@jorj They refused to let the whistleblower be questioned. They are protected by law, one which Trump has since violated, another crime/misdemeanor.
Imagine this in another courtroom
"Mr. Smith you are charged with armed robbery. Where were you on the night of the 5th?"
"I was playing cards wiz the boyz"
"Can any of these "boyz" corroborate this statement?"
"Not until you tell me who was the dirty rat wat fingered me"

It seems to me that if Trump could be exonerated by his staff? Then he would gladly let them do so. Irrespective of who brought the accusation in the 1st place. There were witnesses that corroborated and went further than the original whistleblower and they were open to cross-examination.
One suspects that. Trump's staff might be in a dilemma. Caught between loyalty and perjury/imprisonment. At least that is what one might quite easily infer by there enforced silence.

@jorj Let us take the case of our fictional corrupt IRS guy.
After he leaned on you to spy on his boss. You tell the police but you make it very clear that you want your name kept well out of it. As the last thing you need is to make enemies in the IRS. They make further inquiries and find a pattern of corruption. Should you be forced to be named and appear in court?

@jorj The case pro/con whistleblower is a knotty one The UK pushed the legal boundaries of this to the limit in the late 70s and 80s with our "Supergrass trials". IRA suspects could be convicted on just the word of a confidential informant. Add to that, the trial was before a judge with no jury. It was found that even the fight against terrorism was not worth that much erosion of civil liberties and the convictions were eventually ruled unsound.
Where I agree with you on the Snowden/Assange thing. Both are charged with risking US national security. In Snowden's case, he was a US govt employee but it can be argued that he was upholding the constitution to which he swore an oath. Assange is a foreign national and as such should be immune from this kind of harassment. It shames me to say that once again the UK govt is America's rent boy in this matter. If they wanted to keep their secrets secret? Then they should have looked after them better. Yes, the law should be applied evenly.
However confidential informants are a mainstay of many investigations. The police may use a C.I. to start a case then find other evidence to convict. Without jeopardizing the C.I.s anonymity

That said let us look at the case against Trump.
1, He withholds aid to Ukraine - why?
2, He then asks them to investigate his political rival. Just Biden&son, no other US company or citizen. Of all the US people that have dealings with that country, only he is targeted. Let us also bear in mind that no evidence has been found to implicate Biden in any wrongdoing. And you can be very sure that the GOP has been looking very hard for some Yet with their man in the west wing and control of the senate, they have discovered ziltch.
3, He only releases the aid AFTER the story breaks.
4, When the investigation takes place. He uses all lawful (and non-lawful) means he can, to stop his staff from testifying.

His/your defense
!, There is no smoking gun. Okay, he did not come right out and say on the record."Get me some dirt on Biden before you get your dosh". He did not need to (and even he is not THAT stupid). Witnesses (several of which have been his appointees) have testified under oath that there was an implied policy here and circumstantial evidence supports that.
2, He wants the whistleblower named and in court. - I have discussed this at length and like it or not the guy is protected by law.
3, He wants to widen the investigation to include Biden - Biden is not on trial here, he is. Biden was not in control of US aid. He was not on that phone call. It is immaterial whether or not Biden has been guilty of any wrongdoing. If I try and break into your garage? Then when caught, tell the police " I think he has my mower" They cannot search your garage without a warrant.
If there was any evidence against Biden. Then bring that brought before the courts. I'm sure te GOP or friends would fund it. What Trump asked for was a fishing expedition. And to further that end by including his accusations would be defamation of character. Exactly what Trump is accused of wanting his kickback in the shape of.

Deliberations.
There is no need for motive, means and opportunity here. The question is whether or not a crime has been committed?
Is what he is accused of a crime? - Yes, using govt funds to get a political kickback then obstructing investigations would be a high crime/misdemeanor.
That he asked for the investigation of Biden is admitted. He was on air doubling down and saying that he would put China under pressure to do so too. That is a crime, in-of itself. He was essentially asking foreign powers to interfere with a US/your election.
His defense is that it was purely honorable. That he only acted in defense of the nation. That brings in the question of his character? which I will come to later.
Was there a "quid pro quo"?
Is the man capable of it?
Let's just say that he is no Jimmy Carter. He legally cannot run a charity in NY state because he stole from veterans and kids' cancer charities. He cheated on his wives. He kicks his ball so many times in golf, the caddies have nicknamed him "Pele". The man is a cheat and a pathological liar.
Is the guy dumb enough to do it?
He tried to get the G8 summit at his hotel ffs. Only when even he could see how corrupt that looked did he back down. He has an ego the size of Mt Rushmore. That type of man that says "Trust me I'm great with explosives"
Listen to him say that he knows more than anyone about anything, all the time.
Add to that he seems to be deteriorating. If you look at his speech now compared to say 2011, when he said that Obama would try and start a war with Iran to get re-elected. It has become more incoherent. His Washington-airfields gaff. Wind farm rants and that he could not be around his piers at NATO point to some form of mental illness.
Did he do it? We only have his word to say that he did not.
We have lots of circumstantial evidence that he did and he will not let anyone who could prove his innocence testify.
If this was Hillary Clinton in the same boat would your opinions be the same?

@273kelvin Just because you don't testify doesn't mean you're hiding anything. No good defense lawyer would make any client testify unless it was absolutely necessary. That goes for innocent clients as well as clients that are probably guilty. Prosecutors have a way of twisting and manipulating someone on the stand to reach a desired outcome. They can damn sure do it to innocent people to make them look unfavorable to a jury.

The pre-requisite for finding someone guilty isn't if they are capable of what they're being accused of. Anyone is capable of anything. Someone could not have murdered someone before, but they could still murder someone in the future. Just because someone had murdered before doesn't mean they're guilty of a specific murder that was committed. Just because I stole a pack of 25c gum when I was like 20 years old doesn't mean I robbed a bank near me that was robbed a year or so ago. The pre-requisite for finding someone guilty is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Even probable guilt is grounds for acquittal.

Sure this is a political process because it's impeachment, but impeachment can be completely partisan. It was partisan with Clinton and it's partisan here with Trump. The Senate will not convict Trump, just like the Senate didn't convict Clinton. Also, just because it's partisan doesn't mean there is guilt either. What Trump did is subjective. It's not like he started a war without congressional approval like GWB or Obama or any other president since 1942.............oh wait, Trump just basically started a war without congressional approval. How long should we wait for Pelosi and the House to draft up articles of impeachment for it? I'm guessing never because it's U.S. foreign policy and they're all in agreement with it.

@Piece2YourPuzzle Not testifying can infer guilt. Especially if none of the witnesses that could exonerate you do not. The UK version of Miranda rights says "You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defense if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court."
Character witnesses can be called by the defense. So may the accused clear record, if any. Trump has no good character.
Whilst I agree that the case has been politically motivated - on both sides. That is not a case for innocence or guilt, just bias
What Trump did is NOT subjective. He admits to asking foreign powers to investigate Biden thus helping him win the election. He DID withhold federal aid to Ukraine. He only released it on the day they agreed to his kickback. He DID stop his staff from answering the congress's subpoenas. All of these are conceded and not subject to conjecture. The only things that are subjective here are. If you think that what he accused of is a crime? Which in any other walk of life would be? Is an implied quid pro quo the same as a bribe?
On this let me help you out.
For decades UK banks would ask you if you wanted to take out "Payment protection insurance" (PPI) whenever you asked for a loan. They only sold their own versions of this of course and bank employees were on commission. Although it was never an outright policy the inference when you sat in the manager's office was that if you did not buy their PPI? you did not get their loan. This was challenged in the courts and now they are still in the process of having to give back hundreds of millions of pounds to their customers. Now with all the lawers, the banks must have had? They still lost on the quid pro quo argument.

@jorj Circumstantial evidence can be more than enough to convict. - If you come home and the sofa is all chewed up. Then your dog looks at you with big brown eyes. You do not have to have witnessed the event to conclude that it was the perp.
As for Hillary, she has been questioned for 13 hours in total about this and no case has been found.
Unlike many of Trump's former staff.
BTW Trump is constantly using unsecured mobile phones to talk with other leaders

@jorj No the example holds true. The sofa was in the west wing and Trump was the only dog.
Trump withheld aid to Ukraine, period. *
Trump asked the Ukraine president to investigate his political rival, period.
Only when that was agreed to, was the aid released, period.

Trump's defense is that he only acted out of purely unselfish motives. This is from a man who stole from a kid's cancer charity. One seriously doubts that he has ever done one single unselfish act in his entire life.

I agree with you that the whole US political system stinks. The fact that the US ambassador to the EU only got the job because he contributed $1 million to Trump's inaugural fund did not even raise an eyebrow, says a lot.
Okay yes, the impeachment is very political. But for more than just party reasons. To use 45s own mode of speech. This is a bad POTUS, a very bad POTUS. I have seen a lot of bad ones but he is really bad. Far more worse than any other we have known. He has divided the USA. he has pandered to the very worst in your society, from KKK racists to religious nutjobs. He has made America a laughing stock everywhere he goes. The man is unhinged. He cannot string together a full coherent sentence He has broken any kind of trust with your allies. No one and I mean NO ONE will ever fully trust America again after what he did to the Kurds. He has packed his cabinet with big corp robber Barrons who are stealing your clean water and air. Whilst dismantling what little social services and education you have left. He is conducting a "la la la I'm not listening" policy on climate change. A problem that is not only very real but affects everyone on the planet. That includes you and me bud.
If impeachment is the best tool to get rid? Then maybe, just maybe. the Dems are doing right by you. Whether you like it or not. Perhaps draining the swamp means that Trump is the sponge.

• Let us just examine how much that aid meant to Ukraine.
  They at war, Russia has annexed the Crimea (this is akin to Mexico taking back Texas). They are in a similar situation to Britain in 1940. At that time FDR brokered a deal with Churchill that not only got top dollar for what was at first old and obsolete weapons. (I met someone who served on one of those rust bucket destroyers) But he also got a commitment for us to dismantle our empire. What did Trump ask for? Better human rights? More access for US firms? No, all he asked for was dirt on Biden.

PS. you won`t believe how much Grammarly objected to my use of Trumps vernacular

@jorj FYI the UK pays its way in NATO and we have universal health care.
You act as if trust was nothing. Big mistake considering that all your military is paid for with other people's money. That you are NEVER going to pay back.

@jorj It is other people's money. I am talking about the $23,159,000.000,000 that the US owes the rest of the world. That's $187,000 that you owe as a US taxpayer bud. See how trust might be more valuable now?
You start wars in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Ask everyone to join in, then say you are defending world peace ?? Nothing to do with oil of course?
I agree that you should be spending far less on your military. But that would mean that you cannot grab all the resources. Its how empires work.
BTW. UK military bases around the world. (we used to have an awful lot more but the US took over most of them)
Ascension Island, Bahrain. Belize, British Indian Ocean Territory, Brunei, Canada, Cyprus, Falkland Islands, Germany, Gibraltar, Kenya, Nepal, Oman, Qatar, Singapore

@273kelvin Not testifying does not infer guilt. That's not how the U.S. justice system works. You are quoting the UK 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. It doesn't apply here, and frankly it's against civil liberties. He asked for an investigation into possible unethical or illegal actions involving Biden and his son. If there was no possible wrongdoing and Trump asked the Ukraine to frame Biden or make something up on him then I would say it's an abuse of power. Trump did no such thing. Trump also didn't say any investigation was tied to the aide. You can infer whatever you want, but like I said the U.S. justice system doesn't work that way and although it's not perfect, I'll take it over your UK crap any day with the bogus change made with that 1994 act that erodes civil liberties. We have a burden of proof that rests on the accuser or prosecutor, and the defendant is innocent unless proven guilty. None of that if you remain silent then I infer you are guilty crap. I'm sure you were just fine with the U.S. powers that be asking for Trump to be investigated, and they had little to no evidence to go on. As a matter of fact they manufactured evidence to investigate him. You are fine with it though, right?

@273kelvin You are sadly mistaken about NATO spending from other countries being what funds the U.S. military:

[worldpopulationreview.com]

1. United States $6.85 trillion
2. United Kingdom $655.27 billion

Almost every other country combined doesn't spend as much as the U.S.

@jorj "Zelinsky ran on anti-corruption and Trump asked him to investigate corruption is the actual truth of it! ... "Biden is not the nominee yet and therefore not Trump's opponent."
Trump did not ask Zelenski to investigate corruption per se. Just Biden and just possible corruption at that. (Let us remember here that no evidence of actual corruption has been found against Biden).
Just a small coincidence then that Biden is the bookmakers favorite to run against Trump. So it is okay to try a knobble the favorite. Because there was no guarantee it was going to win anyway.

Trump pressured a foreign power using federal funds for personal political gain. The pertinent word there is "personal". G. W. (and PM Tony Bliar) should be on trial in the Haigh. But however bad they were it was done at a governmental level and for govt reasons.

@273kelvin Oh so Halliburton and other friendly corporations benefiting wasn't "personal"? Nobody in the Bush administration gained anything personally? What Trump did is also subjective, and partisan opinions will be partisan. I'm sure you don't feel the same way about Biden bragging that he got rid of the lead prosecutor on what can be subjectively seen as a personal issue whether it's true or not.

When will Pelosi introduce the articles of impeachment for Trump unilaterally declaring war on Iran by openly assassinating their highest ranking general? She won't because it's U.S. policy and the Democrats do it too.