It’s this for me: we’d agree that im🍑ment has to be for something grave and profoundly wrong; we can imagine infinite instances that each would form an undeniable ground as agreed to by any reasonable person; we ought to agree that im🍑ment has to have a common bottom, that is to say, broad popular support to be something different from a mere tactical political instrument.
But here, on what’s known, let alone specifically proved by direct evidence, im🍑ment is explicitly purely partisan save that some Ds in Congress may vote against it and not a single R will vote for it. Same thing likely when it reaches the Senate, maybe Romney excepted on the R side.
And bigger but, the public is either on each side of a partisan divide or with those less or not partisan, the independents, by a small majority tilting against it.
So, to my mind, the grounds asserted haven’t reached that critical mass that in principle should justify it.
The hyperbolic instance of Trump’s getting away with shooting someone on 5th Avenue is actually instructive. For if he had done something clearly analogous to that, whether blue or white collar, whether a high crime or a high misdemeanour, there would be no issue. He’d be gone on a basis transcending partisanship.
Otherwise, we have 3 elite law professors who hate Trump, who wear their predisposition against him like a blindingly bright red cape around their shoulders, telling from on high us poor dimwits the way it unmistakably is.
Mind you, one elite law prof who also has no use for Trump takes profound and persuasive issue with his peers’ certainty.
Tell a regular person with no predetermined view on im🍑ment of Trump the salient positive and negative proven facts of the Ukrainian issue and then ask whether it amounts to a basis for removing him.
What answer then?
My hunch is a “Meh, no.”