What would constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors"?

[kentuck]

Is Donald Trump guilty of either of those crimes?

I have no doubt but that there is a conflict of interests between his business interests and the interests of our nation. Is that alone enough to charge him with "high crimes and misdemeanors?

He was forewarned but he ignored the warnings. He decided to keep his businesses and to use his position to further his business holdings. Yesterday's story about the 40 trademarks approved in China indicate strongly that he is still very involved in his business.

As numerous ethics lawyers have stated, he is in violation of the emolument clause of the Constitution. But, is that enough to impeach a president?

What other violations could he be charged with?

[Foamfollower]

1. The definition is simple.

"High crimes and misdemeanors" are whatever at least 218 members of the House and 67 members of the Senate say they are.

[caroldansen]

2. Let's see his tax returns.

[HoneyBadger]

3. Misdemeanors include just about anything that one can imagine

If you are a property owner like Trump, many violations that result in fines can also be prosecuted as unclassified misdemeanors.

Guilty is a whole different issue.

[libtodeath]

4. His ongoing treason is enough.

[Hortensis]

5. Depends if it's a GOP or Dem president, of course.

Clinton lied under oath about having sex with a presidential groupie. It wasn't the sex, of course; the attempted impeachment was for the extreme crime of lying about it under oath to Congress.

Btw, five of 45's cabinet appointees lied to Congress, four of them under oath. (Betsy DeVos wasn't actually under oath during her Senate hearing when she said she wasn't involved with a family foundation, although she'd claimed being a VP on its board for years on her tax returns. She was trying to dissociate herself from it because of its support of some enterprises designated as hate groups by monitors.)

[MineralMan]

6. Whatever the Congress decides they are.

There is no standard definition.

[sofa king]

7. We should assume he's telling the truth about the wiretap.

Judging from what he claimed, and what the former Obama Administration has denied, it seems quite likely that somewhere a federal judge found probable cause to begin building an espionage case against Trump during the election. The way Republican lawmakers are reacting without talking about it strongly suggests it was a FISA action.

This is further reinforced by the CIA's public cries for help, published in the Washington Post and VOA News in August of last year, which outlined Trump's intervention in the GOP platform in favor of the Russians and against the Ukraine. It also explains why General Flynn was bum-rushed out of his position as NS Adviser.

Then you have the British dossier, the murder of Russian journalists and financiers associated with the case, the Russian involvement in the Wikileaks disclosures and their timing, and the reported fact that the CIA (espionage) and FBI (counter-espionage) have both turtled up and aren't actually sharing certain information with this President.

The external evidence alone overwhelmingly suggests that we have our first Manchurian candidate and our first foreign-agent President. It shouldn't surprise any of us. The billionaires of the world share more loyalty to and commonality with each other than they do with the people of their own countries of origin.