Thank you, I read them both. However, the bulk of the federalist paper was dealing with the appropriateness of the Senate for the task. The portion referencing English common law left as many questions as it answered, as some of the the examples didn't seem applicable.
The relevant portion of Federalist 65 is this:
"A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."
Hamilton speaks of violations of public trust and injuries to society, not violations of law. The discussion of common law vs civil law isn't really relevant aside from the fact that English common law is the source of the term "high crimes and misdemeanors." As the article I linked pointed out, the common denominator in all cases where an official was charged with "high crimes and misdemeanors," was an abuse of public trust. I would argue that Trump's actions with regards to Ukraine rise to that level.
I will agree that it looked like it could be more general than a violation of law on the books. But then it also seemed it was not to be just misadministration. That was expressly ruled out.
Maladministration was ruled out by virtue of being too specific, so the fact that it was ruled out simply means that more actions than maladministration should be considered impeachable.
The corruption element in this case still hinges on intent. And proof of intent still hinges on the documents and witnesses that speak to the President's mind-set.
For that reason I still would think we need that information. And the courts appear to be the body that would sort out disagreements over ability to summon such.
Personally, I believe that we've seen enough evidence to demonstrate intent. The evidence is largely circumstantial, but enough circumstantial evidence can still be enough to demonstrate intent - especially if those who
could refute that circumstantial evidence with their testimony refuse to come forward.
If the question of the president not being able to withhold the documents is straight-forward, then I would think it could be somewhat quickly resolved. If it is not straight-forward, then it is hard to argue this constitutes obstruction, as he may have a right to such a defense.
The courts don't work like that. Anything with as lasting an impact on our country as this would spend years making its way though appeals before finally landing in front of the Supreme Court. There is no way that it would be resolved before the election, which I believe is the primary goal of the House Democrats.