Although that's supposedly the norm now.
Re: “high crimes and misdemeanors”
As can be found in historical references of the period, the phrase in its original meaning is interpreted as "for whatever reason whatsoever". This phrase covers all or any crime that abuses office.
Benjamin Franklin asserted that the power of impeachment and removal was necessary for those times when the Executive "rendered himself obnoxious," and the Constitution should provide for the "regular punishment of the Executive when his conduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused." James Madison said, "...impeachment... was indispensable" to defend the community against "
the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate." With a single executive, Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose collective nature provided security, "loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic.
Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as
misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not.
The very difficult case of impeaching someone in the House of Representatives and removing that person in the Senate by a vote of two-thirds majority in the Senate was meant to be the check to balance against efforts to easily remove people from office for minor reasons that could easily be determined by the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors". It was George Mason who offered up the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" as one of the criteria to remove public officials who abuse their office. Their original intentions can be gleaned by the phrases and words that were proposed before, such as "high misdemeanor", "maladministration", or "other crime". Edmund Randolf said impeachment should be reserved for those who "misbehave".
Cotesworth Pinkney said, It should be reserved "...for those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust." As can be seen from all these references to "high crimes and misdemeanors",
there is no concrete definition for the term, except to allow people to remove an official for office for subjective reasons entirely.
Alexander Hamilton said, "...those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.
They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors#United_States
By the originally intended standard, we have more than enough infractions. Failure to divest from companies, profiting off his office, lying everyday, bringing down the image of the United States, fighting with allies, stoking racial tension, bragging about sexual assault, appointing at least 10 unfit people to crucial positions,
= new reply since forum marked as read
