In “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the word “high” doesn’t mean severe. In this sense, “high” refers to crimes against the state. It is not to be taken literally, especially in a modern sense. It is a term from English common law going way back to the 14th Century that the founders used to describe serious breaches of the public trust or duty of office, usually for the benefit of the few to the injury of the state.
You or I, the little people, cannot be charged with this. It is only for those holding positions of power in government, and has historically only been used so. However, Obama is in a high position of power and trust, so anything that he does to violate the public trust or harm the state (bribery in elections), especially to the benefit of the few in power (Specter and the WH), can be considered to be among “high crimes and misdemeanors.” This is true even if it is technically only a minor crime on the books and not legally defined as bribery.
I had not heard about that meaning of the word “high” before. Interesting. If what is being described about the actions of Obama and his subordinates is true, his actions would constitute either bribery or a “high” crime. I doubt one incident of this nature would lead to impeachment but if a pattern can be shown, Obama could have a lot of problems. If it can be established that the Obama people offered federal benefits in both Pennsylvania and Colorado (and perhaps more places), the stuff could hit the fan.