Perjury is a crime.

To anyone interested, creative soul reiterates Democrat talking and the arguments of Democrat, anti-Trump professors while dismissing the exculpatory and contrary evidence provided by the opposition.

Trump ordered different people to not honor the subpoena to testify.

That is obstruction.

Clinton's crime was lying under oath about a blowjob. The impeachment of Clinton was not about his lying about a blowjob.

Fer fuck's sake.

Trump ordered different people to not honor the subpoena to testify.

That is obstruction.

Trump has executive privilege.

Executive privilege is the right of the president of the United States and other members of the executive branch to maintain confidential communications under certain circumstances within the executive branch and to resist some subpoenas and other oversight by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of particular information or personnel relating to those confidential communications.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

I'm interested. What's the exculpatory evidence?

"Executive privilege is the right of the president of the United States and other members of the executive branch to maintain confidential communications under certain circumstances within the executive branch and to resist some subpoenas and other oversight by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of particular information or personnel relating to those confidential communications."

The problem is that precedent only points to executive privilege being applicable only selectively. Trump has asserted absolute immunity from oversight. You could argue that this needs to be ruled by the courts, but that overlooks the nature of what the courts do: they don't make law, they just infer what the law is. In this case, it's a virtual certainty that a President does not have absolute immunity from oversight.

Off the top of my head

According to testimony two of the three direct conversations with Trump contained explicit denials of a quid pro quo, including one in August, before the whistleblower complaint was sent to Congress.

The supposed victim, president Zelensky, has denied being pressured on countless occasions.

Andre Yermak, a close aid to Zelensky, denied discussing quid pro quo with Sondland.

The idea that Trump was pressuring Zelensky for political gain was siphoned from the presumptions of a NYT article, and not anything Trump or his administration said.

Trump has executive privilege. — NOS4A2

A president does not have the privilege of obstructing an investigation into his behaviour...

More Fox rhetorical drivel.

A president does not have the privilege of failing to uphold his sworn oath.

Suggestive quote. Here it is with the rather relevant last sentence:

Executive privilege is the right of the president of the United States and other members of the executive branch to maintain confidential communications under certain circumstances within the executive branch and to resist some subpoenas and other oversight by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of particular information or personnel relating to those confidential communications. The right comes into effect when revealing information would impair governmental functions.

A president does not have the privilege of obstructing an investigation into his behaviour...

More Fox rhetorical drivel.

Yes he does have executive privilege, which includes denying congressional subpoenas.

That’s right.

The idea that Trump was pressuring Zelensky for political gain was siphoned from the presumptions of a NYT article, and not anything Trump or his administration said. — NOS4A2

That they explicitly said, not least in the person of statements by Mulvaney.

That is, your "not anything [they] said" is countered with what they exactly and explicitly said. Hmm. what does that make you, nose4?

That they explicitly said, not least in the person of statements by Mulvaney.

That is, your "not anything [they] said" is countered with what they exactly and explicitly said. Hmm. what does that make you, nose4?

That’s right, people were easily misled by bad reporting and using that bad reporting as evidence. You’re in that camp too, Tim.

That’s right, people were easily misled by bad reporting and using that bad reporting as evidence. You’re in that camp too, Tim. — NOS4A2

What bad reporting? It was his mouth saying those words.

You seem a like a pantywaist. Neither are high or low crimes or misdemeanors. Neither are mentioned in the Constitution. — NOS4A2

Did I say anything about the Constitution? No, I was concerned with your claim that "word crimes" are not "actual crimes".

Do you see that you are undeniably wrong? Word crimes are actual crimes. Therefore, If president Trump was involved in word crimes, as you said he was, he is a criminal.

Off the top of my head

According to testimony two of the three direct conversations with Trump contained explicit denials of a quid pro quo, including one in August, before the whistleblower complaint was sent to Congress. — NOS4A2

A guilty person denying a crime is not exculpatory evidence. Exculpatory evidence is evidence that is inconsistent with guilt. For that matter, the corruption of Trump's act is not contingent upon there being a direct quid pro quo.

The supposed victim, president Zelensky, has denied being pressured on countless occasions....Andre Yermak, a close aid to Zelensky, denied discussing quid pro quo with Sondland.

That's exculpatory with regard to a direct bribe, but only implies Zelensky and Yermak did not get direct pressure from Trump. However Zelensky clearly knew that it was in his country's best interest to do whatever Trump asked - so it's still consistent with an abuse of power. Trump's requested "favor" is abuse of power even if it wasn't tied to release of funds. Withholding funds, and then using them to reward Zelensky for that "favor" is even worse.

What bad reporting? It was his mouth saying those words.

What words give evidence that Trump “sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President’s 2020 reelection bid”?

A guilty person denying a crime is not exculpatory evidence. Exculpatory evidence is evidence that is inconsistent with guilt. For that matter, the corruption of Trump's act is not contingent upon there being a direct quid pro quo.

The Dems called no fact-witnesses. There was no investigations. There was no cnn interview. The aid was released. There was no pressure.

Did I say anything about the Constitution? No, I was concerned with your claim that "word crimes" are not "actual crimes".

Do you see that you are undeniably wrong? Word crimes are actual crimes. Therefore, If president Trump was involved in word crimes, as you said he was, he is a criminal.

I never made such a claim.

Yes he does have executive privilege, which includes denying congressional subpoenas. — NOS4A2

Only selectively. He does not have absolute immunity from subpoena, as he claims. Do you sincerely believe that would hold up in court? Past precedent even shows that executive privilege is applicable most narrowly when there is an impeachment investigation.

Only selectively. He does not have absolute immunity from subpoena, as he claims. Do you sincerely believe that would hold up in court? Past precedent even shows that executive privilege is applicable most narrowly when there is an impeachment investigation.

I’m not sure it will hold up in court, but Obama, Bush and Clinton all evoked executive privilege to stonewall congressional investigations. Should they be impeached?

...

I’m not sure it will hold up in court, but Obama, Bush and Clinton all evoked executive privilege to stonewall congressional investigations. Should they be impeached? — NOS4A2

Irrelevant to this situation. Red herring.

Even if they ought, it does not fucking matter here. In fact, if they ought to have been but were not, then we certainly ought to follow the rules now, for that has been part of the problem... if they ought to have been, that is.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/10/18/mulvaney-trump-get-over-it-quid-pro-quo-sot-crn-vpx.cnn

It was only a matter of time before they impeached Trump for word crimes. It was too difficult for them to find actual crimes... — NOS4A2

I was concerned with your claim that "word crimes" are not "actual crimes".

Again, you cannot provide evidence that Trump “sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President’s 2020 reelection bid”.

Irrelevant to this situation. Red herring.

Even if they ought, it does not fucking matter here. In fact, if they ought to have been but were not, then we certainly ought to follow the rules now, for that has been part of the problem... if they ought to have been, that is.

It’s completely relevant. Executives exercising executive privilege is a matter of course, not an impeachable offence.

He never investigated any US citizen. The hold on aid was lifted before the expiry date. — NOS4A2

The request to investigate is wrong when the request is made; it does not magically become wrong only after the request is executed. It's wrong irrespective of whether it was tied to aid; that's a separate issue that makes it even worse - but again here, it's wrong to have ordered it and does not become virtuous when he's caught and releases it.

I had mentioned the impoundment act, which allows delays only for certain specific reasons, which must be documented. This is still under investigation, but preliminary reports indicate the letter of the law may have been broken.