Decided to read the WSJ editorial after the first day of the presnetation

No, am not "promoting" right wing propaganda, just wanted to see if there is any merit. And, as aside, during the 2016 campaign the WSJ had no use for Trump and I posted many of the opinions. They disagree with his policies on immigration, on tariff, but like the tax cuts..

Anyhoo,, will insert my comments in bold

As House managers make their impeachment case, many Americans will dismiss it all as a partisan effort that hasn’t persuaded the country and will die in the Senate. They have a point. But the precedents that Democrats are setting could live on, so forgive us if we explain how dangerous the House’s impeachment logic is to future Presidents and the Constitution’s separation of powers.

Especially pernicious is the new House “corrupt purposes” standard for removing a President from office. The House managers don’t assert that any specific action by President Trump was an abuse of power or a violation of law. They don’t deny he can delay aid to a foreign country or ask a foreign leader to investigate corruption. Presidents do that all the time. Instead they assert in their first impeachment article that Mr. Trump is guilty of “abuse of power” because he committed those acts for “corrupt purposes.”

Not true. They do, of course, "assert" specific action, the pressure on the Ukraine. Yes, presidents "do it all the time" but not to hurt a political opponent.

As an aside here, we should repeat that a President doesn’t have to break a specific law to commit an impeachable offense. Mr. Trump’s lawyers are wrong on this point. Presidents were accused of breaking specific laws in America’s three previous impeachments. But under the Constitution a President can commit “high crimes and misdemeanors” if he commits non-criminal acts that exceed his executive authority or if he refuses to execute the law. But this means committing specific acts that are impeachable in and of themselves. Examples might be deploying U.S. troops against political opponents, or suspending habeas corpus without Congressional assent. (Lincoln received a Congressional pass in wartime.)

House Democrats are going much further and declaring that Mr. Trump’s acts are impeachable because he did them for “personal political benefit.” He isn’t accused of corruption per se. His Ukraine interventions are said to be corrupt because he intended them to help him win re-election this year. In other words, his actions were impeachable only because his motives were self-serving.

This should be enough,

Think about this in the context of history and as a precedent. Every President has made foreign-policy decisions that he thinks may help his re-election. That’s what President Obama did in 2012 when he asked Dmitry Medvedev to tell Vladimir Putin to ease up on missile defense until after the election. Mitt Romney was criticizing Mr. Obama for being soft on Mr. Putin, and Mr. Obama wanted a political favor from the dictator to help him win re-election.

Again, Mr. Obama may have wanted a foreign leader to help him in re election, but not to investigate a political opponent.

As 21 Republican state attorneys general explained in an important letter to the Senate on Wednesday, “It cannot be a legitimate basis to impeach a President for acting in a legal manner that may also be politically advantageous. Such a standard would be cause for the impeachment of virtually every President, past, present, and future.”

I don't trust "21 Republican state attorneys general." They have their own agenda

More..

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-corrupt-purposes-impeachment-11579737006 (subscription)

====

As I was posting this I realized how they got themselves into a pretzel. But, no doubt, this is what the other side is claiming so just that we know.