have been identified by an individual, the whistleblower. So far, am I understanding you correctly?

In your presentation you make the case that it is immaterial who or the creditability of said whistleblower. The only relevant fact is the crime came to light.

Does the court and the constitution give you and your attorney (in your absence) the right to face your accuser? The sixth amendment, as part of the Bill of Rights, guarantees certain rights in all criminal prosecutions. One of the enumerated rights in the 6th Amendment is the right to be confronted with the witnesses against the accused. This right is known as the Confrontation Clause. The confrontation clause guarantees criminal defendants the opportunity to face the prosecution's witnesses in the case against them and dispute the witnesses' testimony. This guarantee applies to both statements made in court and statements made outside of court that are offered as evidence during trial.

Make no mistake, charges against the POTUS are "political offenses", "crimes" against the constitution, laws, system of government, prerogatives of other institutions, or the rights and liberties of the people – as well as common law offences that might be punishable by ordinary criminal law. Ergo, he or his attorney has a right to face his accuser. His accuser is the whistleblower, not the embassy staff as witnesses, or the opinions of constitutional lawyers.

While I think Democrats feel their decision is correct, I am disappointed with their handling of any wrongdoing they feel the POTUS committed. Their legal analysis of historical evidence sometimes leaves a lot to be desired. It is frequently highly idiosyncratic and sometimes quite unsound.

Where are the "political offences" or even criminal law charges? Are you saying that he, the POTUS had no authority to request cooperation and investigation? This would be a mistake on your part, the Ukraine and the US signed an agreement (signed by William Clinton) that gives the POTUS that exact authority.

I would also point out a major detail; who was he making the request for, himself or the nation? If the request was for our nation, then there is no political offence or broken "law".If it was for himself, why would he include the distress or ordeal our nation has suffered? Thinking logically, if I want a favor done, I do not qualify my request... ordinary people simply say "do me a favor."

And then, we must deal with intent. Recall that Killary dodged criminal charges because the FBI claimed they could not find evidence of intent. In the phone call, a request was made for investigation into corruption in Ukraine. That is a fact, no walking around it. As the POTUS, this was not a breach of law. The "permission" is the contract between the USA and Ukraine signed by William Clinton. So, asking for the investigation was/is legal. So, it boils down to intent. Did the POTUS intend to use the information gathered in the investigation for his reelection campaign? If for personal use, then why ask the investigating entity to coordinate and provide the information to our Attorney General and not as a sealed dossier to himself? Also, do Democrats think the Ukraine is more proficient or speedier in their investigations than their US counterparts? It took Mueller two years to investigate possible collusion between the POTUS and Russia. Using similar methods as Mueller, the 2020 election would be over. Any dirt on Joe Biden or his son would be overcome by events, useless in the campaign.

At least you an I agree on one thing...the impeachment process is now broken which is horrible, but even more horrible is what Democrats have done to impact future presidents. The standard bar for impeachment has been lowered to emotions, a popularity contest, or more to the point "any excuse."

This whole impeachment thingie has me just shaking my head in wonder.
It reminds me of a cartoon of an ostrich with its head in the sand while a tidal wave approaches … the caption reads "I don't see anything happening here."
While the cartoon may not be entirely appropriate, the number of right-wing legislators keeping their heads in the swampy water and refusing to accept evidence of wrongdoing is astronomical.
If this had been a Democrat president and a Republican House, with the same evidence, just how long do you think it would take for them to pass articles of impeachment? Somewhere between a New York minute and a microsecond, I would think.
The evidence is overwhelming on its face, which is why no one is arguing about it. The facts are not in dispute.
Now the arguments are mainly twofold … how was the evidence uncovered to begin with, and if the facts are indeed true, what was the intent of the perpetrator?
In the first case, if the evidence was a tip from a jailhouse informant about where the perp buried the body that he murdered, and the body was found based on that tip, the perp would be convicted in a heartbeat. The defense would be that since the tipster was obviously unreliable and the tip was hearsay, that the "fruit of the poisoned tree" theory would prevent the fact that the body was found and the murderer charged from ever reaching the jury. The fact that the murder occurred and that the murderer was found out is therefore irrelevant. It doesn't work in the court system, and doesn't work here either.
This first example is precisely how the opponents of the Meuller investigation and of the Ukraine situation's facts are arguing about the charges being brought. Since the original methodology was theoretically and fatally flawed in getting the whole thing started, we therefore should throw out the entire 'baby out with the bathwater' (to coin a phrase). "Nothing to see here, folks, move along."
The second example about motive is also ludicrous. The reason that Comey and others were fired and the president is obstructing the inquiries of Congress in regards to Russian meddling in the election is clear from the actions. To imply that the motives are pristine is to argue that the bank robber never intended to rob the bank, but that they "were just going to teach the bank a lesson on security." Therefore they should be forgiven for doing it … besides, the bank got all their money back, so "no harm, no foul."
We have to remember that impeachment is not a criminal procedure ... it is wholly political in nature. To claim that there was no "criminal offense" here is probably true, but that's not the point. The point is that the president is abusing the powers of the office to help his friends (Putin), punish his enemies (Biden), and avoid criminal prosecution (self-dealing and tax fraud).
Both of these situations (Russian meddling and Ukraine) with the president are impeachable offenses on their face. In the first, it is to impede an investigation that could wind up with indictable offenses and jail time if it were any other person in the country except the president. This is undeniable.
In the second, attempting to pressure a foreign country for the purpose of hurting a domestic political rival is reprehensible on its face and deserving of impeachment.
In Ostritchville, however, none of this makes any difference. The Congressional hypocrisy of going after Hillary for her email server and before that, the Benghazi inquiry and then turning a blind eye to the offenses that are plainly in sight to even a casual political observer is stupendous.
The supporters of the president will claim that all of this is "fake news", biased information obtained illegally, and a host of other PROCEDURAL arguments. The facts will be ignored … since they cannot be true and the president denies them.
This is WWE stuff, folks. The dirty wrestler is observed on television by millions with an illegal choke hold that the referee can't see and his opponent goes unconscious … the wrestler wins the match although we all saw what was happening.

This whole procedure is not just a political feud ... it is a moral crisis. Republicans are burying their morality, sensibility, and fairness in support of a cult leader ... and for what? I have yet to hear exactly what kind of country they would like to see. All white, all Christian, no welfare or Social Security, isolated from the world? Every person for themselves? Is this what they want? It would appear so.

It is unfortunate that all this is happening. It is destroying our democracy and pitting our country against itself. If I were Putin, Xi, and Rocketman, I would be dancing in the streets and supporting this president (which they are and have). I'm glad that I'm as old as I am so that I won't have to see the country that could evolve for your children and grand-children. It's looking more like the dystopian view put forth by Ayn Rand in 'Atlas Shrugged' than Reagan's 'shining city on the hill.'

Just my opinion ... I am certain that your mileage will vary.