(12-13-2019, 10:22 AM)mikesez Wrote:

(12-13-2019, 09:15 AM)Last42min Wrote: I've explained this before. Everyone talks about this like there is some list of high crimes and misdemeanors. There's not. This is a controversy that literally goes back to the founders, but there is nothing legally defined that says there must be a crime associated with impeachment. Impeachment is a political process, and congress can impeach for any action they deem unfit. Judges have been impeached for things like intoxication on the bench, abuse of power, obstruction of justice, etc. The democrats could literally impeach Trump for being crude or lying about the size of his hands... literally anything they think misrepresents the office of the Presidency.

What DOES matter, is whether or not the American people would tolerate that. Which, I personally believe is a resounding NO. Impeachments, even historical ones, have been largely motivated by political purposes, and have almost always backfired. I believe the same will hold true here. There is nothing like failure to cause a political group to reevaluate their priorities. Although, I will concede that the current Democrats are showing a remarkable resistance to common sense. The sooner they stop appealing to their radical base, the sooner they will wise up (on a side note, their reluctance to move away from the radical base is a strong indicator that their donors have become more radical, which is a real problem, imo).

---

I will also add, before someone mentions it, that historical precedent would suggest that only impeachments with a crime have been successful. Most impeachments attacking one's character have ended up in acquittal.

"High crime" is a term going back to the 1300s that has meant a LOT of things and it's older than what we would call "criminal law".  It basically means "doing a job in government, but doing it really poorly."

Like you said, political.  Subjective.

When the founders borrowed the phrase, I don't think they meant to say, "only impeach if the guy does something that a civilian would be tried and punished for." Unfortunately, we've begun to use the word "crime" in a new and more specific context, and it keeps the masses of American people from understanding what the Founders wanted.

Hamilton wrote that the Supreme court could not be trusted with trying impeachments because many of the judges would have been appointed by the sitting President.  He wrote that the Senate would think in terms of politics, but that their political constraints would be separate from the President's, so they could be impartial.  Hamilton was writing before Washington became President, and Washington was about to appoint *all* of the judges.  And he was writing at a time when the Senators were selected by state legislatures - with the upper house and the lower house of the state legislature having different sets of people voting for them.  That's not the case now.  When the Trump campaign tries to win Florida, he's using the same strategies and talking to the same voters that a candidate for Senator from Florida would use. And the Republican candidate for Senate doesn't just want to win his race, he wants his party to win and keep as many senate seats as possible, just as the Republican candidate for president wants to win as many states as possible. So the Senate is no longer a separate base of power.

We were taught in civics class that the branches of government were supposed to check each other's power, but since 1994 this has not been true.  The real power divide is no longer a three way contest between President, Congress, and Courts with rules and laws.  It's just a two way struggle between Republicans and Democrats and the only rule is refraining from violence.  And let us all hope that one rule holds.