Watergate Prosecutor Fumbles in Debate with Joel Pollak: ‘Impeachment Does Not Center on Legal

Breitbart ^ | 11/14/2019 | Robert Kraychik

[Leaning Right]

> Maybe you subscribe to that ‘living constitution’ thing. <

Just the opposite. I believe in taking the Constitution exactly as the Founders originally intended it. And taking a “high crime” to mean a criminal act is incorrect. That would be changing the original intent. Please see my post #9.

[Leaning Right]

> the Founders would define-down “high crimes and misdemeanors” to the point that virtually anything would qualify. That is completely counter-intuitive. <

Not when you think about it. The Founders were trying to guard against a really bad President. Suppose that a President was tyrannical - or even just inattentive to his duties - but not an obvious criminal. How could such a person be removed for the good of the country?

In those days, the only answer was by assassination. The only way to get rid of a bad king was to kill him. So the idea of impeachment came up. And by setting the bar relatively low, the Founders were erring on the side of caution. They had already seen what a bad king could do.

Based on my reading on impeachment, this is my understanding. Perhaps a constitutional scholar among us can shed more light on the matter.

[Windflier]

I believe in taking the Constitution exactly as the Founders originally intended it. And taking a “high crime” to mean a criminal act is incorrect.

Are you hearing yourself?

A high crime is, by definition, a criminal act.

I also don't think it's necessary to 'interpret' the plain meaning of simple English words to understand the Framers' original intent. A high crime is exactly that.