We who reject the idea that obstruction of congress, maladministration, and abuse of power are insufficient, even where proved, to impeach, should say what it would take to impeach. My thought is that (aside from the obvious treason and bribery) a case could and should be made against a president if and only if it were alleged and proved that public money made its way into his, his family's, or his cronies' pockets by dint of his decisions. Deriving a political advantage isn't nearly enough, and in this case, of course Trump derived zero advantage, political or otherwise, from the phone call with Ukraine. Not to mention that it is perfectly reasonable to ask what the hell young Biden was doing on that board of directors. (The answer to that is less ambiguous; he could only have been there to help with marketing concessions from the USA.) Short of that, it's best, as a matter of prudence, to make all this a political issue and carry it to the election. Which likely was Nancy's, Adam's and Jerry's plan all along. They knew they didn't have and couldn't get the votes all along. Maybe they never even wanted them. What they really want is no votes to bolster their claims of complicity in a coverup. BTW, just what was young Biden doing on the board? Has that ever been answered to your satisfaction? Should Don Trump Jr. be on the Burisma board? That wouldn't stink at all right?