no need to....The HIGH in a high crime etc, is a person of high authority... A president, a judge, a VP, a prime Minister and even a King.... high is not the degree of a crime, it is usually misconduct, an abuse of power of someone in higher authority... basically, it does not need to be a felony or misdemeanor under a statute of Law.... it can be.... but does not have to be.These are the nascent stages of an eventual impeachment. First an inquiry than a vote for the AOI.
Inquiry into what? You cannot inquire into crime that has not been committed.
here are some of the alleged crimes
The possible crimes in the Trump-Ukraine scandal, explained
Allegations of wrongdoing are flying around — a record of a July 25 phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reads more like a mafia shakedown than a conversation between two world leaders. Trump asks Zelensky to do him a “favor,” i.e. dig up dirt on his political rival Joe Biden. Trump then suggested that Zelensky take this offline and talk with Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and US Attorney William Barr about it. In the background, Trump had frozen American aid to Ukraine, a strong-arm move that some on the internet pointed out would make Tony Soprano proud.
1.
Did Trump or his associates violate campaign finance law?
Federal law makes it illegal to “solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation” from a foreign national. The question of whether or not the president ran afoul of that law certainly seems in play in light of what we saw in the transcript.
For purposes of this statute, a “contribution or donation” is defined as “money” or another “thing of value.” So a prosecution of Trump would hinge upon whether the opposition research Trump sought on Biden constitutes such a “thing of value.” Barr and Giuliani, meanwhile, could be considered accomplices in Trump’s effort to obtain opposition research from Ukraine’s president.
Continued at link.
2.
Does Trump’s act constitute bribery?
Prosecutors might also look to a federal anti-bribery statute, which imposes criminal sanctions on a public official who “corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for ... being influenced in the performance of any official act.”
Any prosecution under this statute would raise similar issues to the ones that arise under the campaign finance law. Does opposition research constitute “anything of value”? Ultimately, that question would need to be resolved by the courts.
Continued at link above.
3.
Did he commit extortion?
Writing in the Daily Beast, former United States Attorney Barbara McQuade points to the Hobbs Act, a federal anti-extortion law, as another possible source of criminal liability against Trump.
The Hobbs Act prohibits actions that “in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion.” The word “extortion,” is defined as “obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.”
The magic words here are “under color of official right.” This language refers to public officials who use their office to pressure another person. As the Supreme Court has explained, to show that a criminal defendant acted under color of official right, “the Government need only show that a public official has obtained a payment to which he was not entitled, knowing that the payment was made in return for official acts.”
Thus, if Trump blocked military assistance to Ukraine in order to extract a payment from that country, that could form the basis for a Hobbs Act prosecution.
contunued at link above...
4.
Did he obstruct justice?
Several other federal laws make it a crime to tamper with documents related to a federal investigation. One statute, for example, imposes criminal liability on anyone who “knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence” a federal investigation. If Trump or one of his associates committed such an act to cover up other potentially criminal activity, they could face prison time (though, again, any prosecution of Trump would have to wait until he leaves office).
At this stage, however, we can’t know for sure whether such a cover-up took place — although a whistleblower accused White House officials of moving the transcript of Trump’s call with Zelensky to a “separate electronic system that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature.” The White House, in other words, may have tried to shield Trump from political damage by hiding the transcript in a system normally afforded to the most sensitive national security information.
Whether this attempt to conceal the transcript was done at Trump’s behest and whether it was done specifically to obstruct a federal investigation are not yet known. So it remains to be seen whether an obstruction case could be built against Trump or against other Trump administration officials.
Vox? why not just go with the latest speculation from 'think progress'?
it is supported by the very facts that have been presented to us, so far...
it's simply a few of the laws that COULD have been broken... (though no actual law needs to be broken to actually impeach...it can be for an abuse of power)
thus the need to do this inquiry and determine if the allegations are supported or squashed....