(12-18-2019, 01:58 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(12-18-2019, 01:16 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: So ... everyone then?

Also, Hamilton worried that it'd be used on the basis of political differences than by innocence or guilt. I haven't read that the original meaning of misdemeanor was simply a 'bad appearance', but Samuel Johnson's dictionary said, in 1755, that it was an 'offence' or 'ill behavior' lesser than an 'atrocious crime'. While 'ill behavior' would indicate a low threshold on its own, when it's compared to an 'atrocious crime', it implies that it's a crime of lesser significance and not just 'behavior'.

I wouldn't say everyone. I don't think any of the previous 44 presidents are remembered for saying or doing things in public that their peers felt were beneath the dignity of the office.  I think you could say that Obama committed some High Crimes by creating DACA along with a few other things, but he didn't commit misdemeanors.  Obama behaved with the courtesy expected in his time.

---

(12-18-2019, 01:48 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: None of this matters anyway. He's still gonna be president, even if he does get impeached. He could even get re-elected.

It definitely matters.
If the Senate votes to acquit along party lines without calling witnesses, it will be proof that the checks and balances created by the founders do not work and that political parties and elections are the only remaining check on tyranny.  Either the public will accept that, or they will wake up on re-structuring our constitution.

Can you name one from the last 100 years that doesn't fit your criteria?

Obama absolutely committed crimes. I'm not sure why you're saying he didn't unless you're defining it as 'bad appearances in public'.

'Obama behaved with the courtesy expected in his time'? What are you saying? Are we talking about courtesy or misdemeanors.

---