When impeaching a president, what would constitute "high Crimes and Misdemeanors"?

[MohRokTah]

United States Constitution 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.

So what precisely would be considered high Crimes and Misdemeanors?

That part was left specifically vague and that's because impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate is not a judicial process, but is a political process. So "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" comes down to whatever there is the political will to call "high Crimes and Misdemeanors".

The most important piece in this is that impeachment can happen for anything at any time. All it takes is the political will of 218 members of the House to impeach. But we can never consider that as the bar for what is are "high Crimes and Misdemeanors". To move over that bar requires another 67 votes in the Senate to convict.

To date, the question put in the title has never been answered because no president or vice president has ever been impeached and convicted, but make no mistake about it. The definition of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is "whatever may be deemed so by 218 members of the House and 67 members of the Senate."

Impeachment is relatively easy and can be accomplished by the majority of the House at any time. The bar of two-thirds of the Senate to convict is the difficult political test. A president who makes it easy will face impeachment and conviction with little difficulty and the one time it looked like it would happen, that president resigned before impeachment could happen.

The two times that a president has been impeached, there was not the political will in the Senate to convict.

So remember when all of this talk of impeachment happens. This is a political process, not a judicial process. It requires the political will to make it happen and it always comes with political costs.

[louis-t]

1. Repugs will impeach every Dem president from now on

if they can get political mileage out of it. As long as they are in control, this shit will continue.

[unblock]

8. they don't even need to get mileage out of it. the just need not to be punished for it.

the primary goal of a fabricated impeachment episode is to distract the public and the white house from any agenda there might otherwise be. so if the white house wanted to have a national discussion about, well, whatever, it's hard to do that when the press is obsessed with impeachment.

the timing is indicative. launch during the second term and the senate fails to convict just late enough in the term so the consensus is that the president survived the process, but now he's a lame duck anyway.

the republicans would do it anyway even if they gained nothing in terms of future white house prospects or congressional seats. it's all part of their obstructionist agenda.

not until a spurious impeachment means losing congress and/or the white house will they stop this crap.

[MohRokTah]

10. They paid a heavy political price for impeaching Clinton.

They would pay an even heavier political price for impeaching Obama.

The idea is if they spew the rhetoric of impeachment, it will excite their base.

All indications to date, though, shows it is having the opposite effect because their base doesn't believe they will impeach while it is pissing off the Democratic base.

[former9thward]

27. No one is getting impeached.

The only place it is ever talked about is on DU. Not in real life.

[morningfog]

2. A president cannot be impeached for "anything." A president can be impeached only for

high crimes and misdemeanors.

In other words, criminal acts.

[deafskeptic]

4. Just being a Democrat and/or a liberal is grounds impeachment according to GoP :P n/t

[unblock]

14. if the political will exists to remove a president, they can paper it up easily enough.

never mind that i seriously, *seriously* doubt that anyone would stop them.

i cannot imagine congress impeaching and removing a president, then the president appealing to the supreme court, and then having the court overturn the removal on the grounds that the charges weren't "high crimes and misdemeanors".

and even if that were to happen, congress would just do it all over again, probably all in a day, this time with charges that met court approval.

[msanthrope]

19. Tell me again the criminal act that Bill Clinton did? The DC grand jury refused to return a

true bill against him, and when that happened, Starr went the impeachment route.

[former9thward]

28. Civil contempt of court.

He was cited by Judge Weber for intentionally making false claims in his deposition.

[msanthrope]

35. Absolute nonsense. Civil contempt of court IS NOT a criminal offense. nt

[morningfog]

39. The crimes upon which the impeachment was based were: perjury and obstruction of justice.

That was the charge. They were obviously ludicrous charges and Senate acquitted. The basis was criminal charges, though.

In impeachment proceedings, the House acts similar to a grand jury, the Senate the trial court.

[msanthrope]

42. You do realize that the DC Grand Jury refused to true bill these charges? Starr then took them to

the HoR....which was the only venue in which he could find purchase.

Not a single court in the land ever charged the Big Dog with anything criminal.

To suggest other is to buy into RW narrative.

[FBaggins]

21. "High crimes and misdemeanors" means whatever a majority of the House says that it means.

They aren't constrained by then-current criminal law.

[Xithras]

36. You misunderstand the phrase "high crimes"

"High crimes" are an old term that has been used for many centuries (since the 1300's) to denote a special class of offenses unique to those in high leadership positions. It includes everything from failure to execute your job duties, to abandonment of your position, to using your position to gain additional power (abuse of authority), and on, and on. It's a vague term, but it basically boils down to "You took an oath to be an honest leader, and you're violating that oath".

Which means, when it comes right down to it, that the term really can mean anything that Congress wants it to mean. If Congress passes a law and the President refuses to enforce it, would that qualify? Technically, it could.

[LWolf]

3. That depends.

If it's a Democrat, it's a high crime to breathe.

If it's a Republican, there's no such thing as a high crime or misdemeanor.

Or so I kept hearing from Nancy Pelosi.

[MohRokTah]

6. Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table for a political reason.

There was not the political will in the nation to impeach AND convict. Impeachment without conviction comes with a very high political price to the party that does it.

The house could have impeached in 2006 easily.

The Senate would have NEVER convicted.

[LWolf]

9. So what?

Are laws supposed to be enforced differently from case to case because of political reasons?

The answer...no, but it is an embedded part of the system.

Therefore, the legal definition of what constitutes high crimes or misdemeanors is moot, because it will be ignored when it's inconvenient, and corrupted when it's convenient.

[MohRokTah]

11. You are forgetting, Impeachment and conviction is not about the law.

It is a political process by design.

It is 100% about politics.

[LWolf]

20. Which makes it 100% corrupt.

I'm not forgetting anything.

Are you really asking what constitutes high "crimes and misdemeanors," which, yes, do have a basis in law, or are you just asking when it's politically expedient to prosecute them?

[MohRokTah]

22. I've already answered the question of what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors"

It is whatever 218 members of the House and 67 members of the Senate say it is.

It is a political process BY DESIGN.

The Founding Fathers made it a political process BY DESIGN.

Presidents will only ever be prosecuted and convicted when there is the political will to do so BY DESIGN.

It is not a corrupt process. It functions as it was designed to function.

There must be the political will to impeach and convict for it to happen. In the one case where there was apparently the political will to do so, the president in question resigned prior to it happening.

It functions as designed.

[LWolf]

24. Then why did you ask the question? nt

[MohRokTah]

26. It's a writing device.

[LWolf]

30. Yes.

It's probably not the best writing device for this environment, though. As part of a lecture or lesson to get people thinking...yes. As part of an informational essay that presents your answer...yes.

As a thread title on a political discussion board...not so much.

Edited to add: you probably might be able to figure out that I don't much care for it as a rhetorical device. I find it, frankly, excessively irritating. Not just yours, but anyone's.

[Rex]

43. You backed him into a corner, that is all he had left.

Lame excuse.

[MohRokTah]

47. It wasn't a rhetorical device.

I asked the question and answered it.

It's a standard method of forming a thesis.

It also has the effect of weeding out those who fail to read the thesis.

[LWolf]

49. Why would you assume someone wants to read your thesis online?

I read more than a thousand of them a year already.

My point? Say what you want to say about impeachment. Don't lecture about it. Publish your essays in appropriate places; don't write them as a tool to argue with people.

FYI...I try to guide my students away from that "standard method." It's formulaic, and I don't want to read a thousand formulaic papers a year.

[MohRokTah]

50. Because that's why people post.

That you read the title and commented without reading the actual post says a lot about your intellectual honesty.

[LWolf]

60. No.

People post anonymously online to find others that are like-minded, and to engage in battle with the "enemy," like sports fans or talk radio or talk tv. There ARE worthy discussions amongst the sea of dreck, but that's not primarily why people post anonymously on the internet.

[MohRokTah]

61. I disagree.

Enjoy life.

[LWolf]

62. Feel free;

and I do.

[MohRokTah]

63. Thanks.

Laters.

[abakan]

5. What Bush did should be considered "high Crimes and Misdemeanors"

He should have been impeached, and now the whole bunch should be prosecuted.

[MohRokTah]

7. Lack of political will.

You did not have the political will to impeach AND convict Bush.

[abakan]

16. I agree...

I can't decide if democrats are afraid to stand up and do what they know is right, or they are just lazy. While the GOP seems to be ready to impeach every dem president at the drop of a hat, the DEM's just can't seem to be bothered, even in the most egregious cases.

[William769]

12. Impeachment was meant to be a political tool.

[Thinkingabout]

13. I hate to say it must being black while president.

[abakan]

17. The unspoken truth...^^^^nt

[unblock]

18. yeah, though simply being a democrat is actually considered plenty black enough.

i mean the clinton impeachment was a complete joke, they did it for the same reason they might do it to obama.
not because *he* is black, but because his party is the party of black people.
obama actually being black just makes it more obvious for them.

[Kablooie]

23. That truly is the foundation of their hatred no matter what they say.

They hated Clinton but not to the extent they hate Obama.
His foreign Muslimish sounding name probably exacerbates the hatred also.

These factors that have nothing to do with politics or governing are the underlying basis of their hatred and the only way they can change them is to get rid of Obama.
That's why they are so quick to talk impeachment.
It's the only tool they have, (other than violence, God forbid).

[leftyohiolib]

29. excpt clinton wasnt black

[Thinkingabout]

38. Maybe Newtie was jealous

[Brother Buzz]

15. An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives....

considers to be at a given moment in history - Gerald R. Ford (on an impeachment probe of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas), 1970

[CBGLuthier]

25. Those assholes were talking impeachment BEFORE the man even took office

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

31. Let me break it down for you...

White President: Corruption including bribery and influence peddling, using agencies of the federal government to pursue partisan political interests, committing or directing multiple acts of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Black President: Get Elected.

[Niceguy1]

33. Did I miss something?

I dont recall Obama being impeached.....

[MohRokTah]

41. ...

I dont recall Obama being impeached, yet.

FIFY

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

52. Did somebody say that he has?

[valerief]

32. It would appear the judiciary is also political these days. nt

[treestar]

34. If it ever happened, the President could take it to the courts

and argue that he was not guilty of any crime. They'd have to at least identify a crime.

The mysterious thing is what they mean by a misdemeanor. Those are lesser crimes. There could be a study made into the intent of the framers as to what they would have thought the term meant then.

A "high crime" might mean a felony.

It's actually pretty amazing Bill Clinton was acquitted. Wasn't there proof he committed at least a misdemeanor?

The Senate as the trier of fact is the strange part. True they could vote guilty regardless of the evidence. How would that be remedied - the courts as usual.

[davidn3600]

37. Wrong...the congress has the sole power of impeachment

Separation of powers doesn't give the courts the ability to tell the Congress they can't exorcise their constitutional power of impeachment.

The Constitution is clear that the Congress (more specifically the House) has the sole power of impeachment interpretation. Period. End of argument. There is no court challenge to that.

Article 1, Section 2:
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article 1, Section 3:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

Nothing in the Constitution gives the courts any power in this procedure.

[treestar]

44. They certainly would go to the courts

like anyone else. You'd be free to argue that argument. But the courts would decide whether they had jurisdiction or not.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about judicial review, but it happens. Otherwise, unconstitutional actions could stand.

[MohRokTah]

48. The House impeaches. The Senate convicts.

Whatever the reason, it cannot be held unconstitutional because the power to do so rests SOLELY with the House and Senate.

The only role the Judicial branch has in the process is the CJ presides over the Senate Trial. He has no vote and he cannot interject anything into the process. He simply presides as if he were vice president during a normal legislative session.

[NYC Liberal]

56. SCOTUS has already said impeachment and the Senate trial are

nonjusticable and not subject to any judicial review.

Nixon v. United States (not that Nixon; federal judge Walter Nixon):

A review of the Constitutional Convention's history and the contemporary commentary supports a reading of the constitutional language as deliberately placing the impeachment power in the Legislature, with no judicial involvement, even for the limited purpose of judicial review.

[MohRokTah]

40. Nope, the Legislative branch has the final say. The courts CANNOT step in.

This is not a legal process. It is a political process and that is by design.

The only role the Judiciary has in this process is the Chief Justice presides over the trial in the Senate. He has no vote and cannot interject anything into the process.

[treestar]

45. How are you going to stop them from taking a case?

What's the point of saying it has to be treason, etc. if they can do it for no reason at all? That phrase wouldn't be there if it meant nothing.

[MohRokTah]

46. The constitution PROHIBITS them from doing so.

The moment the Senate convicts a sitting president under articles of impeachment, that person IS NO LONGER PRESIDENT.

What you suggest is a federal court would actually overturn a constitutionally defined process.

AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

Treason is defined in the constitution, so if a president commits treason, the political will is there to remove said president.

Bribery is very well defined, so if it can be shown a president accepted bribes, the political will is there to remove said president.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors is purposefully vague and is there to cover all other situations.

Think back to articles of impeachment drawn up against Richard Nixon. One was "Lying to the American People".

What federal law did that violate? I can tell you, it violated NO federal law. It was being defined as a high Crime and Misdemeanor by the House, and the odds are the Senate would have convicted under that article of impeachment.

And finally, think of what conviction actually means. The president doesn't go to jail. The president doesn't lose his citizenship or any rights under the constitution. The president loses their office.

It is a 100% political process and it has always been meant to be a 100% political process.

[SummerSnow]

51. In the mind of Rethugs,

Obama being black is a "high crime" and him being a "Democrat" is a "misdemeanor"

He committed treason when he became President.

[Hekate]

53. A BJ. And fibbing about it. Definitely that.

[MohRokTah]

54. According to the 1998 US House, yep.

Of course, it was never confirmed as high Crimes and Misdemeanors by the Senate.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

55. Not wearing a flag pin? Breaking into laughter while taking the oath?

Telling the press to "Fuck Off" when they inquire into his personal life?

[Hekate]

57. Presidentin' While Black. That's definitely a case for pre-emptive impeachment in a GOP House.nt

[hatrack]

58. For a GOP President: Raping, Killing And Eating A Baby On Live TV . . . maybe . . .

For a Democratic President: Anything

[MohRokTah]

59. You're getting it.

The GOP base has the political will to impeach for any damned reason at all.

The Democratic base, being more fair minded, want to see some actual crimes committed and then they are fairly timid about impeachment. At its height, impeaching Bush couldn't garner enough political will to happen while amongst the GOP base, a major majority want Obama impeached.

[steve2470]

64. the legally correct answer and the practical answer are different

Legally correct (a decent starting point for research): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

Practical: Whatever two-thirds of the US Senate and a simple majority of the US House of Representatives say it is.

[MohRokTah]

65. Political will is the key.

That's why the attempt at making some legal argument is made, to gin up political will.

Most of the time, it's a political lynching.

[morningfog]

66. "Most of the time?" Do you know how many Presidents have been impeached?

[steve2470]

67. it would not shock me to see an attempt at impeachment before 1/20/2017

The racist base of the GOP probably can't stand seeing a black Democratic president having a positive legacy. I hope I'm wrong.