The more I read this thread, the more I feel that some here - that I assume are honestly thinking what they are writing - are being held hostage by a logical fallacy.
This fallacy is the belief that the truth necessarily falls in the middle of extremes.
By far the best example is the belief that the vast majority of media are anti-Trump because they report negative news about Trump (not the other way around...).
This relies on the belief that if media were fair, they would average be 50% for Trump and 50% anti-Trump. But... this a priori rules out the possibility that Trump may be less than 50% good.
So the claim that media in the US are overall leaning to the left is simply the result of lack of objectivity about who Trump is and what he does.
The media is not objective because it doesn't agree with your own imbalanced view of what Trump is.
In other words, due to this logical fallacy, media can only be assessed as being to the left if they report objectively about Trump... 
There are many other examples here. When sports papers report time and again that Roger Federer is a better tennis player than Jack Socks, nobody calls them anti-American... but according to the logic complaining that media leans to the left, sports papers should split 50-50% between those thinking that Federed is better vs those thinking that Jack Socks is better.
Similarly, media should have shared opinions about the size of the US vs the size of Belgium. If more than 50% of media think the US is the larger country, that must mean they are anti-Belgian. And... they all keep writing that the US is larger... I am revolted by the degree of racism against Belgium!
I wonder why this isn't the case...
Cheers,
Bernard
Come on now Bernard.
First, the case is weak at best. The Dems have not provided any testimony that with direct evidence. It is all hearsay of hearsay and conjecture on the part of those testifying.
On top of that, the witnesses have provided information that helps Trump. Kent yesterday noted theories that Trump wanted investigated that had nothing to do with the Bidens and everything to do with 2016. Admittedly, a couple of them are conspiracy theories with no evidence to back them up, but Trump wanted them investigated. He gave credence to these even if the evidence was very questionable, the same thing you are claiming about with any evidence for the Bidens. These investigations got all lumped together, implying intent was about 2016 corruption, not for 2020.
On top of that, the witnesses also implied that Giuliani was getting bad information, and then feeding it to Trump, from two nefarious individuals that had an ax to grind. Once again, Trump acting on bad information is not impeachable. It may be ignorant, especially on Giuliani's part, but not impeachable.
Last, even some of the Dem's witnesses had call for, during these hearings, further investigation into Burisma itself.
For all intents and purposes, the intent appears to be investigating 2016 election corruption that Trump thought Biden could be a part of.
Unless either Giuliani or Bolton or Mulvaney testify that Trump's intent was for help in the 2020 election, the Dems have nothing.
Lets also not forget all of the lies the Dems are spreading around with the biggest one being that Schiff claims he does not know the name of the whistle blower, while at the same time threatening that if you say his name during the hearings he will shut you done. LOL. That in itself destroys his credibility.
"Oh yes, my staff met with the whistle blower, but I refused to be in the room and covered my ears whenever his name was spoken." Sure.
(FYI, this quotation was a parody; I'll admit to it before I am called out on it, unlike Schiff. Thankfully I'm not under oath.)
