The problem is that it's being taken as a given that there's a double standard and so no criticism of Trump is valid unless accompanied by ritually burning Clinton in effigy.
It's not been taken as a given. It's been repeatedly asked - what is the consistent standard you are applying? And when it's been articulated, the immediate question has been if that is true and you are being consistent how do you explain Trump's treatment compared to the opposite treatment of people on your side (and I've yet to see a situation where this isn't true). There's never been any remotely reasonable or even plausible response to that. Ergo, the conclusion that there is not in fact any consistent explanation.
Hard to understand, for example, how investigating interference in the 2016 election is interference in the 2020 election. Hard to understand, how investigating Biden's conduct while Vice President and/or his son's conduct is any different than investigating Trump's conduct, or the dozens of investigations into every thing Trump at every level by prosecutors that have been absolutely clear they are investigating people not crimes. Heck, hard to understand how that's not the case, where we've had Impeachment of Trump TM for "Fill in the Blank" reasons.
If there really is a principled theory behind this, then it's inexplicable that the House conducted their hearings in such a lopsided manner. The process as conducted was deliberate in its avoidance of any apperence of fairness and in it's avoidance of even having witnesses related to the defense. If they wanted the truth, rather than a narrative, they would have invited the White House to participate without the preconditions, that doesn't limit them from holding the White House to account for a lack of candor but it does ensure that we get cross examinations and fully vet the defense. Wouldn't any legitimate enquiry want to review the defenses? There would not have been a deliberate process of selective leaks that do nothing to advance the true and are designed solely to influence the electorate (hello 2020 election interference, I mean really you have actual on the record quotes from Dem politicians that Trump has to be impeached to stop him from being elected). You have both Nadler and Schiff openly prejudging the situation and espectially Schiff openly and repeatedly lying and mischaracterizing statements and facts. What part of justice does that serve?
If this is an exercise of duty, the House issues the subpoenas for the witnesses that actually have the facts and fights for them in court. There's literally no way the courts would not have taken the matter seriously and promptly dealt with them. There's two reasons that I can see that the didn't, one they expected they would lose as foreign policy in particular is one of the Executives strongest grants of authority and there is no actual evidence to present in court that would justify invading it, and two they had no interest in getting to the truth, this is 100% about the 2020 election and therefore has to occur before it (if it was legit, Trump could be impeached after the election if he won). Instead, they got hearsay on the record and called it good enough, can't tie any of the conduct to their claims, and have zero evidence tying any of it to Trump as the source.
Meanwhile, Schiff is the literal poster child for abuse of power and puts a total lie to the argument that Trump must be impeached because NO ONE is about the law. There is no law that is going to touch Schiff. Would it not be added as an article of impeachment if Trump subpoenad phone records of his political opponents, published them, used hearsay and false statements to indict them? Of course, but for the Dems? You want us to believe they are patriots. Consistency? Where?
No. Trump was abusing his authority over congressional mandated spending to attack his political rival.
Care to provide the citation to the law that says so? Direct evidence says that the delay was not unheard of with respect to aid, or outside the window of other aid delays. In fact, there are multiple duties imposed on the President that require he delays aid in some circumstances and allows it in others.
And again, there's no consistency here. I flagged it when Obama delayed Congressionally mandated and unpopoular ObamaCare provisions until after the election, even though there was absolutely no authority to do so, and I didn't see you raising your hand that it was an impeachable event. That's almost literally the same thing.
Face it, the Executive branches hard deadline was the end of September and they met it. All the diplomats that testified confirmed that prior aid provided by Trump was more useful than the aid provided by Obama, and Obama's timing was actually during the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. How do you explain that one?
Congress is exercising the most significant check on Presidential tyranny.
It's kind of true. Congress is misusing, abusing and demeaning it's most significant check on execute Tyranny, in pursuit of 2020 election benefits for the Democrats. But I know, it's only wrong when it's the Republicans.