I don't think that is a reasonable construction of the argument I have made. Righteous and appropriate behavior is never in question or could form the basis for impeachment. In that sense, that is a strawman argument. Now you have just made
my point. Just because impeachment is "always an option" does not,
ipso facto, imply that it can be
for any reason. Instead, my argument is, and remains, that the constellation of "reasons" is much broader than is often argued (e.g., criminality).
"High Crimes and
misdemeanors" implies relatively minor malfeasance is sufficient - particularly as that particular phrase's history at the time of the ratification of the Constitution was well-established:
Impeachable Offenses (LII). "The Convention came to its choice of words describing the grounds for impeachment after much deliberation, but the phrasing derived directly from the English practice." That article further provides, "'High crimes and misdemeanors,' however, is an undefined and indefinite phrase, which, in England,
had comprehended conduct not constituting indictable offenses." As Jon Roland of the Constitution Society puts it:
Meaning of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors". And, as Professor Bowman of the University of Missouri argues,
The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’
(Atlantic)
On this we simply agree.
Which leads me to ask the question (especially for those defending him), "Do you think the President has acted
appropriately?"
Which leads me to ask the question (especially for those defending him), "Do you think the President has acted appropriately?"
To adequately answer this question requires considerable typing. So, for sake of brevity, I will condense to the following.
1. A president can legitimately and lawfully ask a foreign power to investigate a U.S. citizen.
2. Number one is not made unlawful or illegitimate on the basis the person to be investigated is a political rival. In other words, number 1 is applicable to a political rival.
3. The fact the president could benefit politically by an investigation into a political rival does not render the request to investigate unlawful or illegitimate.
3. Numbers 1 and 2 can be unlawful and illegitimate when and where the president knew or should have known there lacked a proper factual basis to ask for an investigation of the person. In other words, when and where the president sincerely believed, in good faith believed, an investigation was needed, the request is legitimate and lawful, but sincerity and good faith belief can be properly rebutted or diminished by evidence the president knew or should have known there was nothing to investigate or no merit in asking for an investigation.
If Trump sincerely believed and had a good faith belief, then his request for the investigation is not an impeachable offense. If, however, Trump did not, and the evidence shows he lacked a good faith and sincere belief, then I do believe he has committed an impeachable offense on the basis of these facts.
Now you have just made my point. Just because impeachment is "always an option" does not, ipso facto, imply that it can be for any reason.
You are just resorting to special pleading.
You have made my point with the words of "ANY" and "ALWAYS" in the phrases of "taken away at any time" and "always an option." I am not going to ignore a logical, plain meaning of those words just because you find those meanings particularly inconvenient for your argument.
Impeachment as "always an option" means at "ALL TIMES" impeachment is an option, including those "times" when the president has acted appropriately, righteously. "Taken away at any time" similarly means, by use of the word "any" in relation to "time, to include those "times" when the federal office holder has acted appropriately, righteously. After all, the phrase is "any time" and that very word, "any" includes those times of appropriate and righteous behavior.
As I said, I am not going to ignore the logical, plain meaning of those words because they are inconvenient with your argument.
Instead, my argument is, and remains, that the constellation of "reasons" is much broader than is often argued (e.g., criminality).
Fine, but this point can be made without using the words "any" and "all" which point beyond a your mere "broader" view you advocate for above.
