The President has unique authorities under the law - he can do things that would land ordinary citizens in jail. So the question isn’t whether he has those authorities, because he does, but rather whether or not he abused his power. And he did.
Searching for a specific statutory or even constitutional violation is a bit of a trap. It turns this thing into an ordinary trial. The question is more basic than that. Are his actions so reckless and corrupt and corrosive that they are crimes against the country?
And the Congress was supposed to make this judgement. Has this person done so much violence to our system that it warrants removal? That’s why there’s no specific evidentiary threshold or stuff like that. We have to decide if this person has violated his oath.
This isn’t purely a legal judgement to make. This is about what kinds of boundaries our country should establish around criminal, immoral, and corrupt behavior, for future presidencies.
