Originally Posted by
eschatological
I know you're arguing in bad faith, but I'll take a crack at explaining this, since willful ignorance has to be fought on every level.
The Constitution doesn't require the Judicial Committee to investigate impeachable offenses. Impeachable offenses can arise from any investigation, from any committee. The Ukraine information dealt with highly classified national security intelligence, so the Intelligence committee handled it. If Dems had ever pursued the emouluments violations as impeachable offenses, Ways and Means investigations would have informed the Judicial Committee in drafting the Article of Impeachment. If Trump had lied under oath in a deposition, like Clinton did, then the Judiciary would have investigated that. If Benghazi had led to impeachable offenses against Obama, the investigation in the House Oversight Committee would have informed the House Judiciary.
As for calling for witnesses - that's just part of the political process. The Dems have the chair, they get to set the witness list. Incredibly, they called a bunch of extra witnesses they didn't initially subpoena, who the Republicans put on the list. Those witnesses burned the Republicans bad so now they must be some sort of deep state conspiracy, I guess.
Moreover, the process of impeachment is most akin to a grand jury indictment. The grand jury process is by no means fair to the defendant. It is done in secret, behind closed doors, the defendant is NEVER there, and the prosecution can call any witness and present any evidence without any real judicial backstop to deny the prosecution. They then ask if it's more likely than not that the defendant committed the crime, and then the grand jury indicts the defendant if they say yes. In this case, indictment = impeachment.
Keep in mind, though, that the process the Dems used was faaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more open and transparent than the grand jury process on which it is based. It wasn't behind closed doors, defendants not only were invited to participate, but the defendant's political allies were in the room for EVERY. SINGLE. WITNESS, and the "prosecutors" (Schiff, etc) allowed the defendants to try and mount a defense, which they were in no way entitled to.
I agree, a simple civics lesson would solve a lot of issues right here. Namely, the criminal process. The next step is the trial, in which the defendant DOES have many rights, and the whole thing is presided over by a judge (literally the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS), and a jury of the President's peers sit and deliberate over the evidence. Except, in this case, the GOP wants to break from norms, and not call witnesses. That's like the jury saying they don't want to call witnesses. That should be on the prosecutors (the House Managers presenting the Articles of Impeachment), with guidance and backstopping from the presiding Judge (CJ Roberts).