The "rhetorical" impeachment...

I have made the argument again and again that our politicians, media, and even our younger generations are becoming less and less interested in fact, and more and more interested in bending facts with rhetoric. In fact, many specifically reject the age-old notion that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, just not their own facts.

It seems that in the year 2020, everyone is entitled to create not only their own opinions, but their own facts. This is especially true when objective facts might offend someone, or is deemed to be somehow "unfair" based on the collective emotions and feelings of the woke culture. Just try to tell someone that life begins at conception or that there are only two possible combinations of chromosomes (XX, XY). Doesn't matter if objective science and biology backs you up, you are liable to be fired, sued, or worse just for stating what most people would have (just a few years ago) consider to be a fact.

Now politicians have used rhetorical arguments to levels that brush up against absurdity. We learn to expect it, temper it, and to some degree drown it out, because generally it's just fodder on a Sunday morning talk show, cable news, or political advertisement. But what we are seeing today is not just political rhetoric being argued, but we are seeing political rhetoric being used to impeach a duly elected sitting President. To be perfectly clear, this is a rhetorical impeachment that relies entirely on rhetorical arguments.

Lets start with the basic concept that the President "withheld" funds from Ukraine for "personal gain" and look to see where fact has been replaced with rhetoric

• Fact: The funds were not withheld, but rather provided to Ukraine within the time frame necessary to satisfy any requirements of the authorization of Financial aid. To argue otherwise, would be to argue that the IRS can arrest you for withholding your payments, even if you paid them prior to the April 15th deadline. The fact is that you are not legally withholding payment to someone until you have gone past the due date or deadline for that payment. To even argue that the payments to the Ukrainians were "delayed" is a semantic argument that implies that there were some arbitrary deadlines to be met, when in fact, no such deadline existed.  
• Fact: The Ukrainians did not investigate the Bidens, nor did they announce any investigations into the Bidens. While the Biden name came up in conversation between the US and Ukrainian Presidents, it was in conjunction with discussions about the Prosecutor General who was fired and how the previous Ukrainian administration had investigations (including Burisma) closed down shortly afterwards. We can provide an imaginary scenario where the Ukrainians did announce investigations, and we can provide a more recent tin foil hat theory that it was Lev Parnas who was the official go between, but the actual FACT remains that none of it actually happened. 
• Fact: The President never asked for anything of "personal value". Personal value, as it legally pertains to political bribery or political favors is just that, personal. It would include things like personal payments, personal gifts, favors or gifts for friends or relatives, and other things not related to politics. The rhetoric here is that a Ukrainian investigation that might have drawn the Biden name through the mud would help Trump in his reelection efforts. Factually, that would be of political (not personal) benefit to the President. That (according to the laws) is not a distinction without a difference, but rather a very legal and very real distinction that is being muddied up in the name of rhetoric. By the same logic, the House is engaged in a corrupt abuse of power by impeaching the President, because the actual impeachment might harm his Presidential reelection chances. Does anyone want to go there?
• Fact: There was no "quid pro quo". While many people have testified that they believed (at least for a a while) that there was a deal in place between the two Presidents, both Presidents deny such a deal ever took place, and there is literally nobody who has testified that they have any first hand knowledge of such a deal between Trump and Zelensky. Moreover, even if there had been a "deal" made that involved "quid pro quo" (which there is no proof of), the FACT is that the alleged give and take never took place. It. Just. Didn't. Happen. 

The FACT is that the military aid was not withheld, but rather provided within the legal timelines for dispersing the aid. The FACT is that nothing was provided in return for that military aid. The FACT is that the President neither asked for or received anything of personal value. All the rest is little more than political rhetoric, dangerously used to impeach a duly elected President. This is what happens when a society and culture decides to reject the notion of objective fact as being the best means to resolve disagreement or conflict.