McCarthy was right

[Theseus]

8 hours ago, nstoolman1 said:

 

It is a tool found in the Constitution to be used when a crime has been committed. The mere accusation of a crime may work for the Dems but I think POTUS has more backbone and would make them prove it. The last thing the Dems want is a open court hearing where all their shenanigans would come to light. Like I said... People in glass houses,,, 

Sure it might cover all of what you listed and then again it may not; however, as I stated, the phrase "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" as found in the Constitution is never defined in the document. This alludes to the premise that this is a moveable goal post. Meaning if Nixon could have been impeached and removed from office for Watergate, the same activities could be considered shameful 40 years later but not rising to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors (*cough err Fast and Furious 0bummer). This is one of the most controversial phrases found within the Constitution and there is actually very few Constitutional Scholars that will agree on every crime that rises to that level. Another example, Clinton lying under oath caused his impeachment; with a different president in office, this did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. This phrase, while most think what it means, is considered a living phrase in a living document which changes meaning and context when set in the current political environment. A final example, there is no crime for collusion with the Russians yet the demoRATS think it rises to the level of impeachment meaning it is o the same level as High Crimes and Misdemeanors. You could rattle off 10,000 crimes and misdemeanors of what that phrase entails, but if Congress thinks that if a plastic drinking straw served with a coke is a high crime and misdemeanor, it becomes an impeachable offense. You forgot to add murder, dueling and war criminal to that list.

[Theseus]

7 minutes ago, Theseus said:

Sure it might cover all of what you listed and then again it may not; however, as I stated, the phrase "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" as found in the Constitution is never defined in the document. This alludes to the premise that this is a moveable goal post. Meaning if Nixon could have been impeached and removed from office for Watergate, the same activities could be considered shameful 40 years later but not rising to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors (*cough err Fast and Furious 0bummer). This is one of the most controversial phrases found within the Constitution and there is actually very few Constitutional Scholars that will agree on every crime that rises to that level. Another example, Clinton lying under oath caused his impeachment; with a different president in office, this did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. This phrase, while most think what it means, is considered a living phrase in a living document which changes meaning and context when set in the current political environment. A final example, there is no crime for collusion with the Russians yet the demoRATS think it rises to the level of impeachment meaning it is o the same level as High Crimes and Misdemeanors. You could rattle off 10,000 crimes and misdemeanors of what that phrase entails, but if Congress thinks that if a plastic drinking straw served with a coke is a high crime and misdemeanor, it becomes an impeachable offense. You forgot to add murder, dueling and war criminal to that list.

add the following:

 

Unbecoming conduct - too vague. 0bummer smoked cigarettes in the WH. This is against Federal law and unbecoming conduct. 

Dereliction of duty - I cannot recall come to mind? No. Try the failure to prosecute those responsible for the deaths of the Ambassador. Hitlary? Too vague.

Intimidation - you mean like what Trump is doing to Sessions trying to get him off his arse to investigate Hitlary and her foundation?

Abuse of authority is subjective or are you referring to the I have a pen and phone president?

Refusal to obey a lawful order - we are talking the President here, the buck stops with him (eventually her) he gives the orders. Or unless you are talking about the previous POSPOTUS who refused to enforce the lawful order of the law. 

 

As you see I can name three hundred thousand actions (okay I exaggerate a bit) the former POSPOTUS did that rose to the level of a High Crimes and Misdemeanor that you have listed. Again this is subjective and a conviction is not necessary to convict a sitting President.