SR,

The reference was to the obstruction of justice not the collusion. As per the hearings there was not one scrap of substantial evidence.

Similarly for your president, there is no evidence of inducements in Ukraine.

Shadow Minister nothing to see here your aged clown in full clown gear standing at the mike telling us Biden son did some thing wrong
Some thing inquiry after inquiry tells us he did not
While Trumps son, son in law and daughter travel to and from Saudi Arabia at will dealing and making big money from dads POTUS position
This week the spotlight shines on them, say Tuesday?

Belly,

With regards your president, neither has any inquiry found evidence of his guilt.

However, with regards Biden, threatening the Ukraine with a withdrawal of aide if he did not fire a prosecutor that was investigating a company his son held a prominent position in, is a clear conflict of interest. If Obama had made the call, then this would be a non issue.

Shadow Minister you make me happy I am not you
The second charge has only just started being investigated
Your baseless charge against Biden has been investigated and proved false
Right now more evidence about the Trump clans investments and links is being uncovered
That man is in deep trouble even in his own party current polls show 55 percent of Americans think he should be impeached

Belly,

The Democrats were trying to impeach Trump based on obstruction of justice in an investigation that exonerated him on the basis that it is illegal to obstruct an investigation in process.

Here are some facts that are not in dispute:
1 When Biden threatened to withhold $1bn in aide from Ukraine if the prosecutor was not fired, there was an open investigation into a company that Biden's son was a player. This is a clear conflict of interest whether the case was justified or not. This is why judges recuse themselves when a relative or acquaintance is involved.
2 This case has actually not yet been closed.
3 The US has a treaty with the Ukraine from 2000 to share details of criminal investigations.

Shadow Minister again you defend the indefensible
The current inquiry only needs Trumps own publicly used words to find him guilty
You as a default position, every time, cover for conservatives even if it is clear they are wrong
I highlight my sides wrongs and demand better EG the current shambolic NSW inquiry
You settle for less than truth