“There was a time that historians wouldn’t touch a subject until close to 25 years had passed.”
You misunderstand the statement by the historians. They are not attempting to write history before it has taken place. They are exercising their rights as citizens to express their judgements, and they are providing the credentials that show that their judgements are based on a firm grasp of the principles at issue.
“There is no definitive proof that Pres. Trump clearly coerced Ukraine to engage in the “fabrication and legitimization of false information””
I agree that there’s no proof in the mathematical or scientific sense. However, I’m quite confident that, were anybody other than Mr. Trump to be tried on the same charges for the same acts, they would be found guilty by a jury of their peers.
“…(such as the fact that members of the Ukrainian embassy were solicited by agents of the Democratic National Committee to dig up dirt on candidate Trump and members of his team)…”
That’s not true. The person who approached the Ukrainian embassy was not at the time an agent of the DNC.
“Furthermore, historians tend to be careful in making conclusions regarding motivation which is something these historians disregard (President Trump acted thus “in order to advance his own re-election”)”
Mr. Trump’s motivation was made clear by his actions. If person A steals object B from person C, we can be quite certain that person A was motivated by a desire to possess object B.
Your claim that Mr. Trump is correct in his assertion that he can do anything he wants is not supported by the Constitution.
Your accusations against Mr. Obama are absurd.
You are welcome to disagree with political opinions, but there’s no question in any rational mind that the judgement of these historians carries far more weight than yours.