“High crimes and misdemeanors” is obviously a reference to actual legally-defined _crimes_. I’m open to evidence that the Founding Fathers thought otherwise. Considering they were hand-writing the Constitution to fit on a very few sheets of paper, further details were presumably presumed unnecessary.
Yes, the House could theoretically vote for impeachment without enumerating the laws allegedly transgressed and referencing evidence reasonably suggesting transgression thereof, but doing so risks civil war.
Insofar as #14 has a point:
Impeachment can act as a safety valve for gross misconduct - NEVER to be conflated with not accepting the outcome of his election, and casting about for some overwrought pretext to thinly justify undoing the will of voters.
Trump is doing his job. The Left may not like what he’s doing, nor how, but he is in fact doing it and without gratuitous/horrific results (like moving to Fiji incommunicado).
Quibbling over some trumped-up third-hand blather construing normal international diplomacy as somehow horrible doesn’t count.
Trump just has to make sure he doesn’t mis-step. His tweets today about the Ambassador had best be wisely done.
““High crimes and misdemeanors” is obviously a reference to actual legally-defined _crimes_. I’m open to evidence that the Founding Fathers thought otherwise.”
Well, originally the drafters considered language that the President could be impeached “for Treason, or bribery”. However, this resulted in more debate:
“”The clause referring to the Senate, the trial of impeachments agst. the President, for Treason & bribery, was taken up.
“Col. Mason. Why is the provision restrained to Treason & bribery only? Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of Treason. Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as above defined— As bills of attainder which have saved the British Constitution are forbidden, it is the more necessary to extend: the power of impeachments. He moved. to add after `bribery’ `or maladministration’. Mr. Gerry seconded him—
“Mr Madison So vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.
“Mr Govr Morris, it will not be put in force & can do no harm— An election of every four years will prevent maladministration.
“Col. Mason withdrew `maladministration’ & substitutes other high crimes & misdemeanors’(agst. the State’)
“On the question thus altered [the Convention agreed].”
https://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/27014603-8d4e-4ee2-b5cc-19b81e252abd.pdf
So they never actually defined what they meant by it, but obviously they considered that limiting it a list of a couple actual crimes was too narrow, while “maladministration” was too broad. Saying “high crimes and misdemeanors” was perhaps a compromise, but since they never bothered to define that either, it is functionally equivalent of them saying “maladministration”, since they left it to Congress to decide for themselves what it meant, and of course Congress will decide on whichever definition gives them the most power.
This "IS" the dimocraptic party yer talkin about. They haven't been this cheesed since Lincoln freed their slaves.