No arguement you are right that is what it says. Your comment only refers to part of the picture.

The House brings impeachment charges against federal officials as part of its oversight and investigatory responsibilities. Individual Members of the House can introduce impeachment resolutions like ordinary bills, or the House could initiate proceedings by passing a resolution authorizing an inquiry. The Committee on the Judiciary ordinarily has jurisdiction over impeachments, but special committees investigated charges before the Judiciary Committee was created in 1813. The committee then chooses whether to pursue articles of impeachment against the accused official and report them to the full House. If the articles are adopted (by simple majority v**e), the House appoints Members by resolution to manage the ensuing Senate trial on its behalf. These managers act as prosecutors in the Senate and are usually members of the Judiciary Committee. The number of managers has varied across impeachment trials but has traditionally been an odd number. The partisan composition of managers has also varied depending on the nature of the impeachment, but the managers, by definition, always support the House’s impeachment action.

Impreachment is , investigations are done by assigned committee and the result are presented to the house for a v**e on the articles. Inpreachment is political it is based on what the house defines as being ethical actions. Before anyone brings up the federal papers on impreachment it discusses how the impreachment can become a criminal or civil case. Because the process only has guidelines not details. The only definitions provided by the Constitution is for treason. High crimes and Misdemeanors, Treason and Bribery are when impreachment is called for. If the inpreachment has to many criminal charges that is when it can become criminal case at which time the house cannot try a criminal case. The items that were brought up with Mueller's report can be used as examples for the articles. Whether the infomation was gotten through illegal means or not. When the articles come to a v**e that is when other repesentives have to be convinced to accept the presented view.

Uh so , the story is the same , one side says this , the other says that.
The corruption was under investigation before H****r was on the board. H****r was doing the same as Trump when he gave his name to the different companies. The main difference is that Trump actually has some experience
while H****r did not. Questionable yes but is not illegal. Biden statement was stupid. The same as with some statements made by Trump. Yes the investigation was reopened and the result was that H****r did not do anything illegal. Now when everything get settled the s**t will hit the fan and the effect will be dramatic. So like I've said before it may be because of the bias. But when the statement made by Trump on the phone that he needs a favor and then Biden's name it was reported.

Question for you , Why now the same calls are being made about Trump and his supporters now , what changed ? Personally I think no one really cared what Obama was doing. Rather didn't care enough to try and bring up anything against him. The one thing Trump has done for sure is to get more people take notice what can happen if they don't pay attention. The current feeling will drop to the past levels once Trump is out of office which will let the same thing happen again. Our style of government is like a child it has to be looked after not let loose and allow to run wild. The people elected have to be held accountable. When you v**e only along the party line you are not holding the representatives accountable. As for the media they always have been in the game to make money and always will. Passing the infomation presented without checking on the validity is also not holding the media accountable.

I've got a different understanding on my read but it is an opinion, you don't argue opinions. Agreed with the second statement. On the Articles you have to have them to v**e on them according to reports they are still being discussed. As for using executive privilege if the question needs to be asked to help with defining the articles the questions should be allowed but only along the lines of the articles being defined.

Sorry my system is acting up you are right the entire statement is a bit rough.

It is a common statement Obama has done the same as Trump. The difference is no one on ether side started the process when Obama was in office. Also when the Republicans tried to impreach a popular president they got their butts handed to them by the v**ers. So even if Obama wasn't the best
He did have a edit button and unlike Trump who does not use an edit button.
One of the things that helped get Trump elected was his plain speaking. Which can be spun in any direction. At times he knows he has enemies but he still makes statements that can be used against him. Most statements on this site state that the whole reason why the hatred is present is that the dems do not want to admit that they lost. So at any time the dems start to do something it called a bias.

I think there is a misunderstanding on what impreachment is , it is not a criminal case it is strictly a moral one. The framework was taken from the British , the officials were accused of misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.
The debates in the house whether it is because that the people can't handle the loss or Trump is screwing up the norm. It is that there is enough to start the process , to declare Trump unfit for the office. Now if it is enough to actually be brought up we will never know until it gets passed to the Senate.

https://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html

Never claimed that there was an quid pro quo but reading the transcript, I need a favor and Biden name was mentioned. Was sufficient for the report to be brought up, even if the people involved has the close ties to the accused party the process was followed. It may have been caused by the bias but the process is if something comes up and it needs to be looked into it should be. Since the fall as far as the MSM not checking first it always has been profit first.

First hand knowledge not require for reporting the possibilty , but the complaint will not be acted on until more infomation is available. The ICIG understood that certain language could be read and misunderstood. The wording would have been taken literally so no report would be made.
The section changed never meant that the whistleblower couldn't file the complaint.
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/video-false-whistleblower-rule-claim/

If the feedback loop is being used or not it is for individual to accept or not. The reasoning for the change is sound.

Not according to this report from Fox just based on the number of Representatives who requested the inquiry they have enough. The loss can be 18 v**es as dems , but the independent says he'll v**e for the articles. Even if the dems are in red states the final choice will be with the v**ers. It's based on what the v**ers are thinking on the various items that Trump could be charged with.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-democrats-impeachment-articles-v**es

He did mention he could pull the trigger in Times Square and people will still support him. Humans have always had a flexible morality.

OK , enjoy your conference you also have a great day thank you for the thoughtful discussion.

I have to apologize if my statement lead you to believe that I thought religion was what was being forced. That was not what I meant what was meant is that life starts at conception that is what is based on faith. My statement was meant in accordance to what a group believes. It does not tie in to what you have been taught it is what a group wants laws to reflect. Example the acceptance of the moment that the egg and sperm have combined it automatically should be considered a human. You stated if you had your choice you would allow Christian and Jews into the country. Which I have to think that you prefer to live in a theocracy. By your comments I gather that you believe that at conception it is to be considered human. One suggestion about the Jews if your beliefs is conception then you should read what Jews think about a******n.

https://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_a******n.htm

It wasn't meant to try to change your opinon , your opinon if you believe it you going to stick with it. It was meant to give a view on what the discussion has gone through. A******n is a football that is passed around for the benefits or separation of people. When it is convenient for it to be put aside it is when it is needed to redirect it comes out again. It is based on faith not fact when at times like now people need something to help them through it does. My main problem is when belief is being forced on the majority. The law maybe right or wrong according to your view ,it does give a framework to ensure the best for all.

Roe vs Wade used Christian theology and the canon law which fixed the point of animation at 40 days for a male and 80 days for a female, a view that persisted until the 19th century, there was otherwise little agreement about the precise time of formation or animation. There was agreement, however, that prior to this point the fetus was to be regarded as part of the mother, and its destruction, therefore, was not homicide.
In the thirteenth century, Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas wrote that a soul enters the body at 40 days after conception for males and 80 days for females. That became church doctrine for many centuries, and a******n before that time of ensoulment was not considered a mortal sin. The belief that life begins at conception apparently has its origins in an 1869 decree by Pope Pius IX that a******n at any point in pregnancy was cause for excommunication.
In the early Roman Catholic church, a******n was permitted for male fetuses in the first 40 days of pregnancy and for female fetuses in the first 80-90 days. Not until 1588 did Pope Sixtus V declare all a******n murder, with excommunication as the punishment. Only 3 years later a new pope found the absolute sanction unworkable and again allowed early a******ns. 300 years would pass before the Catholic church under Pius IX again declared all a******n murder. This standard, declared in 1869, remains the official position of the church, reaffirmed by the current pope.

Church Doctrine
A number of churches, including United Church of Christ, Episcopal,Presbyterian (USA) and United Methodist, do not approve of a******n as a means of birth control. However, they support the right of a woman to obtain an a******n, if she deems that is the best choice in her circumstances, and they favor keeping a******n legal.
https://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_a******n.htm

Other churches, including Roman Catholic and Southern Baptist, oppose all a******ns and favor making a******n illegal. Here is a sampling of official church positions from the three largest denominations in the U.S.

Roman Catholic:
Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured a******n. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct a******n, that is to say, a******n willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.
From Catechism of the Catholic Church, (c) 1994, United States Catholic Conference, Inc., http://www.nccbuscc.org/catechism/text/index.htm

Southern Baptist:
Procreation is a gift from God, a precious trust reserved for marriage. At the moment of conception, a new being enters the universe, a human being, a being created in God's image. This human being deserves our protection, wh**ever the circumstances of conception.
From Position Statements, Copyright (c) 1999 - 2001, Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, http://sbc.net/default.asp?url=position-statements.html

United Methodist:
The beginning of life and the ending of life are the God-given boundaries of human existence. While individuals have always had some degree of control over when they would die, they now have the awesome power to determine when and even whether new individuals will be born. Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve a******n. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother, for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy. In continuity with past Christian teaching, we recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify a******n, and in such cases we support the legal option of a******n under proper medical procedures. We cannot affirm a******n as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of g****r se******n. We oppose the use of late-term a******n known as dilation and extraction (partial-birth a******n) and call for the end of this practice except when the physical life of the mother is in danger and no other medical procedure is available, or in the case of severe fetal anomalies incompatible with life. We call all Christians to a searching and prayerful inquiry into the sorts of conditions that may warrant a******n. We commit our Church to continue to provide nurturing ministries to those who terminate a pregnancy, to those in the midst of a crisis pregnancy, and to those who give birth. Governmental laws and regulations do not provide all the guidance required by the informed Christian conscience. Therefore, a decision concerning a******n should be made only after thoughtful and prayerful consideration by the parties involved, with medical, pastoral, and other appropriate counsel.
From The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church--2000, ¶161J. Copyright 2000 by The United Methodist Publishing House, http://www.umc.org/abouttheumc/policy/

The whole discussion about a******n has varied history it took the church awhile to agree when a******n becomes murder. The law right or wrong has leveled the field so who can support the child can. Those who can't support the child know what is available to help make a decent decsion. Like I've mentioned before informed consent , safety for both the mother and child,
And the requirement to inform parents if underage mother's is enforced by the language in the law. Is it time to update the law probably ,things have changed
But giving rights to one and then taking them from another shouldn't be allowed.