Would the DA's appearance of impropriety warrant removal from office? In and of itself, I don't think so. But no, I don't want to hear from the other folks. There's already enough reasonable doubt cast by the witnesses that said, "no, I didn't hear the President say it but I assumed by what old so-n-so told us, it was implied by his boss". Sides that, I'll argue that under the three branches of government system, the President has privilege to protect the sanctity of private conversation in the executive branch, from Congress. Old Shifty Schiff and his impeachment team knows better than to take this to court and get his azz handed to him while revealing probably the weakest of his impeachment/obstruction arguments.
I wonder what y'all going to come up with during Trumps second term.
re DA: That depends on how blatant. If any laws were violated. Officials have certainly resigned, or been removed for less.
re Trump: It appears that you and I disagree on whether what he did was OK. Not whether he did it? We agree on the basic facts?
On his orders, aid that had been cleared by the proper agencies was withheld. His top aides, plus Giuliani, Parnas, and Fruman, were enlisted to extract a public announcement of investigations into Burisma, the Bidens, and the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory (that was originally a Russian mis-information campaign according to our intelligence agencies).
Do we agree that his withholding of the aid violated the laws under which that aid was approved? That is the case.
Do we agree that he removed an ambassador who was viewed as very strong working with Ukranian anti-corruption efforts? (Yovanovich)
Do we agree that the two released phone memoranda do not contain Trump discussing 'corruption', but the second does contain discussing investigating Biden?
Do we agree that witnesses did say there was a quid-pro-quo? Fiona Hill, and Sondland were pretty explicit.
What about Trump himself? Do we agree that he has publicly admitted he asked for an investigation into the Bidens? On several occasions to reporter questions, and on Fox and Friends?
As far as the limits of executive privilege, I'll defer to the courts for that one. At least there is precedent there with the Nixon tapes. If the SC holds to that precedent, then documents that are being withheld should be compelled released.