Yes. When you are President and you use the office of President to try and get a foreign power to publicly announce an investigation against your political rival, that is the definition of Abuse of Power. When you blanket order no one to respond to Congressional Subpoenas or allow any evidence documents to be released to Congress upon request.. You must remember you are falling into the republican trap of "legal definition" For example, In your argument, Trump could literally give Alaska to Russia and it wouldn't violate a "law" but it would be abuse of power. Trump could dismantle the armed services and not violate a law.
That's your legal definition? Just listing a specific act and just claiming it's abuse of power that merits impeaching the President. That's a legal definition? When Jefferson made the Louisiana purchase without authorized funding by congress was that abuse of power? Just taking it upon himself to spend taxpayer money? How about when Obama used the IRS to attack his opponents? Woodrow Wilson just by Presidential fiat resegregated the Civil Service? When FDR put Japanese in internment camps? No accusation, no trial, just for being Japanese. Was that abuse of power?
And obstruction of Congress? Why didn't they say obstruction of justice where there is a legal definition? Doing anything that congress doesn't want can be termed obstruction of Congress.
The reason why you didn't give the legal definition of these "crimes" is that there is none? It's arbitrary. It's just what you say it is. That does not rise to the level of impeaching a President duly elected -- and it won't
