He wanted an investigation announcement, based on fake charges from a disgraced prosecutor, using extra-governmental actors to effect a non-governmental policy. He tried to extort their cooperation by violating American Law.

So Mr. Paul Lorenzen of Nampa can fuck all the way off.

For Ukraine in order to pressure the president of Ukraine to do what Trump wanted.

THAT is the real crime.

This sound like something a bunch of Freshman sitting around the dorm room sucking on a bong would come up with.

Trump had every right, indeed an obligation, to see that Biden was investigated if he had reasonable evidence that he may have committed a crime. But that is not what happened here.

They are all members of this government, not another countries government and they have a mandate.

There was nothing to "dig up".

Well done, Sir! There's just one teensy, weensy detail you left out: Trump wasn't asking for a criminal investigation by Ukraine of a political opponent. He has the FBI for that, doesn't he? What Trump was asking Zalensky to do was announce that he was conducting an investigation that both he and Trump knew was bogus, or Zalensky wouldn't see a dime of the aid package for Ukraine that Congress had authorized, and that Trump had signed off on.

Call it a quid pro quo. Call it extortion. Call it bribery. But call it what it is: Illegal. What part of "illegal" doesn't this garbanzo understand?

with the added bonus of starting with "Let us reason together". maybe by "reason" he means "imbibe meth while watching Fox News"

"The claim is that it is a crime for the president, who is running for re-election, to ask for a criminal investigation of his potential political opponent."

this is not "the claim". since he's going to roll with it anyway, i'll tag along for a bit:
"Therefore, based on this premise, it is a crime for one political candidate to ask for an investigation into criminal activity of that candidate’s potential political opponent."
straight-up sloppy induction. it could be a crime for the president but not for political candidates generally. additionally, it ignores specific aspects of the allegations in question, which include leveraging already-allocated public funds to extort compliance from the head of a foreign government and stonewalling legitimate congressional investigations.

it all pretty much falls apart after this sentence, so i'm going to stop here.

"To apply that premise fairly"

Uh huh. /eyeroll

The difference is DAY and NIGHT.

Trump, for corrupt purposes, tried to get a FOREIGN country to investigate a political opponent. The government has always investigated politicians. Hillary was investigated over Benghazi right before the election season by the Republican led congress. It is an oversight function of congress to investigate politicians and granted it should not be purely political (Republicans) but we understand that Congress, as a check and balance can oversee that the other branches of government are not abusing their power. They can and often investigate each other for ethics violations or other issues.

The man is an idiot and likely got that idea from some right wing crackpot on the radio

Money unless they helped smear a political opponent. Also, Trump didn't use govt resources to "investigate." He tried to cover his action, a sign he was aware that his behavior was illegal, by using Giuliani and others.