Some questions about the whistleblower, among other things

Do the whistleblower's accusations against Trump have merit?

Or does the very process smack of swamp-gas from start to finish? Has the process been redolent, in other words, of Deep State corruption?

If the process itself is purely an act of party politics and gaming the system, does that force the conclusion that the charges contained in the whistleblower's account are groundless?

The text of the whitleblower-document seems more like a piece of Washington Post "journalism" (what with anonymous second- and third-hand rumor and speculation) than like a knowledgable insider blowing the whistle on his boss. Does the fact that the Intel community changed the rules for whistleblowing, allowing for second-hand rumor, only the week before this document was submitted, have any bearing on how we should think about this document? On how we should think about this entire impeachment process?

And if there is something to these charges, something worth investigating, is impeachment the right process for this investigation?

And whether or not it is the right process, can Americans rely on the Democratic leadership in the House to conduct the investigation with complete integrity?

As you might have guessed, I suspect that the process has been corrupt (just as the Russia collusion process was corrupt) right from the start. Any connection between Washington political leadership and integrity is entirely accidental.

See: Was the whistleblower part of a plan?
And: the best objective summary I've seen so far.

Footnote: I might change my mind on all this from minute to minute.