Several layers of the acquittal

I challenge any liberal here to debate this rationally!

1) I agree with the Democratic Counsel from the impeachment hearings who was asked to compare and contrast what Joe Biden did (in threatening aid if Shokin wasn't fired) to what Trump did. He argued that it's perfectly acceptable for an Administration to engage in quid pro quo when it comes to foreign aid, as long as the quid pro quo is in line with our policy. This argument is consistent with the 1960's laws written regarding Foreign Aid, which provides the executive branch (not the legislative branch) the authority to set terms and conditions for said release of aid.

2) I agree with the argument made by Alan Dershowitz on the subject of political actions that help politicians politically not being automatically considered corrupt. His argument is that a political action that is otherwise legal (such as setting the terms and conditions for the release of foreign aid) cannot be considered illegal or corrupt simply because the political action might help that politician politically or that it might aid in his/her reelection. At the bare minimum, if there is a plausible justification that can be made for that political action, you cannot demand it to be corrupt simply because it also helps that politician politically. Arguing differently would literally handcuff any and all politicians from doing any political act (pushing a bill, voting a certain way, speaking engagements, any number of things) that also helped them politically. To argue against Dershowitz would be to argue that we turn the political world upside down and into complete chaos.

If you take parts one and two together... you have the President engaging in the legal action of negotiating terms and conditions in exchange for foreign aid (legal as argued by Democratic council and confirmed by statutory law). The request that Burisma (possibly entangling Hunter Biden) be investigated is a legitimate action that can be plausibly argued to be in the best interest of the United States. In fact, three of the Democrat's own witnesses admitted in sworn testimony that they believed that this situation deserved to be investigated. The fact that the action was well within his Presidential authority, the request was considered valid by people within the state department, makes it impossible to demand that the actions were "corrupt and illegal" simply because the byproduct might mean that Joe Biden might be harmed politically.

3) I agree with Jonathan Turley when he argued that even if the events were corrupt and impeachable, that the Democrats rushed their impeachment efforts and fell well short of proving what they were attempting to prove. So as much as I believe that the alleged quid pro quo is perfectly legal (even if possibly politically inappropriate), the fact of the matter is that the Democrats in the House refused to take the time to gather the evidence needed to convince skeptics that it was true. All in all they called 18 witnesses in to provide testimony. Much of that testimony was not released to the public, or even presented to the accused. They only interviewed one person with some first hand dealings with the President, who admitted under oath that he had no tangible first hand evidence that Ukraine was being pressured. They ended their investigation without a single witness that had evidence of any agreement between Trump and Zelensky, much less the agreement being suggested. They refused to take the time to enforce subpoenas in court, and even dropped a subpoena that was being litigated rather than get a judgement from the courts. Keeping in mind that Nixon resigned after 10 months of impeachment hearings in the House, and there had been an entire special counsel as well as a bi-partisan impeachment hearing before the Clinton Senate trial, it's clear that this Congress fell well short of the sort of complete investigation that they needed before going to trial. Asking for the Senate to make up the difference was inappropriate at best and unconstitutional at worst.

4) The reality doesn't match the accusations. Even if you concede almost everything else, the truth of the matter is that the aid was released and there was nothing provided in return. While it's one thing to argue that this sort of questionable action is impeachable, it's quite another to argue that just having some "desire" or "possible intent" to do something that didn't happen is impeachable. Especially when the allegations are simply based on accusations, opinions, speculation, and presumptions. Every last one of those accusations, opinions, speculations, and presumption automatically and logically become less believable when those "feelings" do not equate to what actually happened.

5) The Ukrainians deny any deal or being pressured. It's one thing to suggest that Ukraine had a good reason to lie, but it's another to simply "assume as much". First and foremost, such an assumption does not make much sense. To believe what Democrats are arguing, is to believe that Zelensky would have no problems double-crossing Trump over a set deal, but then would be too scared to admit a deal actually was made. By double crossing the President, Zelensky would have already burned his bridges and would have no good reason at that point to then pretend he didn't.

Generally in the absence of anything else, you might be prone to accept the obvious. The President denies making a deal with Zelensky. Zelensky denies there was ever a deal. Nobody has any evidence that such a deal ever existed between the two Presidents. Such an alleged deal never became reality. Perhaps the deal never actually existed? Sure seems to be the safest assumption given the facts.

But what do the "facts" matter anyways?

Impeachment was always a political act based on raw emotion.