NYT: Summary Of Arguments For Impeachment And Rebuttals Thereof

Dunno why the two columns are "evidence for" and "Repubicans have argued" instead of "evidence for" and "evidence against" or "Democrats have argued" and "Republicans have argued"...but I'm on a hair trigger about such things now, and it's a little kooky, frankly.
   Anyway, there's nothing new here, but it's a nice, short review. I keep thinking that the Dems must have some arguments that I don't know about...but I suppose not. The case just doesn't seem sufficiently strong to overcome the rebuttals at what seem to me like the crucial points. But I've never been sure how heavy the burden of proof is. Naively, my old self wants to say: it should be a light burden, because any whiff of wrongdoing should be enough to give the president the boot. But that doesn't seem to be how it's been through of up til now, and we can't introduce a lighter burden at this point. My newer self says: look what a witch-hunt this, in fact, is. Given this witchhuntiness, you're going to have to do better than this. When I don't trust your motives, I'm permitted to set the bar higher. But I don't matter, of course.