Abuse of the impeachment process and separation of powers. I keep saying that every time Democrats with the White House or a house of Congress, they act like it's the last ever election, and now they can do whatever they want. Obama & Pelosi last time did away with the courtesies and respect for the issues of the majority with phrases like "elections have consequences." Well, now here's the consequences: Trump gets to do whatever Obama did. He's even held onto the Senate longer than Obama managed. They did this the last time with impeachment, too. They said it was all about sex and that sex shouldn't matter, and so Trump's character is no longer an issue. Trump asked a government of a country with which we have agreements to cooperate on law enforcement matters to look into a publicized issue of corruption. Even if it would have had a personally beneficial end effect by embarrassing a possible rival in the general election down the road, that's not an impeachable offense. Or else the next Democrat who does half the shit Obama did, will be subject to it. Obama used the IRS and FBI against the opposition. He played games with international law enforcement for political advantage. But it's sufficiently within the purview of his office and those agencies that it doesn't meet the test of innocent until proven guilty or that it was an abuse of power. Because that's the real precedent being set here, that no Democrat can ever against a Republic and vice versa. Otherwise it's all "political" and done for political gain. So the Democrats have drastically lowered the bar on impeachment, and expanded the definition of abusing one's office for political gain, because they never stop to think about what this is going to mean when the shoe is on the other foot. We went through all of this with the nuclear option on judicial confirmations, too. Obama broke that unwritten rule that Presidential candidates do not accuse their opponents of lying, and his successor ended up being chosen in one of the most personal and vicious election campaigns in memory. Democrats circled ranks around a President whose obstruction of justice was so flagrant and egregious that Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer boycotted his State of the Union speech, setting a precedent for partisanship. Hey, if you're going to get really picky about using office for political gain, Nancy Pelosi' participation renders the impeachment process illegitimate, because she's in the line of succession to the Presidency and stands to gain from removing Trump and setting a precedent for easier removal.

And what the hell is Obstruction of Congress supposed to be anyway? That's his JOB under the Constitution! The Constitution gives him a veto over legislation enacted by Congress! If that goes down as a real thing, Congress can do this to any President with whom it disagrees. That was explicitly not the intention of the Founding Fathers Pelosi cites, who specifically limited impeachment due to their familiarity with its partisan employment against royal officials, as Parliament had no recourse against royal actions. Trump did not get his office by virtue of birth or other factors outside the nation's control. He was elected under the rules of a system Democrats reject every time the rules go against them, while trying to exploit loopholes or abuse the process (such as only recounting ballots in heavily Democratic counties in 2000, rather than statewide). There are other processes for that. Yes, as a practical matter, there are executive orders they can't stop, but it was not a Republican staffer who gloated about that with the infamous "Stroke of a pen, law of the land. Kind of cool." comment. It was not a Republican who set a record for most executive orders, to the point that even leftwing entertainers were taking note of Obama for it. Otherwise, Congress can propose legislation and override the veto. Congress had the advantage over the President even without impeachment in the original Constitution, but both parties have contributed over the years to a craven surrender of authority to the executive branch, to the point that now it's a matter of partisan pride and ideological urgency to go after anyone in the Oval Office who isn't one of your own.

You don't get to change the rules because you don't like where your own failures have led you.