you might want to read US v Mcdonald.
and an hour ago you were arguing the federal statutes didn't matter.
http://tigerboard.com/boards/view.php?message=16612827
(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;
the DoJ has already ruled nothing of value was exchanged, promised, etc. Their opinion was in regard to a campaign finance violation, but it also applies to extortion and bribery. For good measure they also said delaying federal aid was a foreign policy issue not a matter of criminal law.
Federal Criminal Resource Manual says there MUST be a quid pro quo and it MUST be a corrupt intent; which is another thing NOT in evidence.
asking Ukraine to look into Ukrainian meddling in general and Hunter Biden self-dealing, in particular, can be beneficial to Trump personally and, despite the crazy left's assertion otherwise, beneficial to the country.
if we impeached a president every time he did something that was politically beneficial to him personally we'd have impeachments non-stop.
for extra credit, I'd suggest you read this
https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-834-intent-partiesEdited by blake1771 at 16:17:57 on 12/04/19