"Should Trump be impeached for leveraging military aid to require an investigation into local companies in a nation that was ostensibly interfering in American politics, when the target of said investigation is a political opponent, thereby creating an obvious conflict of interest"
"Should Hillary Clinton be charged for communicating sensitive information using persona devices, or deleting information requested by the FBI during the subsequent investigation"
These are really hard issues actually.
If you stand outside your hatred or love for these people, and stand outside of your own political preferences, they become considerably more nuanced and difficult than we'd care to admit.
They are not black and white enough to have easy answers, and so, we get narratives, misinformation, and polarisation.
I'm curious. Can you give one or two examples of the 'simple truths' that we can't agree on anymore?
>What one side considers the truth might not be the same for the other, look no further than the impeachment proceedings.
The impeachment proceedings are interesting examples because I truly believe that objectively, even if the facts are as stated by the Democrats, it would be a gross abuse to remove Trump from office for that. It's bonkers. Trump's conduct, at best, warrants a Congressional censure. But I take your point one two sides looking at the same event but interpreting it vastly differently. The Kavanaugh nomination was the same way, as well as coverage around Covington kids (could not believe as it was happening that news reports would profile children in the way they did).