Exactly what crime did he commit?

I know you guys are unsatisfied about how the charge in Article I -- "Abuse of Power" doesn't have a pre-existing definition. Well, here's my take on it.

The President of the United States, by virtue of the unique nature and powers of his office as our Chief Executive, is capable of doing all sorts of things that average people simply aren't. If we had to pre-define and criminalize all of the possible activities that a U.S. President could engage in, then our task would be endless. That's why the Founders didn't even try. Instead, they wrote the following into our Constitution: a President may be impeached for "treason, bribery, and other high crimes & misdemeanors." Most constitutional scholars regard the last phrase in particular as a flexible one, and a fundamentally political phrase whose ultimate definition resides in the attitudes of Congress itself.

In this case, Congress simply decided that the Trump-Ukraine scheme -- and the total stonewalling by the White House in failure to answer Congressional subpoenas in investigation of the same (Article II) -- amounted to a "high crime or misdemeanor." And yeah, regardless of the precise scope of Executive privilege (a complex legal subject), no one can really say that Congress doesn't get to speak up and exert its power when its own subpoenas are going unanswered.

The total breakdown of the usual horsetrading between our branches of government over executive privilege: This is truly unprecedented! If nothing else -- we're about to make some new law!

Also recall: in (most of our) lifetimes, the Republican Congress defined Bill Clinton's perjury about an Oval Office BJ to be a "high crime and misdemeanor." Not everyone agreed that this lie by Clinton amounted to a "high" crime, but the House of Representatives was still allowed to proceed with impeachment upon that theory. Why? Because they had the votes. Until Clinton was acquitted in the Senate, that is.

What Trump did in Ukraine is not as easy to understand or tabloid-ready as an Oval Office BJ, but a lot of people (myself included) believe that Trump's plans in that regard were far more destabilizing to our republic than a sexual indiscretion.

I know I'll never convince you of that, but that's what it is in a nutshell.

Also, speaking of perjury: If Trump's ever placed under oath about this, you can bet he will perjure himself faster than you can say "Monica" if questioned on almost any subject.

The whole problem with "abuse of power" is that it is subjective and merely an opinion, it can not be proven since it is not defined. You think he abused his power, I think he didn't. How do you prove who is correct?

If the House had bi-partisan support it may have made more sense. In this case, the only bi-partisan support was against it. The whole thing just looks like "we hate him and know we can't beat him in the upcoming election".

The second concern is that while not required, historically, every impeachment had an underlying crime associated with it. In this case, the President is not charged with any crime.

BTW, Clinton's perjury is a high crime as defined by the constitution. He was also charged with the Obstruction of Justice when he refused to release documents after directed to by the SCOTUS.

This whole thing backfired. Every poll has turned against impeachment and it will cost the Democrats.