What is an impeachable offense?

[colfax_m]

Congress (The House and Senate) can impeach and then remove Trump from office for having 2 scoops of ice cream if the votes are there. I don't think the supreme court has a say as to whether the articles of impeachment meet the constitutional standard of high crimes or misdemeanors.

Dershowitz disagrees with this too, unfortunately. He believes that SCOTUS has the power to invalidate an impeachment verdict should the president refuse to adhere to it.

Well he is a law professor. But I don't see an avenue cited in the constitution for the supreme court to step in.

The SCOTUS is seen as arbiter between disputes between Congress and the President. Should the President dispute the Constitutionality of the Congress's impeachment, I suppose it's feasible that SCOTUS would have to weigh in. However, such a decision would have to be if something grossly problematic were to have happened, i.e. the Senate kicks out all the members of the opposing party in the trial or something absurd. I don't think they'd get involved over the particulars about what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor.

 

[justoffal]

Alan Dershowitz, favorite lawyer of the Trump team and many of his supporters has declared that an impeachable offense must be a criminal violation. He offers this hypothetical in one of his books and a column published in Newsweek in 2018.

Or take a more extreme example. Assume Putin decides to "retake" Alaska, the way he "retook" Crimea. Assume further that a president allows him to do it, because he believed that Russia has a legitimate claim to its original territory. That would be terrible, but would it be impeachable? Not under the text of the Constitution. (It would, of course, be different if he did it because he was paid or extorted.) Such a dramatic event might appropriately result in a constitutional amendment broadening the criteria for impeachment, but it would not justify ignoring or defying the words of our current Constitution.

The framers of the Constitution did not provide an impeachment remedy for an incompetent, nasty, even tyrannical president—unless he committed a designated crime. Perhaps they should have, but Congress is not authorized to "correct" constitutional errors or omissions through unconstitutional actions in impeaching and removing a president who has not committed a designate crime. Perhaps the framers should have required a majority vote rather than a two-thirds vote to assure that a tyrannical president is removed. But the remedy lies in amending the Constitution, not violating it. The appropriate response to executive tyranny is not legislative tyranny.

I don't think this stands to constitutional muster. High crimes and misdemeanors should not be considered solely as a part of criminal law but as an abuse of powers granted to them or a violation of public trust in Federalist Paper number 65.

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

Indeed, the term high crime and misdemeanor is a common law term added specifically to make sure that the president could be removed for the types of behavior not defined by criminal law.

Debate prior to adoption of the phrase and comments thereafter in the ratifying conventions were to the effect that the President (all the debate was in terms of the President) should be removable by impeachment for commissions or omissions in office which were not criminally cognizable.

In fact, going through US history, less than a third of impeachments have included crimes as an article of impeachment according to the Congressional Research Office.

Less than a third have specifically invoked a criminal statute or used the term “crime.”64 For example, in 1803, Judge John Pickering was impeached and convicted for, among other things, appearing on the bench “in a state of total intoxication.”65 In 1912, Judge Robert W. Archbald was impeached and convicted for abusing his position as a judge by inducing parties before him to enter financial transactions with him.66 In 1936, Judge Halstead Ritter was impeached and convicted for conduct that “br[ought] his court into disrepute, to the prejudice of said court and public confidence in the administration of justice ... and to the prejudice of public respect for and confidence in the federal judiciary.”67 And a number of judges were impeached for misusing their position for personal profit.68

Two questions. Do you think Dershowitz's example of allowing Alaska to be annexed by Russia is impeachable? Does Dershowitz's opinion on what consitutes an impeachable offense stand up to scrutiny?

That's the whole point doofus.... There aren't any. There is no such thing as an impeachable offense there is only the majority and the target.

Jo

Not according to Mr. Dershowitz. Impeachable offenses are limited exclusively to criminal offenses.

He's wrong....and I think he knows it.

Jo

 

[colfax_m]

One thing is clear ... the Constitution clearly gives the legislative branch exclusive rights to the impeachment and trial procedures ... Congress alone decides what an impeachable offense is ... for example, it's not a crime to have sex outside of marriage, but we can and do remove judges for dorking defendants during trial ... not a crime, just looks bad ...

Has anyone ever filed a Federal lawsuit regarding impeachment and removal from office? ... if so, what did the courts say about it? ... what's the precedent? ...

I'm not a legal expert by any means but I've heard of some cases. Nixon v US is one such trial. (not that Nixon)

The case affirms that Congress has broad authority to impeach with little if any judicial involvement.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Adding to the very informative OP is this: Dershowitz is contradicting what he claimed during the impeachment of Pres. Clinton, claiming the exact opposite of what he wrote in "Newsweek.

The same can be said about Sen. Graham who has flipped from what he said during the Clinton Impeachment.

These characters are being exposed for the hypocrites they are. IMO both seek a seat on the Supreme Court, and that is why they have sided with trump, whose divisive rhetoric has divided our nation and mislead the gullible with his demagoguery.

Clinton lied under oath.

Trump hasn't the balls to testify under oath, truth is alien to his character. And both Graham and Dershowitz have been exposed as hypocrites.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Adding to the very informative OP is this: Dershowitz is contradicting what he claimed during the impeachment of Pres. Clinton, claiming the exact opposite of what he wrote in "Newsweek.

The same can be said about Sen. Graham who has flipped from what he said during the Clinton Impeachment.

These characters are being exposed for the hypocrites they are. IMO both seek a seat on the Supreme Court, and that is why they have sided with trump, whose divisive rhetoric has divided our nation and mislead the gullible with his demagoguery.

Clinton lied under oath.

Trump hasn't the balls to testify under oath, truth is alien to his character. And both Graham and Dershowitz have been exposed as hypocrites.

 

[JoeMoma]

I doubt that a vote of 67 or more senators will be reached without actual crimes as part of the articles of impeachment.

 

[NightFox]

The case affirms that Congress has broad authority to impeach with little if any judicial involvement.

Yes, look at the Constitution

Article I, section 2, Clause 5
"The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

Article II, section 4
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"

Nowhere in the Constitution is "Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" defined, therefor an IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE is whatever the House of Representatives says it is, period, end of story, no further explanation required.

If the HoR wants to impeach the President for spitting on the sidewalk they have the Constitutional Authority to do so; they'll have to answer to the voters in the end.

 

[JoeMoma]

Adding to the very informative OP is this: Dershowitz is contradicting what he claimed during the impeachment of Pres. Clinton, claiming the exact opposite of what he wrote in "Newsweek.

The same can be said about Sen. Graham who has flipped from what he said during the Clinton Impeachment.

These characters are being exposed for the hypocrites they are. IMO both seek a seat on the Supreme Court, and that is why they have sided with trump, whose divisive rhetoric has divided our nation and mislead the gullible with his demagoguery.

Clinton lied under oath.

Trump hasn't the balls to testify under oath, truth is alien to his character. And both Graham and Dershowitz have been exposed as hypocrites.

Trump would be wise to not testify under oath regardless of his guilt or innocence.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I ll Dumb it down for the Leftists. One cannot be impeached on an opinion. Clinton die lie under oath but it was over something stupid. I was 18 then and didn’t care but that impeachment now that I look back was idiotic.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Alan Dershowitz, favorite lawyer of the Trump team and many of his supporters has declared that an impeachable offense must be a criminal violation. He offers this hypothetical in one of his books and a column published in Newsweek in 2018.

Or take a more extreme example. Assume Putin decides to "retake" Alaska, the way he "retook" Crimea. Assume further that a president allows him to do it, because he believed that Russia has a legitimate claim to its original territory. That would be terrible, but would it be impeachable? Not under the text of the Constitution. (It would, of course, be different if he did it because he was paid or extorted.) Such a dramatic event might appropriately result in a constitutional amendment broadening the criteria for impeachment, but it would not justify ignoring or defying the words of our current Constitution.

The framers of the Constitution did not provide an impeachment remedy for an incompetent, nasty, even tyrannical president—unless he committed a designated crime. Perhaps they should have, but Congress is not authorized to "correct" constitutional errors or omissions through unconstitutional actions in impeaching and removing a president who has not committed a designate crime. Perhaps the framers should have required a majority vote rather than a two-thirds vote to assure that a tyrannical president is removed. But the remedy lies in amending the Constitution, not violating it. The appropriate response to executive tyranny is not legislative tyranny.

I don't think this stands to constitutional muster. High crimes and misdemeanors should not be considered solely as a part of criminal law but as an abuse of powers granted to them or a violation of public trust in Federalist Paper number 65.

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

Indeed, the term high crime and misdemeanor is a common law term added specifically to make sure that the president could be removed for the types of behavior not defined by criminal law.

Debate prior to adoption of the phrase and comments thereafter in the ratifying conventions were to the effect that the President (all the debate was in terms of the President) should be removable by impeachment for commissions or omissions in office which were not criminally cognizable.

In fact, going through US history, less than a third of impeachments have included crimes as an article of impeachment according to the Congressional Research Office.

Less than a third have specifically invoked a criminal statute or used the term “crime.”64 For example, in 1803, Judge John Pickering was impeached and convicted for, among other things, appearing on the bench “in a state of total intoxication.”65 In 1912, Judge Robert W. Archbald was impeached and convicted for abusing his position as a judge by inducing parties before him to enter financial transactions with him.66 In 1936, Judge Halstead Ritter was impeached and convicted for conduct that “br[ought] his court into disrepute, to the prejudice of said court and public confidence in the administration of justice ... and to the prejudice of public respect for and confidence in the federal judiciary.”67 And a number of judges were impeached for misusing their position for personal profit.68

Two questions. Do you think Dershowitz's example of allowing Alaska to be annexed by Russia is impeachable? Does Dershowitz's opinion on what consitutes an impeachable offense stand up to scrutiny?

That's the whole point doofus.... There aren't any. There is no such thing as an impeachable offense there is only the majority and the target.

Jo

Not according to Mr. Dershowitz. Impeachable offenses are limited exclusively to criminal offenses.

He's wrong....and I think he knows it.

Jo

High crimes and misdemeanors!!! Not for political disagreements.

 

[NightFox]

Adding to the very informative OP is this: Dershowitz is contradicting what he claimed during the impeachment of Pres. Clinton, claiming the exact opposite of what he wrote in "Newsweek.

The same can be said about Sen. Graham who has flipped from what he said during the Clinton Impeachment.

These characters are being exposed for the hypocrites they are. IMO both seek a seat on the Supreme Court, and that is why they have sided with trump, whose divisive rhetoric has divided our nation and mislead the gullible with his demagoguery.

Clinton lied under oath.

Trump hasn't the balls to testify under oath, truth is alien to his character. And both Graham and Dershowitz have been exposed as hypocrites.

Trump would be wise to not testify under oath regardless of his guilt or innocence.

I agree; Donny doesn't have to prove his innocence and testifying would carry a high degree of risk with respect to giving his political opponents more ammunition to use against him.

 

[colfax_m]

Alan Dershowitz, favorite lawyer of the Trump team and many of his supporters has declared that an impeachable offense must be a criminal violation. He offers this hypothetical in one of his books and a column published in Newsweek in 2018.

Or take a more extreme example. Assume Putin decides to "retake" Alaska, the way he "retook" Crimea. Assume further that a president allows him to do it, because he believed that Russia has a legitimate claim to its original territory. That would be terrible, but would it be impeachable? Not under the text of the Constitution. (It would, of course, be different if he did it because he was paid or extorted.) Such a dramatic event might appropriately result in a constitutional amendment broadening the criteria for impeachment, but it would not justify ignoring or defying the words of our current Constitution.

The framers of the Constitution did not provide an impeachment remedy for an incompetent, nasty, even tyrannical president—unless he committed a designated crime. Perhaps they should have, but Congress is not authorized to "correct" constitutional errors or omissions through unconstitutional actions in impeaching and removing a president who has not committed a designate crime. Perhaps the framers should have required a majority vote rather than a two-thirds vote to assure that a tyrannical president is removed. But the remedy lies in amending the Constitution, not violating it. The appropriate response to executive tyranny is not legislative tyranny.

I don't think this stands to constitutional muster. High crimes and misdemeanors should not be considered solely as a part of criminal law but as an abuse of powers granted to them or a violation of public trust in Federalist Paper number 65.

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

Indeed, the term high crime and misdemeanor is a common law term added specifically to make sure that the president could be removed for the types of behavior not defined by criminal law.

Debate prior to adoption of the phrase and comments thereafter in the ratifying conventions were to the effect that the President (all the debate was in terms of the President) should be removable by impeachment for commissions or omissions in office which were not criminally cognizable.

In fact, going through US history, less than a third of impeachments have included crimes as an article of impeachment according to the Congressional Research Office.

Less than a third have specifically invoked a criminal statute or used the term “crime.”64 For example, in 1803, Judge John Pickering was impeached and convicted for, among other things, appearing on the bench “in a state of total intoxication.”65 In 1912, Judge Robert W. Archbald was impeached and convicted for abusing his position as a judge by inducing parties before him to enter financial transactions with him.66 In 1936, Judge Halstead Ritter was impeached and convicted for conduct that “br[ought] his court into disrepute, to the prejudice of said court and public confidence in the administration of justice ... and to the prejudice of public respect for and confidence in the federal judiciary.”67 And a number of judges were impeached for misusing their position for personal profit.68

Two questions. Do you think Dershowitz's example of allowing Alaska to be annexed by Russia is impeachable? Does Dershowitz's opinion on what consitutes an impeachable offense stand up to scrutiny?

That's the whole point doofus.... There aren't any. There is no such thing as an impeachable offense there is only the majority and the target.

Jo

Not according to Mr. Dershowitz. Impeachable offenses are limited exclusively to criminal offenses.

He's wrong....and I think he knows it.

Jo

Yes. It's taking a position that is so clearly opposed to all available evidence, one has to wonder how he reached it.

 

[NightFox]

I ll Dumb it down for the Leftists. One cannot be impeached on an opinion. Clinton die lie under oath but it was over something stupid. I was 18 then and didn’t care but that impeachment now that I look back was idiotic.

Yes one can be "impeached on an opinion", heck one can be impeached on a hallucination if a majority of the House of Representatives shares said hallucination and votes yes on the question.

 

[justoffal]

The case affirms that Congress has broad authority to impeach with little if any judicial involvement.

Yes, look at the Constitution

Article I, section 2, Clause 5
"The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

Article II, section 4
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"

Nowhere in the Constitution is "Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" defined, therefor an IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE is whatever the House of Representatives says it is, period, end of story, no further explanation required.

If the HoR wants to impeach the President for spitting on the sidewalk they have the Constitutional Authority to do so; they'll have to answer to the voters in the end.

That is correct. However I'm pretty sure the founding fathers assumed that intelligent restraint would also prevail unlike this time.

Pulling out impeachment in the context of the current situation this pretty much like loading up the 16-inch guns on the Massachusetts to kill a rabbit. While they are technically within their rights to do it the House of Representatives just committed political suicide.

Jo

 

[ReinyDays]

Nixon v. United States - Wikipedia

Judges aren't allowed to decide if judges can be removed from office ... makes sense ...

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I ll Dumb it down for the Leftists. One cannot be impeached on an opinion. Clinton die lie under oath but it was over something stupid. I was 18 then and didn’t care but that impeachment now that I look back was idiotic.

Yes one can be "impeached on an opinion", heck one can be impeached on a hallucination if a majority of the House of Representatives shares said hallucination and votes yes on the question.

My bad. I should have said one SHOULD not be impeached on an opinion

 

[colfax_m]

Just think of the insanity you're subjecting the country to if you agree with Dershowitz that it requires a criminal offense to impeach a president.

The president could order an end to all investigations into his political allies crimes. He could order investigations into all his political opponents. He could demand that his tax returns be off limits to audit from the IRS. He could demand all government employees stay at his properties when traveling for official business.

None of this is illegal. It's all just abuse of power. Which is apparently totally permissible by the constitution according to Dershowitz.

 

[justoffal]

Alan Dershowitz, favorite lawyer of the Trump team and many of his supporters has declared that an impeachable offense must be a criminal violation. He offers this hypothetical in one of his books and a column published in Newsweek in 2018.

Or take a more extreme example. Assume Putin decides to "retake" Alaska, the way he "retook" Crimea. Assume further that a president allows him to do it, because he believed that Russia has a legitimate claim to its original territory. That would be terrible, but would it be impeachable? Not under the text of the Constitution. (It would, of course, be different if he did it because he was paid or extorted.) Such a dramatic event might appropriately result in a constitutional amendment broadening the criteria for impeachment, but it would not justify ignoring or defying the words of our current Constitution.

The framers of the Constitution did not provide an impeachment remedy for an incompetent, nasty, even tyrannical president—unless he committed a designated crime. Perhaps they should have, but Congress is not authorized to "correct" constitutional errors or omissions through unconstitutional actions in impeaching and removing a president who has not committed a designate crime. Perhaps the framers should have required a majority vote rather than a two-thirds vote to assure that a tyrannical president is removed. But the remedy lies in amending the Constitution, not violating it. The appropriate response to executive tyranny is not legislative tyranny.

I don't think this stands to constitutional muster. High crimes and misdemeanors should not be considered solely as a part of criminal law but as an abuse of powers granted to them or a violation of public trust in Federalist Paper number 65.

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

Indeed, the term high crime and misdemeanor is a common law term added specifically to make sure that the president could be removed for the types of behavior not defined by criminal law.

Debate prior to adoption of the phrase and comments thereafter in the ratifying conventions were to the effect that the President (all the debate was in terms of the President) should be removable by impeachment for commissions or omissions in office which were not criminally cognizable.

In fact, going through US history, less than a third of impeachments have included crimes as an article of impeachment according to the Congressional Research Office.

Less than a third have specifically invoked a criminal statute or used the term “crime.”64 For example, in 1803, Judge John Pickering was impeached and convicted for, among other things, appearing on the bench “in a state of total intoxication.”65 In 1912, Judge Robert W. Archbald was impeached and convicted for abusing his position as a judge by inducing parties before him to enter financial transactions with him.66 In 1936, Judge Halstead Ritter was impeached and convicted for conduct that “br[ought] his court into disrepute, to the prejudice of said court and public confidence in the administration of justice ... and to the prejudice of public respect for and confidence in the federal judiciary.”67 And a number of judges were impeached for misusing their position for personal profit.68

Two questions. Do you think Dershowitz's example of allowing Alaska to be annexed by Russia is impeachable? Does Dershowitz's opinion on what consitutes an impeachable offense stand up to scrutiny?

That's the whole point doofus.... There aren't any. There is no such thing as an impeachable offense there is only the majority and the target.

Jo

Not according to Mr. Dershowitz. Impeachable offenses are limited exclusively to criminal offenses.

He's wrong....and I think he knows it.

Jo

Yes. It's taking a position that is so clearly opposed to all available evidence, one has to wonder how he reached it.

If I was Trump I would turn down Dershowitz's help. I'm not 100% sure that he's there to help. He is an extremely intelligent man and I cannot believe that he's taking this position sincerely.... He just plain knows better.

Jo

 

[The Original Tree]

Alan Dershowitz, favorite lawyer of the Trump team and many of his supporters has declared that an impeachable offense must be a criminal violation. He offers this hypothetical in one of his books and a column published in Newsweek in 2018.

Or take a more extreme example. Assume Putin decides to "retake" Alaska, the way he "retook" Crimea. Assume further that a president allows him to do it, because he believed that Russia has a legitimate claim to its original territory. That would be terrible, but would it be impeachable? Not under the text of the Constitution. (It would, of course, be different if he did it because he was paid or extorted.) Such a dramatic event might appropriately result in a constitutional amendment broadening the criteria for impeachment, but it would not justify ignoring or defying the words of our current Constitution.

The framers of the Constitution did not provide an impeachment remedy for an incompetent, nasty, even tyrannical president—unless he committed a designated crime. Perhaps they should have, but Congress is not authorized to "correct" constitutional errors or omissions through unconstitutional actions in impeaching and removing a president who has not committed a designate crime. Perhaps the framers should have required a majority vote rather than a two-thirds vote to assure that a tyrannical president is removed. But the remedy lies in amending the Constitution, not violating it. The appropriate response to executive tyranny is not legislative tyranny.

I don't think this stands to constitutional muster. High crimes and misdemeanors should not be considered solely as a part of criminal law but as an abuse of powers granted to them or a violation of public trust in Federalist Paper number 65.

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

Indeed, the term high crime and misdemeanor is a common law term added specifically to make sure that the president could be removed for the types of behavior not defined by criminal law.

Debate prior to adoption of the phrase and comments thereafter in the ratifying conventions were to the effect that the President (all the debate was in terms of the President) should be removable by impeachment for commissions or omissions in office which were not criminally cognizable.

In fact, going through US history, less than a third of impeachments have included crimes as an article of impeachment according to the Congressional Research Office.

Less than a third have specifically invoked a criminal statute or used the term “crime.”64 For example, in 1803, Judge John Pickering was impeached and convicted for, among other things, appearing on the bench “in a state of total intoxication.”65 In 1912, Judge Robert W. Archbald was impeached and convicted for abusing his position as a judge by inducing parties before him to enter financial transactions with him.66 In 1936, Judge Halstead Ritter was impeached and convicted for conduct that “br[ought] his court into disrepute, to the prejudice of said court and public confidence in the administration of justice ... and to the prejudice of public respect for and confidence in the federal judiciary.”67 And a number of judges were impeached for misusing their position for personal profit.68

Two questions. Do you think Dershowitz's example of allowing Alaska to be annexed by Russia is impeachable? Does Dershowitz's opinion on what consitutes an impeachable offense stand up to scrutiny?

No such thing can be found in The Articles sent by Pelosi. It's an extremely poor example of what an genuine impeachment should look like. My bet is they are dismissed, but Trump might want to use it to bludgeon The Democrat Party with to expose them further.

 

[justoffal]

Alan Dershowitz, favorite lawyer of the Trump team and many of his supporters has declared that an impeachable offense must be a criminal violation. He offers this hypothetical in one of his books and a column published in Newsweek in 2018.

Or take a more extreme example. Assume Putin decides to "retake" Alaska, the way he "retook" Crimea. Assume further that a president allows him to do it, because he believed that Russia has a legitimate claim to its original territory. That would be terrible, but would it be impeachable? Not under the text of the Constitution. (It would, of course, be different if he did it because he was paid or extorted.) Such a dramatic event might appropriately result in a constitutional amendment broadening the criteria for impeachment, but it would not justify ignoring or defying the words of our current Constitution.

The framers of the Constitution did not provide an impeachment remedy for an incompetent, nasty, even tyrannical president—unless he committed a designated crime. Perhaps they should have, but Congress is not authorized to "correct" constitutional errors or omissions through unconstitutional actions in impeaching and removing a president who has not committed a designate crime. Perhaps the framers should have required a majority vote rather than a two-thirds vote to assure that a tyrannical president is removed. But the remedy lies in amending the Constitution, not violating it. The appropriate response to executive tyranny is not legislative tyranny.

I don't think this stands to constitutional muster. High crimes and misdemeanors should not be considered solely as a part of criminal law but as an abuse of powers granted to them or a violation of public trust in Federalist Paper number 65.

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

Indeed, the term high crime and misdemeanor is a common law term added specifically to make sure that the president could be removed for the types of behavior not defined by criminal law.

Debate prior to adoption of the phrase and comments thereafter in the ratifying conventions were to the effect that the President (all the debate was in terms of the President) should be removable by impeachment for commissions or omissions in office which were not criminally cognizable.

In fact, going through US history, less than a third of impeachments have included crimes as an article of impeachment according to the Congressional Research Office.

Less than a third have specifically invoked a criminal statute or used the term “crime.”64 For example, in 1803, Judge John Pickering was impeached and convicted for, among other things, appearing on the bench “in a state of total intoxication.”65 In 1912, Judge Robert W. Archbald was impeached and convicted for abusing his position as a judge by inducing parties before him to enter financial transactions with him.66 In 1936, Judge Halstead Ritter was impeached and convicted for conduct that “br[ought] his court into disrepute, to the prejudice of said court and public confidence in the administration of justice ... and to the prejudice of public respect for and confidence in the federal judiciary.”67 And a number of judges were impeached for misusing their position for personal profit.68

Two questions. Do you think Dershowitz's example of allowing Alaska to be annexed by Russia is impeachable? Does Dershowitz's opinion on what consitutes an impeachable offense stand up to scrutiny?

No such thing can be found in The Articles sent by Pelosi. It's an extremely poor example of what an genuine impeachment should look like. My bet is they are dismissed, but Trump might want to use it to bludgeon The Democrat Party with to expose them further.

All indications are that pelosi was dead set against this from the start. She is well aware of how poisonous it is but has been usurped and bullied by the next generation of politically liberal thinkers. For the first time in her career she appears to be timid in the face of a challenge to her seat. I think she will mistakenly discover they're going to challenge her anyway.

Jo