I honestly cannot understand how he can say anything about his conscience. It isn’t about conscience but facts and the law. The POTUS can be impeached for specific reasons.
Abuse of power is an incredibly nebulous charge and is not one of the enumerated reasons to impeach a POTUS in and of itself. But even if it were, the specific facts and evidence just don’t lead to a guilty charge at all let alone an impeachment. It was Biden who bragged about blackmailing Ukraine to fire the prosecutor. Biden opened this door. Why wouldn’t the POTUS want to know more about that? He is entitled to know what his predecessors dealings were for many reasons related to his job as POTUS. He said “a lot of people are talking about this” - that video was public record, and embarrassing to both the US and Ukraine. Of course Trump had plenty of reasons to inquire about it, and mend fences too among many other reasons. Zelensky took it further and said that the US Ambassador was undermining his government - this is all part of the same conversation - Biden’s video, the Ambassador’s actions, a new government in Ukraine, US-Ukraine relations... all part of the job of POTUS to make good decisions.
And so he asked Zelensky “if you can” (thus not a threat) let the DOJ know what you find out. This is perfectly appropriate. He did not say “tell me” he said refer it to the DOJ, since the DOJ would weigh the evidence of potential corruption, not the office of POTUS. And all the hard evidence supports the POTUS position that he was not demanding anything. Even if he could have gained a political advantage from it, so what? Every incumbent has a huge advantage over the challenger in that they have access to information and world leaders that the challenger does not have. Hillary had some 25 years worth of networking as First Lady (and chief adviser to Clinton), Senator, and Secretary of State and used all of it including allies in the Intel Community to try to dirty up her opponent.
Sondland told all the others in the loop via text message that POTUS wanted no quid pro quo. Sondland testified that POTUS told him he wanted no quid pro quo, only that Zelensky would live up to his campaign promise to crack down on corruption in Ukraine. That is basically the only hard evidence that exists; all the other evidence was opinion but ironically nearly all of those who testified said Ukraine was known for endemic corruption thereby underscoring Trump’s questions about Biden’s blackmail. Ukrainian officials say there was no pressure and they didn’t know anything about delay of aid, and in fact the aid was not delayed or withheld - it was delivered before the Congressionally mandated deadline. POTUS is entitled to review the situation before releasing aid for he is Constitutionally required by Article II Section 3 of the Constitution to see that the laws are faithfully executed. There was a new government in Ukraine sworn in after the aid was appropriated, and then a video of Biden claiming he blackmailed the old government. Trump had every right and responsibility to examine the situation before signing off on the release of funds. If POTUS thought for any reason that the aid was going to be used in a manner contrary to US policy or the law as intended (e.g. corruptly) he could appeal to Congress to rescind the aid. That is, technically speaking, the way the Constitution and the appropriations are structured. He is not just entitled to review the release of aid he is required to under the Constitution.
POTUS Trump did absolutely nothing illegal at all. I don’t know where Romney gets his conscience from but it makes no sense at all.
I do.
In polite company, it's called his "backside".