ADVERTISEMENT

☆☆☆☆OFFICIAL IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THREAD☆☆☆☆

It's interesting to consider what the framers intended when it comes to grounds for impeachment.
It seems to me they left them intentionally vague. From a practical standpoint , how would they possibly be able to list ALL the offenses for which the president should be impeached?

AD seems to take the opposite position. If they didn't list it, you can't impeach for it.

I hope everyone excuses the length of this post...
I linked this article published by the Federalist Society in another location. I think the following portion of it, including footnotes, makes very clear the thinking of 18th Century American political theorists about the meaning of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" -

...
II. Eighteenth Century American Sources
As is now widely acknowledged, fiduciary government (to the extent practicable) was one of the Founders’ core political principles, one of the objectives that informed the drafting and adoption of the Constitution.[33] Fiduciary government was not their only core political value, but it certainly ranked within the top five.[34]

Leading participants in the drafting and ratification of the Constitution regularly connected impeachment with fiduciary violations. At the federal convention, Madison argued that an impeachment procedure for the President was necessary because:

"it [was] indispensable that some provision should be made for defending the Community agst [sic] the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate. . . . He might lose his capacity after his appointment. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers.”[35]

Gouveneur Morris added that he “was now sensible of the necessity of impeachments. . . . [The President] may be bribed by a greater interest to betray his trust.”[36] When defending the Constitution in South Carolina, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney pointed out that impeachment would be available for federal officers who “behave amiss, or betray their public trust,”[37] and his ally Edward Rutledge made a similar statement in the same context.[38]

Moreover, there are very many instances of members of the founding generation linking impeachment to breaches of specific fiduciary duties. Thus, at the Virginia ratifying convention, Edmund Randolph saw it as a remedy for dishonesty, disloyalty, and self-dealing.[39] George Nicholas and James Madison referred to it as a remedy for maladministration and violating the national interest,[40] and Patrick Henry as a response to “violation of duty.”[41]

On the other hand, Founders made it clear that “high . . . Misdemeanors” were neither politically defined nor limited to criminal offenses. Edmund Randolph[42] affirmed that “No man ever thought of impeaching a man for an opinion,”[43] and the influential Federalist essayist Tench Coxe assumed that an officer could be impeached for conduct not interdicted by the criminal law.[44]
...
Footnotes
...
[33] E.g., Gary Lawson & Guy Seidman, “A Great Power of Attorney”: Understanding the Fiduciary Constitution (2017); Zephyr Teachout, The Anti-Corruption Principle, 94 Cornell L. Rev. 341 (2009). Professors Lawson, Seidman, and Teachout all grant me some credit for this realization, first stated in Robert G. Natelson, The Constitution and the Public Trust, 52 Buffalo L. Rev. 1077 (2004).

[34] Robert G. Natelson, The Original Meaning of “Emoluments” in the Constitution, 52 Ga. L. Rev. 1 (2017) (explaining that the Founders balanced five core values as they formed the new government under the Constitution: republicanism, decentralization, liberty, effective government, and fiduciary government).

[35] 2 Records of the Federal Convention at 65-66 [hereinafter Farrand] (italics added).

[36] Id. at 68 (italics added). For analogous formulations, see 1 Farrand, supra note 35, at 292 (quoting a Virginia Plan provision that “The Governour Senators and all officers of the United States to be liable to impeachment for mal-- and corrupt conduct; and upon conviction to be removed from office, & disqualified for holding any place of trust or profit”); id. at 78 (reporting approval of motion by Hugh Williamson that the executive be “removable on impeachment and conviction of mal-practice or neglect of duty”); id. at 337 & 344 (reporting the convention’s resolutions submitted to the Committee of Detail providing for “impeachment and removal from office for neglect of duty, malversation, or corruption”).

[37] 4 The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 281 (Jonathan Elliot ed., 2d ed. 1901) [hereinafter Elliot’s Debates] (italics added).

[38] Id. at 276 (reporting that Edward Rutledge said, “If the President or the senators abused their trust, they were liable to impeachment and punishment; and the fewer that were concerned in the abuse of the trust, the more certain would be the punishment.”).

[39] 3 Elliot’s Debates, supra note 37, at 369 (quoting Edmund Randolph connecting impeachment to dishonesty); id. at 486 (quoting him connecting impeachment to receipt of emoluments from foreign powers—i.e., disloyalty and self-dealing).

[40] Id. at 17 (quoting George Nicholas connecting impeachment to “mal-administration”); id. at 506 (quoting him connecting impeachment to violating the interest of the nation); id. at 516 (quoting James Madison to the same effect).

[41] Id. at 398 (quoting Patrick Henry connecting impeachment to “violation of duty”). See also id. at 500 (quoting James Madison connecting impeachment to the President calling Senators from only a few states—i.e., partiality); id. at 512 (quoting Patrick Henry connecting impeachment to actions “derogatory to the honor or interest of their country”); id. at 506 (quoting George Nicholas comparing impeachment under the Constitution to impeachment in England to the extent that officials can be impeached for entering treaties “judged to derogate from the honor and interest of the nation”); Paul Leicester Ford, Pamphlets on The Constitution of The United States 51 n.* (1888) (quoting Federalist Noah Webster recommending impeachment as the appropriate remedy should federal officials exceed their authority); Berger, supra note 5, at 89 (collecting other examples).

[42] Randolph, then governor of Virginia, previously had served as state attorney general and had enjoyed a very large private practice. He served at the federal convention, in which he was the principal spokesman for the Virginia Plan. Eventually, he was to be the first Attorney General of the United States and the second Secretary of State. After resigning as Secretary of State, he returned to private practice. See generally John J. Reardon, Edmund Randolph: A Biography (1974).

[43] 3 Elliot’s Debates, supra note 37, at 401.

[44]  Tench Coxe, “An American Citizen,” reprinted in 13 The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 431, 434 (Merrill Jensen, John P. Kaminski & Gaspare J. Saladino eds., 1976-2017) (stating “if the nature of his offence, besides its danger to his country, should be criminal in itself—should involve a charge of fraud, murder or treason—he may be tried for such crime”).
 
Last edited:
I hope everyone excuses the length of this post...
I linked this article published by the Federalist Society in another location. I think the following portion of it, including footnotes, makes very clear the thinking of 18th Century American political theorists about the meaning of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" -

...
II. Eighteenth Century American Sources
As is now widely acknowledged, fiduciary government (to the extent practicable) was one of the Founders’ core political principles, one of the objectives that informed the drafting and adoption of the Constitution.[33] Fiduciary government was not their only core political value, but it certainly ranked within the top five.[34]

Leading participants in the drafting and ratification of the Constitution regularly connected impeachment with fiduciary violations. At the federal convention, Madison argued that an impeachment procedure for the President was necessary because:

"it [was] indispensable that some provision should be made for defending the Community agst [sic] the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate. . . . He might lose his capacity after his appointment. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers.”[35]

Gouveneur Morris added that he “was now sensible of the necessity of impeachments. . . . [The President] may be bribed by a greater interest to betray his trust.”[36] When defending the Constitution in South Carolina, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney pointed out that impeachment would be available for federal officers who “behave amiss, or betray their public trust,”[37] and his ally Edward Rutledge made a similar statement in the same context.[38]

Moreover, there are very many instances of members of the founding generation linking impeachment to breaches of specific fiduciary duties. Thus, at the Virginia ratifying convention, Edmund Randolph saw it as a remedy for dishonesty, disloyalty, and self-dealing.[39] George Nicholas and James Madison referred to it as a remedy for maladministration and violating the national interest,[40] and Patrick Henry as a response to “violation of duty.”[41]

On the other hand, Founders made it clear that “high . . . Misdemeanors” were neither politically defined nor limited to criminal offenses. Edmund Randolph[42] affirmed that “No man ever thought of impeaching a man for an opinion,”[43] and the influential Federalist essayist Tench Coxe assumed that an officer could be impeached for conduct not interdicted by the criminal law.[44]
...
Footnotes
...
[33] E.g., Gary Lawson & Guy Seidman, “A Great Power of Attorney”: Understanding the Fiduciary Constitution (2017); Zephyr Teachout, The Anti-Corruption Principle, 94 Cornell L. Rev. 341 (2009). Professors Lawson, Seidman, and Teachout all grant me some credit for this realization, first stated in Robert G. Natelson, The Constitution and the Public Trust, 52 Buffalo L. Rev. 1077 (2004).

[34] Robert G. Natelson, The Original Meaning of “Emoluments” in the Constitution, 52 Ga. L. Rev. 1 (2017) (explaining that the Founders balanced five core values as they formed the new government under the Constitution: republicanism, decentralization, liberty, effective government, and fiduciary government).

[35] 2 Records of the Federal Convention at 65-66 [hereinafter Farrand] (italics added).

[36] Id. at 68 (italics added). For analogous formulations, see 1 Farrand, supra note 35, at 292 (quoting a Virginia Plan provision that “The Governour Senators and all officers of the United States to be liable to impeachment for mal-- and corrupt conduct; and upon conviction to be removed from office, & disqualified for holding any place of trust or profit”); id. at 78 (reporting approval of motion by Hugh Williamson that the executive be “removable on impeachment and conviction of mal-practice or neglect of duty”); id. at 337 & 344 (reporting the convention’s resolutions submitted to the Committee of Detail providing for “impeachment and removal from office for neglect of duty, malversation, or corruption”).

[37] 4 The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 281 (Jonathan Elliot ed., 2d ed. 1901) [hereinafter Elliot’s Debates] (italics added).

[38] Id. at 276 (reporting that Edward Rutledge said, “If the President or the senators abused their trust, they were liable to impeachment and punishment; and the fewer that were concerned in the abuse of the trust, the more certain would be the punishment.”).

[39] 3 Elliot’s Debates, supra note 37, at 369 (quoting Edmund Randolph connecting impeachment to dishonesty); id. at 486 (quoting him connecting impeachment to receipt of emoluments from foreign powers—i.e., disloyalty and self-dealing).

[40] Id. at 17 (quoting George Nicholas connecting impeachment to “mal-administration”); id. at 506 (quoting him connecting impeachment to violating the interest of the nation); id. at 516 (quoting James Madison to the same effect).

[41] Id. at 398 (quoting Patrick Henry connecting impeachment to “violation of duty”). See also id. at 500 (quoting James Madison connecting impeachment to the President calling Senators from only a few states—i.e., partiality); id. at 512 (quoting Patrick Henry connecting impeachment to actions “derogatory to the honor or interest of their country”); id. at 506 (quoting George Nicholas comparing impeachment under the Constitution to impeachment in England to the extent that officials can be impeached for entering treaties “judged to derogate from the honor and interest of the nation”); Paul Leicester Ford, Pamphlets on The Constitution of The United States 51 n.* (1888) (quoting Federalist Noah Webster recommending impeachment as the appropriate remedy should federal officials exceed their authority); Berger, supra note 5, at 89 (collecting other examples).

[42] Randolph, then governor of Virginia, previously had served as state attorney general and had enjoyed a very large private practice. He served at the federal convention, in which he was the principal spokesman for the Virginia Plan. Eventually, he was to be the first Attorney General of the United States and the second Secretary of State. After resigning as Secretary of State, he returned to private practice. See generally John J. Reardon, Edmund Randolph: A Biography (1974).

[43] 3 Elliot’s Debates, supra note 37, at 401.

[44]  Tench Coxe, “An American Citizen,” reprinted in 13 The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 431, 434 (Merrill Jensen, John P. Kaminski & Gaspare J. Saladino eds., 1976-2017) (stating “if the nature of his offence, besides its danger to his country, should be criminal in itself—should involve a charge of fraud, murder or treason—he may be tried for such crime”).
i believe high misdemeanor was an english term. like stealing your neighbors pigs or something like that. probably akin to grand theft or larceny now.
 
i believe high misdemeanor was an english term. like stealing your neighbors pigs or something like that. probably akin to grand theft or larceny now.
I'm sure you must be right.
However this law journal article would probably not agree - E. Mabry Rogers & Stephen B. Young, Public Office as a Public Trust: A Suggestion That Impeachment for High Crimes and Misdemeanors Implies a Fiduciary Standard, 63 Geo. L.J. 1025 (1975).
 
I'm sure you must be right.
However this law journal article would probably not agree - E. Mabry Rogers & Stephen B. Young, Public Office as a Public Trust: A Suggestion That Impeachment for High Crimes and Misdemeanors Implies a Fiduciary Standard, 63 Geo. L.J. 1025 (1975).
k.The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors”
 
k.The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors”
Yes they had long used the phrase.
To me one of the clearest demonstrations that the Founding Fathers understood the term as applied to impeachment proceedings to not be limited to the idea of statutory crimes was the initial judicial impeachment proceeding.
The Constitution was, of course, enacted in 1789. In 1795, George Washington appointed John Pickering to the Federal Bench. By 1803 his behavior had become so erratic that under the Thomas Jefferson administration, impeachment proceedings were initiated and Pickering was impeached by the House.
Those articles of impeachment included charges -

That whereas for the due, faithful, and impartial administration of justice, temperance and sobriety are essential qualities in the character of a judge, yet the said John Pickering, being a man of loose morals and intemperate habits, on the 11th and 12th days of November, in the year 1802, being then judge of the district court in and for the district of New Hampshire, did appear on the bench of the said court for the administration of justice in a state of total intoxication, produced by the free and intemperate use of intoxicating liquors…

Pickering was convicted by the Senate and removed from office on March 12, 1804.
 
k.The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors”
The captioned phrase has, as its origination , a 1386 date that served as useful in the writing of our late 18th century language in our Constitution ??
Gee, if we could just push back the calendar another 400+ years, we could be trying to interpret something out of the DARK AGES !!
 
Lamar Alexander's statement about witnesses and further evidence-
"I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution's high bar for an impeachable offense."

EDIT - His full statement - LINK
To paraphrase, he did it, it was inappropriate, it's not sufficient for removal.
 
Last edited:
Support for witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial:

Quinnipiac 75
Monmouth 80
Reuters 72
CNN 69
AP/NORC 68
WaPo 71

They're celebrating acquittal solely because they view it as upsetting libs. That's it. There's no other reason for it. That's the depth these folks have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: indy35
They're celebrating acquittal solely because they view it as upsetting libs. That's it. There's no other reason for it. That's the depth these folks have.
You can bet your last dollar it will upset libs . That is a FACT.

HoZ.gif
 
The captioned phrase has, as its origination , a 1386 date that served as useful in the writing of our late 18th century language in our Constitution ??
Gee, if we could just push back the calendar another 400+ years, we could be trying to interpret something out of the DARK AGES !!
what? it was relevant to the conversation. try to keep up. the framers didn't go into great elaboration on the term because they all knew it. It was a long running english standard...but we're way over your attention span here...why don't you just throw some more exclamation points and CAPS LOCK in?
 
what? it (the term High crimes and Misdemeanors - term and emphasis added) was relevant to the conversation. try to keep up. the framers didn't go into great elaboration on the term because they all knew it. It was a long running english standard...but we're way over your attention span here...why don't you just throw some more exclamation points and CAPS LOCK in?
Yes, they did all know it and to them it didn't mean a statutory violation but meant a violation of an obligation to society as a whole and to the obligations of office.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BuilderBob6
what? it was relevant to the conversation. try to keep up. the framers didn't go into great elaboration on the term because they all knew it. It was a long running english standard...but we're way over your attention span here...why don't you just throw some more exclamation points and CAPS LOCK in?
*** Am keeping up just fine, thank you.
*** My attention span increases dramatically upon discovering thoughtful, knowledgeable material on this board, from both sides. That attention, obviously, is rarely directed at your particular brand of discourse.
*** Tracing "high crimes & misdemeanors" back to the 14th century merely shines one of the lights on the fact that a 21st century Impeachment does not benefit much from modern judicial interpretations.
*** I'll be happy to throw in some more CAPS & !!!!!!!'s.....if you'll promise to shower the board with more
of the far Right-wing's priceless editorial opinion pieces.
 
Yes, they did all know it and to them it didn't mean a statutory violation but meant a violation of an obligation to society as a whole and to the obligations of office.
and in order to insure the current situation didn't play out, they made it 2/3 vote. So I think we are fine here. Let's move on and let the voters decide.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SDBoiler1
So, just to be clear. We're all now in agreement that Donald Trump used taxpayer dollars to pressure a foreign government into affecting a US election, right? Some folks just don't find this to be worthy of removal from office...bc Alan Dershowitz?
 
and in order to insure the current situation didn't play out, they made it 2/3 vote. So I think we are fine here. Let's move on and let the voters decide.
Actually, we aren't fine. As I have said, while I disagree with the projected result, I am actually fine with it occurring. What I am not fine with is the unquestionable long term damage done systemically by giving oxygen to the arguments posited by Dershowitz, et al., and the related concept that Congress has de facto no oversight powers, should the Executive opt to not cooperate. The complete package being opened here will not bode well long term for Democrats or Republicans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BuilderBob6
So, just to be clear. We're all now in agreement that Donald Trump used taxpayer dollars to pressure a foreign government into affecting a US election, right? Some folks just don't find this to be worthy of removal from office...bc Alan Dershowitz?
Did the DNC use Chris Steele to do the same thing? I'll agree if you do.
 
Actually, we aren't fine. As I have said, while I disagree with the projected result, I am actually fine with it occurring. What I am not fine with is the unquestionable long term damage done systemically by giving oxygen to the arguments posited by Dershowitz, et al., and the related concept that Congress has de facto no oversight powers, should the Executive opt to not cooperate. The complete package being opened here will not bode well long term for Democrats or Republicans.
It's been this way long before this trial. Fast and Furious, Iran Contra...a million other things. I don't know why this is upsetting or surprising. In fact I quite agree with it. If you're going to overturn the voters, you should have to sue through the courts to get the info. It should be hard to successfully impeach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SDBoiler1
and in order to insure the current situation didn't play out, they made it 2/3 vote. So I think we are fine here. Let's move on and let the voters decide.
Somehow I have a feeling the Progressives just won’t let it go. The Russia collusion hoax, the sham impeachment, the absolute travesty of the Kavanaugh hearings....

God only knows what’s next. They actually think this going to help them get Ds elected? These people are absolutely butthurt, partisan lunatics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TwinDegrees2
Somehow I have a feeling the Progressives just won’t let it go. The Russia collusion hoax, the sham impeachment, the absolute travesty of the Kavanaugh hearings....

God only knows what’s next. They actually think this going to help them get Ds elected? These people are absolutely butthurt, partisan lunatics.

You must be in branding or marketing. Just repeat repeat repeat easy little nuggets and you'll get enough people to believe it.
 
Turns out Cipollone was in a meeting with Trump, Giuliani, Bolton, and Mulvaney where Trump asked Bolton to call Zelensky to have him speak to Giuliani about investigations. Cipollone didn’t disclose that. Republicans crowing about blocking witnesses don’t realize the vote isn’t the end of the story. More information will come out, none of it good for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 70boiler
It's been this way long before this trial. Fast and Furious, Iran Contra...a million other things. I don't know why this is upsetting or surprising. In fact I quite agree with it. If you're going to overturn the voters, you should have to sue through the courts to get the info. It should be hard to successfully impeach.
Impeachment inherently is overturning voters, so I find no vitality in any debate that includes it.
Obviously Founders were aware it would overturn an election and included impeachment. To me, that really is the end of that discussion. The issues should be 1) what did the person do, and 2) based on what was done, is removal the proper remedy. It is actually that simple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BuilderBob6
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT