According to your link, there is a connection:

"he asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to look into a discredited conspiracy theory that it was Ukraine and not Russia that interfered in the 2016 presidential election by hacking the Democratic National Committee."

And the document further continues the narrative that Trump is having outside powers interfere with the US election,

"These actions were consistent with President Trump’s previous invitations of foreign interference in United States elections."

So, it is definitely related to the overall narrative of Trump colluding with foreign powers to have them interfere.

Also weird, dems been pushing to impeach Trump for quite awhile, but this is a recent event. It looks like the Dems have been on an impeachment hunt in search of a reason. Which also makes this allegation weird. Searching for reasons to impeach also sounds contrary to law and order, which is the reason given for impeaching Trump in this document.

Yes, it is related, there's a common theme, but the 2016 election is not why he was impeached.

The current allegations seem shaky, based on claims of some insider, so my impression is the impeachment uproar is riding on the 'collusion' updraft and moral fervor rather than hard data. Seems very different than say Watergate or with Clinton where the allegations could be unequivocally substantiated with objective evidence such as recordings.

None of this to say I like the guy or even believe the allegations to be false. However, the impeachment does not seem to be carefully following due process, which is much more undermining of rule by law than whatever Trump may have done.

It's based on the sworn testimony of numerous witnesses, including his own ambassador to the EU. The aid was delayed, and he even asked on live TV for them to open an investigation.

And the obstruction charge is quite verifiable as well.

This is very thorough, and not credibly rebutted anywhehere: https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20191216/CRPT-116hrpt34...

I hope it is as solid as you say, because an overturned conviction will pretty much guarantee Trump 2020.

A bunch of testimonies sounds convincing, but that depends on whom the people are and what they exactly observed. E.g. why would the ambassador to the UK know what Trump said to Ukraine? I personally am still not getting a solid feeling from all this.

Sorry, I edited it. Ambassador to the EU, Sondland. He was on various phone calls.

You'd really want to go read and review some of this. There are some decent summaries like

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/10/case-impe...

This is no 'conviction'. He has been impeached, and that's forever, as with Clinton. More likely than not, he will not be removed from office.

No one really knows what the political consequences are, but the people running the investigation felt compelled to act since what he was doing represents a clear and present threat to free and fair elections.

Hmm, reading your linked article makes it seem even weirder. The whole point of impeachment is to convict and imprison. The best way to do that is to get a really solid case. Even more so if the Dems really think Trump is a threat to our country, and shouldn't run again, they should build a rock solid case against Trump that ensures he ends up in jail. Trump cannot be president from a jail cell.

However, as the article says, the Dems are rushing the impeachment process, which as you say will most likely not remove Trump from office (nor imprison). So, I really don't understand what is the point of this whole thing. How does Trump's behavior present a threat to free and fair elections, and how does this impeachment stop the threat?

Trump may find out Biden's son is doing illegal activities, or that Russia wasn't as meddlesome as supposed, and while that may influence the election, it is unclear to me how learning such information is in itself a bad thing for our system of government, i.e. a threat to free and fair elections.

And the very implication of the articles of impeachment, that Trump could gain something of value from Ukraine, has the implication that what Trump is seeking may actually be correct. In which case, Trump's requests certainly should be followed through by the Ukraine minister.

This whole thing makes less and less sense the more I dig into it, and I understand even more why all the news articles are so light on details.