isn't. there's just the phone call and the coercion and the push and the ask. how do you see that fitting with what the framers describe in the constitution as bribery, treason or other high crimes and misdemeanors? >> well, if there's no quid pro quo even implicit, then i think we're talking about arguable high crime and misdemeanor, and that would be the question. and that term was actually well understood. it referred to terrible abuses of authority. and if what happened was there was an exercise of implicit influence to try to get an investigation of an american citizen who was also a potential political opponent of the president, then we are in the domain of an arguable high crime and misdemeanor. >> if we are then -- if you then stipulate there was a quid pro quo as i think the evidence continues to show, although we're going to have a whole hearing about this, it seems to me there's two named crimes and other category. treason, high crimes and