a) I pointed to China as an example where the President is negotiating with a foreign power, conducting foreign policy as he is empowered and obligated to do. If you want to be partisan, you can try to argue that Trump is 'extorting' trade concessions from China. However, it is precisely his job to do this in support of the national interest. That's just one example of how foreign relations works.
b) I don't think evidence is overwhelming at all. Nothing I've seen would hold up in a court of law. You can't establish charges of bribery or extortion unless a concrete (preferably quantified) demand was made to Zellenskyy that departs from Trump's normal foreign relations. Zellenskyy, or someone in his administration, would need to verify that this was the case, or you'd need an authentic record. Furthermore, you would need to show that asking (or even pressuring) Ukraine to help investigate U.S. State Dept. corruption is a clear departure from the nation's interest. Whereas, as President, Trump has every right to establish his foreign policy with Ukraine's new President Zellenskyy, even if former state dept. officials don't agree with it.
If the evidence were real, it could be summarized in two sentences. It doesn't take hours to list things.
You're saying that Trump is only trying to go after Biden for personal political reasons. I'm saying, and the Justice Department has publicly stated, that there is a much broader investigation into U.S. State Dept. corruption involving Ukraine going on. It started before Zellenskyy took office. It's not just the Crowdstrike server story. It's a bigger pay-to-play scheme that involved the Clintons, members of the Obama state department, as well as possibly Joe Biden, and it was covered up by the FBI.
That's John Durham's investigation. You seem to be ignoring its existence, although in all fairness, several details have been kept quiet as the investigation is ongoing.
Many people, myself included, agree with the Justice Dept. that pursuing this investigation is very much in the nation's interest, even if the convictions it yields are few. You and others are welcome to disagree, but that is simply your own personal view and not grounds to impeach a President for high crimes or misdemeanors.
c) I thought your questions were being flippant, but I'll answer them here --- Yes, attempted murder, arson, robbery, bribery, or extortion are serious crimes. However, no crime has been shown to be committed by Trump. No serious prosecutor would pursue this case based on what's surfaced in hearings. Now granted, impeachment is a political process rather than a purely legal one. However, if/when this goes to trial in the Senate, it will get dismissed quickly, not on merely partisan grounds, but because the evidence is weak. There's an allegation made by an anonymous whistleblower who claims to have second-hand or third-hand conversations and an interpretation of circumstantial facts.
To make this case, you pretty much need Zellenskyy or someone he appointed to say, "Trump threatened to withhold foreign aid unless we fabricate evidence against Joe Biden." Or you'd need a voice recording that establishes the same. You need real evidence of the threat (withhold the aid) and the cure ("make up dirt") to create the case.
So far, Zellenskyy is denying that this is what happened, which stands as evidence against the claim. So you also need to show that the person who is being bribed or extorted is aware that he is being bribed or extorted.
OK, I have to extract myself from this conversation with you. It's causing me to dislike and despise you probably in larger proportion than you deserve. I'll reply to this one but then not to any more, so you can have the last word for now if you want.
The evidence is indeed overwhelming, with multiple credible witnesses who have testified to their own personal knowledge of the extortion/bribery/whatever you want to call it. The transcript (record) of the famous phone call between Trump and Zelensky. The people who overheard other the phone call between Trump and Sondland. Sondland's own testimony, saying there was indeed a quid pro quo.
The evidences that Giuliani was directing much of this despite not being part of the government. The substantial evidences of a cover-up, including illegally moving the transcript of the Trump-Zelensky call to a codeword only server. Heck, you have apparently forgotten that Trump's own chief of staff LITERALLY admitted it!
"If the evidence were real, it could be summarized in two sentences. It doesn't take hours to list things." --> It would take me hours not because the evidence is hard to understand, but because there is SO MUCH OF IT. I made the above list in maybe 5 minutes, and I could pretty easily keep going for another 55 mins.
Regarding John Durham's investigation, which you seem to place so much stock in, a) it's not at all clear what he's investigating, and b) whatever it is, it's very likely politically motivated and not part of an actual effort by the DOJ to root out corruption anywhere.
"I thought your questions were being flippant, but I'll answer them here --- Yes, attempted murder, arson, robbery, bribery, or extortion are serious crimes." --> Good, hold on to that. Trump and company are in the process of moving the goal posts. They will soon say/have already started saying, "OK, this is extortion and bribery, but it doesn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense." So be prepared for the goal post to move but don't move your statement that bribery and extortion are serious crimes. The evidence is indeed overwhelming, and if you open your eyes you can see it. So maybe you will come around at some point.
"To make this case, you pretty much need Zellenskyy or someone he appointed to say, "Trump threatened to withhold foreign aid unless we fabricate evidence against Joe Biden." Or you'd need a voice recording that establishes the same... So far, Zellenskyy is denying that this is what happened, which stands as evidence against the claim. So you also need to show that the person who is being bribed or extorted is aware that he is being bribed or extorted." --> No, that's not true. There's substantial credible evidence that Ukraine was aware of the extortion. Again, if I had an hour I could list it out. And where there's substantial evidence of extortion, you don't need testimony from the person being extorted--particularly when that individual is appropriately afraid of the repercussions such testimony would bring.
"You need real evidence of the threat (withhold the aid) and the cure ("make up dirt") to create the case." --> Yes, and the direct testimony of several eye- and ear-witnesses is real evidence.