Let's take the first one, you do know that Giuliani was representing the State dept.?
Someone objecting to a phone call that they did not hear first hand is what is wrong. Being biased against the man is definitely wrong if one is going to take a stand, but he was and he did.
Odd that Zelensky was not even aware of any gap in time re-military aid. I don't know about you, but I stopped listening to the house and the Senate in 1970, they don't have America's interests at heart only theirs.
"political dirt" a phrase Adam Schitt made up.

The comment I made was following the precedent that was followed in the impeachment of Johnson, Nixon, and Bill Clinton. Nancy Pelosi and this Congress broke precedent. The House of Representatives as a body has a right to write the rules in which they follow in an impeachment. High crimes and misdemeanors are described by Hamilton in Federalist paper 65/66. If you read the document, Hamilton makes clear that a president is not to be impeached simply because you do not like him. If that was the case then Bush Jr. and Obama would have been impeached, not to mention Ford, Carter, Regan, and Bush Sr. too would have been impeached.

For example is it an impeachable offense to Pardon Richard Nixon? Ford would have been impeached.
Is it an impeachable offense that a failed helicopter rescue of Iran hostages an impeachable offense? Carter would have been impeached.
Is it an impeachable offense to bring us to the brink of war with the USSR? Reagan would have been impeached.
Is the Iran contra affair an impeachable offense? Reagan would have been impeached.
Is the freeing of Kuwait in Desert Storm or the issues of Rodney King impeachable offenses? Bush Sr. would have been impeached.
Is the Enron scandal, September 11th failures, "Weapons of Mass Destruction", impeachable offenses? Then Bush Jr. would have been impeached.
Is trading an american deserter for terrorists an impeachable offense? then Obama would have been impeached.
Is Fast and Furious operations to include the B******i scandal, impeachable offense? Then Obama would have been impeached.

or go back in time further, The involvement in Cambodia, South Korea, and Vietnam impeachable? Then Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson would have been impeached.
How about the bay of pigs, and bringing us to the brink of World War III? Then John Kennedy would have been impeached.

Hamilton stated that impeachment should only be reserved to be used for an offense as great as Treason and Bribery. Hamilton recognized that there are other crimes, that can be considered on the same level as Treason and Bribery. Such as using the presidency as your personal military, to injure the citizens of this country. That can be considered treason. Or squandering the treasury fortune to dictate the actions of others, which can be considered bribery. These are examples of crimes, and these are examples of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. All High Crimes and Misdemeanors lead to treason. For example what Johnson did, what Nixon did, leads to Treason. What Bill Clinton did opens him up for treason. Mind you what Clinton did is not treason or bribery but it opens the presidency up to it. In the case of all three presidents that were impeached, all three covered up their crimes, that is obstruction of justice.

In the case with Donald Trump, it is simple that it is not driven by Justice. But being driven by jealousy and lust for power.

What the democrats do here will be used against the next president if it were to come to be. If the Democrats get their way with this impeachment effort, the next democrat president will have to face a House that the majority is republican, will have to face impeachment. If Donald Trump wins his case, then laws to prevent such a measure will be written to limit the power of government in both the House, Senate, and intelligence communities. The President is the one entrusted with the "Sword" of the United States. The people v**ed for Trump so Trump should have the power to do what is necessary. That is his duty. And from what this citizen is seeing as he watches this, that is what he has done. The Democrats, calling for an impeachment inquiry on Halloween is an act, in my opinion, of what the Devil would do to attack Jesus Christ.

This has a political and spiritual element. Let's see what happens? Do you have faith in our system of government? Do you have faith in God? Do you have faith in the American People? Where do your allegiances lie?

"This push for impeachment is being decided by one faction of the American community, that community is called the 'far left', the liberals, or the Democrats. As history has shown in the past few years, they will not quit. This is their choice. However, We, the people and citizens of these United States, are watching this soap opera play out. Before you decide whether or not Trump is guilty or innocent remember that the president is still an American Citizen.

Now being an American Citizen first, he enjoys the protections of the Constitution in all cases. Which means he has the following rights:...."

Bravo!!!
The e******ns in 2020 should reflect what the Left is attempting now.
A land slide for Republicans.

I am not saying that the impeachments this country has had were unconstitutional. I am not saying that the checks and balances written in the constitution are not constitutional. What I am saying is that there is a process for impeachment. This process must be protected at all costs to ensure the protections of the federal government on the people. What I am saying is that every American is protected from governmental tyranny.

Alexander Hamilton, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and James Madison, all agreed that the only attack on the constitution that will cause it to fall is a faction of men.

Thomas Jefferson started a war against the lobbyists that hovered like bees around the white house when he was president. Jefferson was the third president that these united States had. Jefferson won a brutal fight against John Adams his friend and fellow founder of these United States. But it wasn't until 1787 when the Constitution took effect.

James Madison is considered the father of the Constitution. The Constitution does work, it has brought colonies to a nation, to the most powerful nation on the face of the planet. These geniuses, or as we call them, forefathers of the constitution, bestowed upon us, a system of governmental checks and balances which protects the people, protects the states, protects the federal government. This system is now under attack through this impeachment threat to the democracy.

First we have unhappy people with the 2016 e******n. John McCain once said in 2016, "There has been a long tradition of peaceful t******r of p***r..." Where is that tradition today. Where is the due process here?

If the Democrats used due process, then there would be no argument that the white house could use to stop the process. It would go to the senate, almost automatically. Then it would be up to the Senate to decide the president's fate. That is not what is happening here. Instead through conversations behind closed doors, they have already decided that the president is guilty before trial. Do you know what that is called? Harassment, discrimination, and prejudice. The true definition. Due process is defined in the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th, 15th and 16th amendments.

Let's examine the situation for a moment from the president's point of view:

1. He was unjustly investigated through the FBI, State Department, and other agencies under his control. The result of the investigation has proven that there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against the president. Therefore, by policy, the president could not be charged with a crime he did not commit or plainly put, could not be charged with a crime where there was insufficient evidence to prove that a crime was committed. Since there was no crime, what purpose would there be in charging the president with a crime that was unprovable? Since the findings of two FBI investigations, two Congressional investigations, and the Mueller Report, found insufficient evidence, there is no obstruction of justice. For two and a half years, these investigations went on destroying the lives of our fellow Americans, and all they came up with is insufficient evidence, with no presumption of innocence, I would say the man is innocent.

2. The president recommended Bill Barr for attorney general. The Senate held hearings to confirm Barr for the position. During the conversation, Bill Barr suspected that the Trump Campaign was spied upon. This is what sparked the promise by Bill Barr that as attorney general he would look into the investigation and get to the bottom of it. The Senate confirmed Barr as Attorney General of the United States.

3. The president had a conversation with the president of Ukraine. According to the Constitution, the president, like a sheriff can appoint anyone to investigate a criminal case. Also the president can appoint his personal attorney to be involved in the investigation. Look the prosecution had its chance, and they held a two and a half year investigation, beginning with the FBI and reaching into the State Department, and some ambassadors too. So acting as the "Sheriff" as president, he is well within his right to ask the president of Ukraine to look into the origins of the collusion that occured in the 2016 e******n. The focus was not Joe Biden, as it was reported, but rather to investigate what happened in the 2016 e******n. What was found as collateral evidence was the issue with Joe Biden and H****r B***n.

4. [Has anyone ever played Dungeons and D**gons, put out by TSR and now Wizards of the Coast? If you did play the game, there is an issue of Out of Character knowledge which could not be used when playing your character. OCK is very bad and under minds the game. Now, I know Adam Schiff is the chairman of the intel community, but OCK will undermind his judgement. Plus, OCK could also undermine Trump's judgement too.] Looking at the conversation of Donald Trump and the Ukraine President, I have found that many people in the press, news, and even many Democrats including Adam Schiff, and Nancy Pelosi, were inaccurate to what was said.

a. Looking at the transcript which is the official White House Transcript, it appears that the president was looking for information on behalf of his defense attorney, Guilenoni, his Attorney General, William Barr, and Barr's investigator, Duram. He introduced these men to the president of Ukraine and asked the president to look into dealings with the country and put to rest rumors that the previous Vice President brought up, that was reported in the News. Now this is a different take on the transcript, that I gathered from reading the transcript. It is true that this request somewhat confirms the whistleblower complaint. However the motives as described in the transcript and the motives described in the complaint are different. Now, this is where Out of Character knowledge comes into play. (Let's put this on hold for a moment)

5. Nancy Pelosi announces a formal impeachment inquiry that "is fair....". The Constitution already established a fair process when an American citizen is accused in any court within the powers of the federal government. Federalist papers establish the reasons why this process must be followed. Otherwise it can be considered a mistrial. At this point, if Articles of Impeachment are sent to the Senate, the Senate could send the bill back to the House and declare a mistrial. The reason is because the president was denied his constitutional rights within the process.

What I have written above, 1-5 is from the president's point of view. Now, lets look at the other point of view:

1. The investigations showed obstruction of justice.
-A point of fact. If a person is innocent of a charge, the accused actions may be considered an obstruction of justice. Let's say for example, a person accused of murder. After the supposed murder had taken place, the accused sold the murder weapon. Now, in this hypothetical situation, let's assume that you are in the jury. The prosecution says the accused is guilty of obstruction of justice because he sold the murder weapon that the police can't find. The defense argues that the murder weapon sale was because the accused was broke and he needed the money. The sale at the time was legal. But since the sale the weapon was destroyed because the metal was used to make another product. So ballistics was impossible. ---at this point, it looks bad for the accused, because the evidence that was presented seems that way, but then new information comes out, that the accused wasn't even in the country at the time of the murder. So the accused is innocent of the charge of murder, therefore is he still guilty of obstruction? Most would say yes. Then the question becomes, is the actions of the accused, done wittingly or unwittingly. Upon further examination it was found that the sale of the weapon was done unwittingly. For the investigation occured after the weapon was sold. Therefore there was insufficient evidence to bring the charge of murder and obstruction. The Mueller Report defined their decision on obstruction as not enough evidence to charge Trump.

2. Whistleblower report(to be continued.....)