(12-13-2019, 10:02 PM)Last42min Wrote:

(12-13-2019, 08:34 PM)jj82284 Wrote: Not true.  The founders specifically decided AGAINST using the term maladministration.  In full context, Treason, Bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors mainly refers to egregious violations of the oath of office or betraying the country.

Also not true. To suggest it was clearly understood as you describe is purely rhetorical. You will find the founders debating this topic. Not just at it's inception, but throughout the history of impeachment in this nation. The maladministration change was to cut back on subjective impeachments, since it was apparent that any disagreement on policy could be considered maladministration. Changing it to high crimes and misdemeanors was meant to avoid impeachment due to policy differences. 

Misdemeanor historically referenced character flaws (even though it now has been incorporated into our legal system). Demeanor references one's outward behavior. A mis-demeanor referenced outward behaviors that were considered inappropriate (e.g. public drunkenness, lewdness). It would not have been unreasonable for there to be an impeachment due to some kind of serious character deficiency. It wasn't typically used that way, except in cases where it arguably affected someone's ability to do their duty. However, even when it was, it rarely succeeded unless it was accompanied by a high crime. The charges brought against Trump fit within the historical use of impeachment, but it is clearly motivated by politics, not any real criminality. It's understandable why Republicans are against the trumped up charges, but also not like this is new in American politics. It would only be new if it worked. It won't.