Previous to the articles themselves was an almost 700 page investigative report - and that report came up again, and again, and again. Had it been constrained to the phone call and the facts of that specific case, it would have been a very strong case - but instead that report's other findings were so questioned and interrogated it ruined the entire case.

Trump should have been impeached for that phone call. Drawing any attention away from that was a mistake.

That wasn't the claim being made. There were two charges

1) The Phone Call 2) Obstruction of Justice

The investigative report, you know the evidence, was needed.

Your version of how this went down doesn't make any sense.

I spent several days watching the proceedings as they happened. Yes, formally there were two charges, but because the investigative report mentions other things those topics can be raised.

In attempting to resist impeachment, the Republicans want to call the report into question. That includes both it's direct evidence (attacking sources, resisting subpeonas, etc) and it's other claims. If you claim A and B and I debunk B, it sure feels like I weaken A (that's not logically correct, but people fall for this trick all the time).

RealClearPolitics, which is a Republican heavy source - so note here, they ARE biased - lays out the argument the Republicans used: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/01/28/democr...!

(and I'm not saying RCP is accurate as a whole, but I'm saying they are accurate as to the Republican argument against impeachment)