Yes.  The votes aren't there, nothing is going to happen.  This is ultimately will be a waste of tax payer money.

A prosecutor (as an example) won't press charges unless he/she believes there is a likelihood of a conviction.  In this case there is a zero percent change of a conviction.  

I have not seen any allegation that he ordered this.  Remember that the people surrounding Trump are smarter than him, and probably realized the trouble before he did.

I never said Biden committed a crime. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. You can be guilty of many things.

Not sure why the entirety of the evidence is expected this quickly in a case like this. Don't the Reps get a couple months to smear before they start an investigation, and then a couple more years of continued smearing and false allegations, before the final report is released? So hard to keep track of the rules these days.

Giuliani has made it clear he has statements from numerous individuals who tried to get info from Ukraine to the US through the Embassy I believe, and it never made it through. He's going straight to the source to make sure it's heard and documented first hand.

I don't see where Trump said something that makes him guilty of a crime at this point. Since when is informing another country that they might have a problem, and should probably look into it, a problem? Just because it may potentially work out in Trumps favor, makes it a problem? What about the Clinton Foundation and the Dems when it comes to the steel dossier that led to the Russia investigation, which was handled at least partially through Ukraine? What about Biden and Ukraine and how it's coincidentally helping out his son?

If Biden is committing a crime, and he is guilty, then Trump is simply pointing out the possibility to Ukraine so they can look into it. Kinda like preventative maintenance for an assembly plant. Should employee's who see the need for looking into something before it becomes a problem, just shut their mouths and let whatever may happen, happen, as much trouble as it may cause by turning a blind eye?

Lol, so withholding aid to the country before having this call doesn't ring a little bit bad timing to you.  You seem to ignore that part which turns your opinion of just informing someone of a problem to extortion if they do not do what you ask them to do.  Please keep up with all the bullet points, not the ones you feel like pointing out and ignoring the rest that doesn't support your opinion.  In the transcript the Ukraine President asked about that funding and the response from Trump is "Hey, I want you to do me a favor".  I know that part you clearly did not want to think about and I am sure you will have some other excuse but it's pretty clear the meaning of that exchange to anyone with an ounce of sense.

Next we have Trump sending his own personal attorney to wrap this all up not someone from the state department.  By sending his personal attorney means he is treating this not as official POTUS business but personal.  The whole reason we are here is because Trump made something he actually could have easily made official, personal.  The part that always cracks me up about your defense is that you will defend the dumbest thing Trump does and this was dumb.  

1). If Biden did commit a crime then he can get a matching prison jump suit with Trump.   But you (and Republicans) are failing to recognize several things.
A. Biden's pressure on the Ukraine to fire a a prosecutor, Victor Shokhin, happened AFTER the case was completed.
B. The case itself never involved Hunter Biden at all.  Hunter was recently added to the Board of Directors for Burisma.  The CEO of that company, Mykola Zlochevsky, was under investigation.  Hunter was never part of the investigation and hence no impropriety from Joe Biden could can be applied...especially given that was AFTER the case was already over.  Hell, Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma 2 years after the start of the investigation.
C. Victor Shokhin had been suspected of corruption and demands from inside and outside Ukraine had called for his removal for years. Joe Biden was not the only one requesting his removal. The Ukraine itself had been trying to get rid of him for quite a long time already.
D. Hunter Biden stepped down from the board in April of 2019 so as not to create a conflict of interest as his father, Joe Biden, had just announced his president campaign.

2). There is nothing to investigate.  You need a suspected crime for an investigation to happen.  What crime, what statute, what US Code did Joe or Hunter Biden supposedly violate?

3). Giuliani is a private citizen.  He does not have diplomatic authority to conduct such business.  That is a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.  Also known as the Logan Act. 

"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

Further, he failed to register with the Department of Justice in accordance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act. That's what Paul Manafort was convicted of. More on him later.

And I'm not even going to touch upon how this could be a violation of federal election law yet.  The above is already enough.

4). First you're intentionally being blind and then you go into whataboutism.
A. Informing another country of potential corruption is fine.  Withholding military aid that was already approved by the House, the Senate, the State Department and the DoJ (especially given it is the purview of the State Department to authorize and disperse foreign aid) in return for an investigation into your biggest political rival in an upcoming election is not fine.  That is far from fine. Valentin Nalyvaichenko, a former head of Ukraine’s domestic intelligence agency and a member of Ukraine’s parliament, believes this investigation demand by Trump is going to backfire on him.  Newly elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky does indeed plan to open up old investigations once prosecuted by Victor Shokhin....including one involving who?....Paul Manafort. 

B. Well, that's quite the 'but what about...." but it is being investigated by Attorney General William Barr, isn't it? But impropriety by Clinton is not an absolvement of crimes by Trump. I also seem to need to repeat the fact that Biden's involvement in the ousting of Shokhin came AFTER the case against Mykola Zlochevsky had concluded.

5). I hope you'll look back onto your point number 5 after reading my rebuttal points above and reconsider your stance.  If not, my reiteration of everything I just wrote will not persuade you any further.

Geez, man. Trump wasn't supposed to have any role with that foreign aid to begin with.  Again, that's a congressional expense which was approved by the House and the Senate with the Defense Department in on it.  $250 million from the DoD and $141 million from the State Department.  Trump was never supposed to be involved with the aid but he had it blocked and then made his phone call with the request that Ukraine investigate his political rival or they won't get the aid that he had no authority over.  Yes, that's all illegal. 

*sigh* 

I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.
-Donald. J. Trump, Jan 23, 2016.

Bill Clinton was impeached but not convicted.

You mean like how he conspired with Russia to win the election? Funny how that seems to be heavily lacking evidence and yet the obstruction of that case, that should never have taken place to begin with, is what he's going to get impeached over if that comes to pass?

You could almost say Trump shouldn't have had anything to do with the Russia investigation either, don't you agree? Good thing it was so short and minor and mostly ignored by the media.

While my evidence for a crime I never accused anyone of was certainly not special council thick, what I'm being shown here isn't exactly impressive or convincing either.

You mean like how he conspired with Russia to win the election? Funny how that seems to be heavily lacking evidence and yet the obstruction of that case, that should never have taken place to begin with, is what he's going to get impeached over if that comes to pass?

You could almost say Trump shouldn't have had anything to do with the Russia investigation either, don't you agree? Good thing it was so short and minor and mostly ignored by the media.

While my evidence for a crime I never accused anyone of was certainly not special council thick, what I'm being shown here isn't exactly impressive or convincing either.