"Yes. They have done work for Trump under a contract. The work was completed and they asked for payment. Trump said he'd pay 30 cents on the dollar. The businesses told him to pay up the agreed-upon amount. Trump said to sue him and then tied up the case in court forever. He's done it over and over and over again."
That is not the same is inferring bad things will happen if you do not cooperate. That is simply contract violation and should be limited to the private businesses doing business, not involving congress.
"In this case, Trump cut off aid to the Ukraine - just to show that he could." < Quite possibly. but again an assumption with no proof as to intent.
"Then he made a phone call and asked for a favor. < Nothing illegal about that.
"If you can't draw a line between those two events, you are so deep in denial that he could literally shoot someone in Times Square and get away with it because nothing would ever rise to the level of proof to you."
I can draw a line. Tha though does not mean it is actually part of the picture. To see the picture in all of iust reality you need enough pieces of the puzzle falling into position such that there is no doubt a s to what the picture looks like. You have half a puzzle with withheld Aid on it and another half asking a favor. You have nothing that joins the two halves together. Just a belief.
I require real proof. Not desired results based on conjecture.