1) You couldn't care less? Or just enough to post Republican talking points, and your "concerns" about the impeachment process?
2) In case you missed it, the articles of impeachment had absolutely nothing to do with FISA or the Russia investigation. So far, at least. In a run of the mill case, the evidence from a separate, unrelated case would not be admissible. Also, impeachment hearings are not a court case. The trial is held in the Senate, but thanks for clarifying that you don't understand the process which you appear to be upset about.
3) If ethics of the investigations matter, do you think a ranking member of an investigative body should be a participant in the hearings if he or she was an active participant in the activity being investigated? Inquiring cows want to know...
4) It's a good thing you are not saying the president is immune, because he certainly is. That's the whole 2nd article of impeachment in a nutshell, by the way. You are making an excellent case for the impeachment of the president, based on him not being treated any differently than any other defendant - but you're still wrong. The House doesn't have plaintiffs and defendants. They have done an investigation, been obstructed, and STILL have enough evidence to draft articles. The president has not taken the stand. The president prevented his staff from appearing to exonerate him. The president refused to release documents as ordered lawfully by Congress. No defendant gets to do that in a run of the mill case.
5) This case is different than previous impeachments, but it is not clear what your concern about not following precedent is...the Democrats in the House actually followed precedent almost to the letter. In case you are unaware of the facts, the House ran this impeachment according to the rules established by the Repubican Party in 2015. Second, the House went to extraordinary lengths to accommodate the minority in the House and the White House in the process...they followed the Repubican rules to the letter, and did everything by the book, except to allow additional leeway for the president or his lawyers to appear before the committee, which they refused to do. Third, all the up in arms talking points and shouting by Repubicans are LIES. They made the claim that they were held out of the "secret Schiff hearings in the basement," - not true. Republicans in the minority were present, could call witnesses, could ask questions and were not prevented from participating in the process in the SCIF. They claimed that they were not allowed to call witnesses in the hearings - not true. 3 of the fact witnesses were on the Repubican witness list. The fact witnesses who defied Congressional subpoenas and refused to appear chose not to participate in the process intentionally. Not one Repubican has disputed the facts of the case and not one has answered the question of if it is acceptable for any president to solicit foreign help in an election. There's a reason for that.
Maybe we can put Congress under oath during the trial, because the Repubicans demanded the truth from witnesses, but clearly had no problem blatantly lying themselves. They were unable to get one person, fact witness or staff member to provide evidence that would clear the president. Not one. That says a lot.
The only way this makes no sense is if you get your information from conservative media. I've forced myself to listen/watch the conservative narrative on this, and it is batguano insane. I don't doubt a lot of people are confused by what is happening, because they are being sold propaganda (Russian, by the way) on a daily basis. It's hard to admit you've been conned.