But right there is the problem, that one side is insisting this is all partisan, when the facts are clear that there is wrongdoing on the part of the Bidens. The question is, should the Democrats ever be allowed to get back in power, if they are going to avenge the exposure of an actually corrupt official, just because he happens to be a prominent Democrat or the son of one. No one is even trying to defend the Bidens, just handwaving it away as if Trump looking into the issue is a bigger problem that must be resolved before we can sort it out. Worst case scenario, Trump used his official influence to get a result in Ukraine for the benefit of the Republican party, which represents the interests of half the country. Best case scenario, Joe Biden used his official influence to get a result in Ukraine for the benefit of the Biden family. Which is sort of ironic, given that Biden used to brag about being the poorest member of the US Senate (because his father ran the family fortune into the ground).

Turkish political history is a good reason to keep people with similar thought processes out of this country. It is not remotely an indicator of how things go in the US, or that you can naturally extrapolate balking at the third ever use of a particular process with tossing out the whole 200+ year tradition of peaceful transfer of power.
It's funny in the way of the Wheel of Time saying about thieves being most careful of their purses, how Democrats keep bringing this issue up, such as the attempt by one interviewer to get Trump to commit blindly to accepting the result of the election. Bear in mind, Trump was not at that point an elected official, he held no political power, commanded no troops, and had the smallest campaign staff of anyone in the race, so it's not like he had the practical capacity to stage a coup or occupy the White House and refuse to leave, so it's not like this is something we even needed to worry about. And then, of course, they made a huge stink about his refusal to take the bait, suggesting that he was direspecting the American electoral process. The closest anyone has ever come to that, has been the Democrats, both of the last two times they had to give up the White House, attempting end runs around the election as soon as they lost. In 2000, the periodical 'Human Events', once cited by Ronald Reagan as a favorite, held a staff meeting before the election, to plan and prepare an article defending the electoral college for their readership, in anticipation of a popular victory but electoral defeat for the Republican candidate. And as it turned out, when the opposite happened, the Democrats attempted just the opposite of that commitment to the agreed-upon system, trying to flip a large state by recounting votes exclusively in a handful of heavily Democratic counties, and trying to draw out the process and intimidate the Florida Secretary of State in violation of the state constitution of Florida. Not to mention the nonsense last time, when Biden kept losing his patience with the Representatives of his own party, who during the joint session to certify the election results, kept attempting to throw them out and introduce motions, despite the repeated admonitions of their own Vice President that they were violating the rules of a joint session.

Or they don't dare confront a hostile media that has a lot more sway in twisting things in their home districts, whereas the national columnists and political show hosts aren't going to defend Congressman Goober from the State Herald's editorials.

How are you supposed to follow up? By scolding the president of the country, in hopes he might feel bad while toting up his Swiss bank account full of skimmed US aid? By interfering in the actual functions of a sovereign government's bureaucracy? Because I kind of think that any effort Trump made in that regard would lead to the Democrats trying to impeach him.
Did the law give a timetable for the aid's release? Because the job of the president is to execute the laws. Obama held back aid to Ukraine as well. Did the presence of Democratic (and Republican) political operatives working for Ukrainian politicians have anything to do with it?
We still have the entire Democratic primary process to get through before Joe Biden is any sort of political opponent to Trump, as opposed to a retired VP (and the end of his political career was kind of a tacit expectation when his running mate awarded him the Medal of Freedom as a longevity prize). It was also the highest profile example of corruption in the Ukraine, as there are no other instances of an American official bragging about using his influence to stir the waters of Ukrainian corruption.

IF Trump did anything untoward in withholding aid, Biden BOASTED of doing worse, which means Trump's inquiry, even if he might derive some political benefit, is in the interests of the US.

You people keep talking about personal benefit and embarassing a political opponent but you refuse to acknowledge that this is by exposing wrongdoing. Which is hardly surprising because that's the same duplicity being used in the Russian election interference narrative. No one is seriously claiming that the Russians hacked the voting machines or otherwise altered the voting process or weilding influence over election officials. Basically the actions that comprise the so-called Russian Interference amount to nothing more than revealing information, generally accepted as true, about Democratic wrongdoing. They didn't alter anyone's actions or curtail their choices or take away their votes. They just gave the voters information which MAY have changed their minds.

And lets not forget that every scientific and respected political analysis method or service was not predicting Trump's win. As early as the morning of the election, 538 & company were predicting a loss, despite the full knowledge of that information the Russians had brainwashed the voters with via the implacable mindcontrolling power of ... Facebook ads. If the Russians were putting in the fix, how did they know better than US election experts that it would work?

This is the reason your ilk goes around talking about "Russian Inteference in the US Election", rather than "Hackers who happen to be Russians making Facebook ads" or "People from Russia revealing the DNC fixed the primary". Not to mention turning Trump saying "If Russia has Hillary's emails, we'd like them back" into "Trump publically asked the Russians to hack the DNC!" In the same vein, it's all "Trump uses the power of his office to gain a political advantage" without mentioning that it's an advantage of someone who has blatantly done something wrong. Let's go back to what you said about destroying Brett Kavanaugh's career and reputation for life over unsubstantiated accusations by a single individual: it's not a criminal proceeding, it's a job interview. If the Senate needed to hear that a flaky lawyer claimed a federal judge had touched her naughty bits when they were kids, the American people REALLY need to know if a presidential candidate threatened to hold up that sacrosanct aid Congress voted to give Ukraine in a procedure that must never be transgressed upon...so his son could keep a no-show job with a corrupt corporation.

If it's the kind of thing that's impossible to prove, anyone who tried to make a criminal case about it is a far worse transgressor against the letter and spirit not just of the Constitution, but the entire common law tradition of innocent until proven guilty. Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi should never again hold an office of public trust, if they are going to flagrantly ignore something that important. The rest of us can't hire Rudy Giuliani and Alan Dershowitz to make that point.
Or followed precedent where the President controls how and when appropriated funds are spent on their purpose.

That's a ridiculous slippery slope/reductio ad absurdum argument. Letting the President do ANYTHING is the first step toward tyrannical dictatorship. Bullshit. The President has exercised unilateral foreign policy powers for years without ever coming to that pass. John Adams all but waged an undeclared naval war with France, and was the first president to leave office after losing an election. Abraham Lincoln's seizure of the Trent was ill-advised and nearly got into a war with the major world power at the time, but it was within his purview, not to mention the Emancipation Proclamation, widely regarded as one of the finest single acts of his presidency. In the current political divisions, Republicans have historically not been all that thrilled with FDR's supine conduct of relations with the USSR, but no one argues that it was beyond his authority (a charge they, and I, are not shy about making elsewhere regarding his conduct), or Kennedy's blunders in the various Cuban crises he caused, or Truman's emasculating our armed forces in Korea, or Clinton's right to launch missiles at Iraq whenever a new story broke about his predilection for sexual harassment and rape.

And again:
Donald Trump - Asks foreign country to look into a matter that occured in their country, because if it's true, it's an incident of corruption and abuse of power and internal interference in a sovereign nation by a senior American politician with ambitions for higher office, which the voters need to know about.

Bill Clinton - Launches missiles into a foreign country that actually kill human beings, to distract from sex scandals.

And a substantial number of people are voting to convict the former who had voted to acquit the latter