The broader charge against Trump is that his impoundment of funds was to illicitly solicit foreign assistance in his re-election campaign, but embarrassing Joe Biden (hence why a simple announcement of an investigation might suffice, even if no investigation actually was conducted). That he did so seems at least more plausible than not, and at times Red Tribe has implicitly admitted that the facts are correctly stated. Is this impeachment-worthy?
Well, yes, it certainly ought to be. I think there should be a fairly bright and hard line on presidents soliciting foreign assistance with their re-election campaigns. Certainly if Trump had asked the Ukrainian Prime Minister for a monetary campaign contribution we'd be shocked, and what he did ask for most likely had more potential value than a financial contribution would have. So is there even a question here?
Yes, there is. We're all acting shocked, as though this is unprecedented. Are you sure it is? Reagan is suspected of persuading Iran to hold American hostages until after the election to make Carter look weak. Nixon is suspected of sabotaging peace talks in Vietnam to keep Humphrey from claiming Democratic success. (Are their Democratic examples?)
The truth of those allegations remain contested, of course, and most evidence that purports to support the claims has come out in the years after. There was not enough contemporaneous evidence to support an impeachment and conviction. But we hear little about those from Blue Tribers who are otherwise inclined to criticize those Red Tribe presidents on any number of issues.
That suggests the outrage today is somewhat selective. It may be a matter of convenience for a tribe that has plotted from the day after the election how to deny Trump the presidency (on that point, Red Tribe's accusations are spot on). They need something. Anything will do. And here's something.
Now, if we're going to start impeaching presidents for soliciting foreign electoral assistance, I'm all for it. But if it's really just a charge of convenience, then we shouldn't expect that to be the case. Unless perhaps simply by doing it once, even if we don't convict, we stumble into a new norm, which would be a good outcome.
So, yes, impeachment worthy, but in a historical perspective the outrage is out of proportion to the event. The great heat, the smoke and flame, obscures more than it reveals about this impeachment.