The ‘high’ in high crimes refers to those who commit them, such as the President and his ministers. The crimes they commit don't necessarily fit neatly into felony statutes, but consist of crimes against the people. When Obama rewrites laws, he asserts that he is above the law and us. When he violates clear clauses in the constitution, he commits a crime that no private person can commit. It is through high office that Obama, Lerner, Holder commit their assaults, their crimes on the American sovereign . . . us.
I agree. But the term ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ was one of the strongest defenses for Clinton during his obstruction-of-justice impeachment hearing in the House.
The intelligencia [led by Professor Tribe] has watered down the interpretation through belittling the Committe on Style and referring to the Constitution’s rough draft as ‘original intent’. [Detailed in earlier post.]
It would be more effective to exit that rat-maze debate and clearly define what is impeachable.