“What changed my opinion as this went on,” she said, is a realization that “impeachment isn’t about one offense. It’s really about the character and ability and physical and mental fitness of the individual to serve the people, not themselves.”
She has no clue what the framers intended or what the constitution states. She still thinks she should vote to remove if she doesn't approve of things like ones character or physical fitness? Bonehead.
The issue was revisited at the time of the Clinton impeachment, when those who sought to remove the President from office, basing their arguments principally on the English experience and The Federalist No. 64, claimed that a President could be removed for any misconduct that indicated that he did not possess the requisite honor, integrity, and character be trusted to carry out his functions in a manner free from corruption.
She's maybe been reading or having someone read to her bits of the Federalist Papers.
Probably for better in this case, our case, as it prevents Schiff and Nadler from simply voting on the basis of hate.