nor involved in a GJ but those who have been explaining the process, some who have been involved in and conducted GJs, say that an impeachment process is very much like that of a GJ only this is in a different branch of the gov't (not DOJ) but is conducted as a fact finding and charge making process which is then handed to another entity for trial and judgement. And that is how I understand it to be.
So look at what has happened here.
Official commits crime(s)
Process begins under one-sided control in Congress who does nothing about using their authority to do anything about it. Same with DOJ, although they did allow the Mueller investigation to investigate. But then there's an election and the House, who holds impeachment and oversight control, changes hands to control by the other political party who are willing to honor their oath of office and conduct appropriate oversight only to realize they must impeach the officer in the Executive branch especially since another set of crimes have been revealed.
Since yet another set of crimes has been discovered, and DOJ has been ultimately corrupted therefore stifling all investigations from that entity, the House must conduct the investigation itself. This is what is happening with the closed door hearings/depositions in the basement. An investigation via rules of the offender's party.
With the information gathered in the closed hearings the actual public hearings begin with a case including all relevant and available statements and documents such that the public can know, without a pile of irrelevant red herrings to distract from sharing, the truth.
It is at this point where We the People can speak up and let our pubic servants whom we elected know that without a doubt we want this guy out of office.
When the House has made the information available to the public and hear the public's input, Articles are issued if they feel they need to be issued and voting takes place. If it is decided that a trail is warranted, they hand their decision (Articles of Impeachment) and evidence to the Senate who holds a trial and decides whether to remove the offender from office.
I know it's a simple summary but that's the best I can do right now.
If the offender's party is trying to protect the offender, they will try whatever they think they can throw in the way. An impeachment proceeding is not a frivolous undertaking, therefore, proof will be shown within the hearings and at trial. How could anyone consider such a proceeding without proof? Which is why the claim being made that criminality needs to be proven is a red herring. Proof will be shown and what the proof show is that it was criminal and a violation of the Constitution and Oath of Office. Can there something more than the trifecta of violations to the rule of law?
I think the claims coming from the other side are hair-on-fire hail-Mary theatrics. Cornered rats.
= new reply since forum marked as read