Two quotes, from this article (my emphasis):
But not put in evidence is the alleged "substantial" evidence. What is it, pray tell, Mr Reines? From what I can see there’s no evidence, let alone substantial. Nothing from Mueller. And Cohen's testimony was a joke from a clown. Nothing impeachable — and that's Harvard Law prof Alan Dershowitz's opinion, not mine.….Substantial evidence has already emerged showing that the president has abused his office to the detriment of the American public.
….the evidence against Mr. Trump so persuasive,
I looked up Trump "abuse of office", which only came up with some pardons he'd made which some people found questionable. But "abuse of office'? That's a tough sell. Consider the number of pardons by recent presidents Carter 566 (plus over 200,000 Viet War draft dodgers), Reagan 406, George H.W. Bush 77, Clinton 459, George w. Bush 200, Obama 212, Trump 7.
So right, it's obvious that Trump is the one that's "abusing the power of pardons"…. Trump's "crime" is, apparently, to have issued pardons in the first part of his presidency, instead of at the end But that's not disallowed, so "abuse"?
To me — and I'm no Trump supporter — the calls of impeachment are a real stretch, purely political and smack of desperation and Trump Derangement Syndrome.
