The most powerful argument against impeaching the President is the simple, textualist one: that "high crimes and misdemeanors" means what it says.
Crimes and Misdemeanors are violations of *established law*.
"High" refers to them being serious crimes against the state.
Crimes and Misdemeanors are violations of *established law*.
"High" refers to them being serious crimes against the state.
That's at the core of Pat Cipollone and the Trump team's argument.
Very, very simple.
You can't impeach someone for something that isn't a "crime."
Which means you can't make it up on the fly.
Very, very simple.
You can't impeach someone for something that isn't a "crime."
Which means you can't make it up on the fly.
I've heard a few arguments from the Democrats about why this simple, plain reading of the Constitutional text shouldn't apply.
First, they rely on Alexander Hamilton's Federalist 65 to argue that they only need prove an "abuse of power."
Nonsense.
First, they rely on Alexander Hamilton's Federalist 65 to argue that they only need prove an "abuse of power."
Nonsense.
Hamilton wasn't trying to define "high crimes and misdemeanors."
He was giving a broad overview - and identifying common characteristics - of the kinds of things an impeachment tribunal hears.
And arguing why the Senate was the superior forum to hear impeachments.
He was giving a broad overview - and identifying common characteristics - of the kinds of things an impeachment tribunal hears.
And arguing why the Senate was the superior forum to hear impeachments.
Trump's team gets this. In a footnote, they completely demolish every argument from @tribelaw, @JRubinBlogger, and every other Democrat insisting that you can impeach a President for non-crimes.
You can't.
And taking Hamilton out of context proves NOTHING.
You can't.
And taking Hamilton out of context proves NOTHING.
@tribelaw @JRubinBlogger The second argument you hear from impeachment defenders is that "high crimes and misdemeanors" had a broad definition in England.
Maybe, maybe not.
But William Blackstone - THE authority on the laws of England - said that impeachment was only for violations of established law!
Maybe, maybe not.
But William Blackstone - THE authority on the laws of England - said that impeachment was only for violations of established law!
@tribelaw @JRubinBlogger Trump's lawyers are all over this, too - they point out not only that "high crimes and misdemeanors" must be violations of established law,
BUT ALSO that our standard was *narrower* than Britain's, because we expressly rejected "maladministration" as an impeachable offense!
BUT ALSO that our standard was *narrower* than Britain's, because we expressly rejected "maladministration" as an impeachable offense!
@tribelaw @JRubinBlogger People like @MittRomney take pride in being textualists, and supporting textualist constitutional interpretation.
Prove it, Senator.
Vote to dismiss these facially defective articles of impeachment.
#DismissTheArticles
Prove it, Senator.
Vote to dismiss these facially defective articles of impeachment.
#DismissTheArticles
