He’s correct in a way. “High crimes and misdemeanors” was not defined by the founding fathers, and has never been defined by Congress, so there is no legal “red line” that has to be crossed to trigger impeachment. It’s a political process based on whatever the hell Congress wants to base it on.
Ropes and lampposts are a political process, too...
> “High crimes and misdemeanors” was not defined by the founding fathers <
I was curious about that, so awhile back I looked it up. Evidently, in the language of the day a “high crime” was any misbehavior by a high official. So while treason would be a high crime, so would coming to work drunk.
“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.
Which means we could fight it even if there was a crime.
The Constitution doesn't have a "Definition of Terms" section. There are plenty of terms in the Constitution.. Doesn't mean that the Constitution can be interpreted anyway people choose.
And just because politicians are the jury in an impeachment trial doesn't mean that the jurors aren't bound by the Constitution, which makes it a legal process.