I've heard multiple media reports do the "bothsides" thing with Morrison's testimony. Yes, he acknowledged there was a quid pro quo. But he didn't think the President committed any crimes. The Dems need to be wary of the rhetorical slight of hand here. nytimes.com/2019/10/31/us/…
This is going to be the new GOP defense they will sell to the public. "Fine, a quid pro quo happened, but that's not a crime, and hence you can't impeach." The Dems have two legitimate ways to counter this talking point.
First, "high crimes and misdemeanors" does not mean that you can only impeach a president for an *actual* crime that's on the books. The phrase was kept intentionally vague to include any significant abuse of executive power, criminal or non-criminal.
Threatening to withhold aid money to a foreign government in return for a politically advantageous investigation into your opponent on made up pretences is a major abuse of power, but it's probably not technically illegal. Still impeachable though.
But that will be hard to message to the public. The second approach the Dems could take is widening the impeachment probe to include the multiple cases of criminal obstruction of justice documented in the Mueller Report. Here there's a parallel with Clinton in '98. 
This GOP talking point will be hard to combat--Clinton was impeached for crimes, Trump did not commit any crimes in that phone call, therefore you can't legitimately impeach Trump.
This piece explains why "high crimes and misdemeanors" does not mean the same thing as "actual crimes," but I fear that argument simply will not resonate with the majority of people who pay little attention to politics or history. theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
So why not include *actual* already-documented crimes in the impeachment? Why not include already documented evidence of emoluments violations? These abuses are arguably less serious than the Ukraine quid pro quo, but they are easier to understand in literal constitutional terms.
