You can read my post above. Why would someone testifying to Congress be required to detail the crimes in question?What power does a congress person have to control their district?
Apparently the bobolinski bloke never did articulate the behaviors that would fall under RICO.
It's like corruption. That's a category. There are specific corrupt things though which are the crimes. Bribery, installing friends into conflict of interest scenarios, forcing people to hire your friends, getting kickbacks etc. Those are the specific crimes. They are all forms of corruption. Thus if I accuse you of corruption I'm not articulating a crime. I have to say " you took bribes" or something like that.
It's not mysterious.
We can argue about the nuances, but I do think when you are a public official it is a crime to have your family collecting and receiving favors monetary or otherwise using your name. Is it easy to prove quid pro quo? No, not given how are current laws are applied. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be inquiries. That's my opinion. That's all. It's not the end of the Republic.
If you are so concerned about there being no crime here, did you ever express your concern that Congressmen Schiff, Swalwell, etc. didn't express an actual crime when they repeatedly alluded to Trump's collusion with Russians? Just curious.