In all of the recent unpleasantness surrounding President Trump’s impeachment and subsequent Senate trial, I have yet to hear or read the following theory regarding why the impeachment itself was inappropriate, and thus why acquittal is justified. Given that I am neither a legal scholar, nor particularly more intelligent than the average person, I suspect that other much better educated and/or smarter than I have already proposed this argument. I must have missed it. However, here goes…

The current articles of impeachment brought against the President do not specify any actual crime, only the improper exercise of executive power for political advantage (both individually, and as pertains to the President’s interactions with Congress). However, the last two presidential impeachments (Nixon and Clinton) established the precedent that a violation of Federal law was the requisite grounds for such action. In both cases, there was no question that the President had in fact broken the law. Allowing for the fact that Nixon was not in fact impeached, rather resigned before such action was taken, the 1998 Clinton impeachment was predicated on the unquestioned fact that the President had both committed Perjury, and Obstruction of Justice. However, the Senate did not remove Clinton from office, thus setting the “common law” precedent that these crimes were below the threshold for “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” (I recall the justification at the time being that, “everyone lies about sex, and there was no harm done to any national interests, so it doesn’t really matter.”)