First, Chris, let’s go to the Constitution, which defines
impeachment:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Then let’s take that last one. Per Wikipedia (and I think most legal scholars would agree):
The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, and refusal to obey a lawful order. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.
You may think Republicans are too cowardly or opportunistic to impeach the man — at the moment, so do I — but that doesn’t mean they couldn’t do so. Committing a crime is not a requirement; in fact five of those listed above are not crimes. One type of misconduct in particular stands out: Unbecoming conduct; that one, to be sure, is the most divisive choice. There may well be more coming. Regardless, to take impeachment off the table, based solely on the legality of his actions as President, is outrageously shortsighted. Let’s remember how it came down for one William Jefferson Clinton:
On the President's behalf, White House Counsel Charles Ruff declared: "There is only one question before you, albeit a difficult one, one that is a question of fact and law and constitutional theory. Would it put at risk the liberties of the people to retain the President in office? Putting aside partisan animus, if you can honestly say that it would not, that those liberties are safe in his hands, then you must vote to acquit."
Chief prosecutor Henry Hyde countered: "A failure to convict will make the statement that lying under oath, while unpleasant and to be avoided, is not all that serious...We have reduced lying under oath to a breach of etiquette, but only if you are the President...And now let us all take our place in history on the side of honor, and, oh, yes, let right be done."
Then, let’s remember how it ended:
Eventually, the court dismissed the Paula Jones harassment lawsuit, before trial, on the grounds that Jones failed to demonstrate any damages. However, while the dismissal was on appeal, Clinton entered into an out-of-court settlement by agreeing to pay Jones $850,000.
Clinton’s situation was actually the reverse: He was accused of a crime (lying under oath) in a civil matter (politically motivated) that was ultimately dismissed, though of course he settled instead of letting the appeals process play out. Trump, on the other hand, may have not yet broken the law while in office — though we’ll see how the Emoluments Clause case ends — but you can clearly make the case that the liberties of the People are not in safe hands.
Congress can, if they choose, impeach a President for anything that Congress deems a high crime or misdemeanor. I appreciate, Chris, that they should approach the possibility with appropriate hesitation and careful consideration of the consequences, unlike Clinton’s prosecutors. The point to consider though, Chris, is this: Does Congress have the right and, indeed, obligation, to remove a President who is unfit for the office? The very vagueness of the Constitutional Clause in question says, Yes. Chris, it’s not that hard.