The attorneys general proceeded to pick apart the impeachment articles themselves. The abuse of power article, they claimed, "is based upon a constitutionally-flawed theory" that is "infinitely expansive and subjective" because it relies on the motivation the president had for "exercising concededly lawful constitutional authority" (emphasis in original) that Democrats deemed to be corrupt.
"It cannot be a legitimate basis to impeach a President for acting in a legal manner that may also be politically advantageous," they continued. "Such a standard would be cause for the impeachment of virtually every President, past, present, and future."
The attorneys general claimed that the second article of impeachment, obstruction of Congress, is "equally flawed," arguing that the House's theory means that a president can be impeached for invoking executive privilege. Doing so would render the privilege "meaningless," they said, because it would place the privilege "under unilateral control of the House."
Rather than impeach Trump for using privilege to block witnesses from testifying before the House's impeachment inquiry, they should have gone to court to challenge the president and enforce subpoenas, they said.
The precedent set by this impeachment, they warned, "will erode the separation of powers shared by the executive and legislative branches by subjugating future Presidents to the whims of the majority opposition party in the House of Representatives." https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ags...ical-precedent