After reading the "transcript" of the call and the Whistleblower complaint, my only question is what high crime(s) and/or misdemeanors have Trump, Barr and others committed to frame the impeachment inquiry? I understand that using the Office of the Presidency and leveraging financial aid to strong arm a foreign leader into gathering dirt on a political rival is awful, awful behavior that is blatantly un-Presidential and should never be condoned, but what law or Constitutional provision is being broken? In other words, taking everything that has been reported as true, are there grounds (high crimes and misdemeanors) to impeach?
If carried out and not reported, could this ask for Ukranian assistance be deemed a campaign finance violation? To me, it seems that the Stormy Daniels stuff is far more compelling and easier to prove since it was completed and the fixer who organized it has already been convicted. Trump's delay of aid, by itself, doesn't seem to be criminal, and just asking for dirt and a sham, politically-motivated investigation doesn't seem to raise a campaign finance issue.
Is it the cover-up, which included reclassifying and destruction of the actual transcript of the call, and possible violations of the Whistleblower Act? Seems like the ever expanding claims of executive privilege would need to be litigated before this claim gets fully vetted, as those are the purported justifications for delaying disclosure. Now that it's mostly been disclosed and the Whistleblower has been protected, is there a violation?
Is it more general, loyalty to office and allegiance to the Constitution stuff? I get that these factual allegations, which have essentially been admitted to by the White House, are repulsive on their face, but such esoteric reliance upon basic ethical principles and official duty went out the window a long time ago with this band of grifters. Is using your office for private political gain expressly prohibited in the Constitution/Code?
Is there something more specific? If not, it seems that a more methodical approach that includes obstruction of justice, emoluments, campaign finance, and other misdeeds would close the door on Republicans arguing "Even if he did it. What's the crime?" It would take more time to flesh all of this out, but wouldn't that be a safer and more effective route?