Page:Impeachment of Donald J. Trump, President of the United States — Report of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives.pdf/61

 Second, impeachable offenses involve wrongdoing that reveal the President as a continuing threat to the constitutional system if he is allowed to remain in a position of political power. As Iredell remarked, impeachment does not exist for a "mistake." That is why the Framers rejected "maladministration" as a basis for impeachment, and it is why "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" are not simply unwise, unpopular, or unconsidered acts. Like "Treason" and "Bribery," they reflect decisions by the President to embark on a course of conduct—or to act with motives—inconsistent with our plan of government. Where the President makes such a decision, Congress may remove him to protect the Constitution, especially if there is reason to think that he will commit additional offenses if left in office (e.g., statements by the President that he did nothing wrong and would do it all again). This forward-looking perspective follows from the limited consequences of impeachment. The question is not whether to punish the President; that decision is left to the criminal justice system. Instead, the ultimate question is whether to bring an early end to his four-year electoral term. In his analysis of the Constitution, Alexis de Tocqueville thus saw impeachment as "a preventive measure" which exists "to deprive the ill-disposed citizen of an authority which he has used amiss, and to prevent him from ever acquiring it again." That is particularly true when the President injures the Nation's interests as part of a scheme to obtain personal benefits; someone so corrupt will again act corruptly.

Finally, "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" involve conduct that is recognizably wrong to a reasonable person. This principle resolves a potential tension in the Constitution. On the one hand, the Framers adopted a standard for impeachment that could stand the test of time. On the other hand, the structure of the Constitution—including its prohibition on bills of attainder and the Ex Post Facto Clause—implies that impeachable offenses should not come as a surprise. Impeachment is aimed at Presidents who believe they are above the law, and who believe their own interests transcend those of the country and Constitution. Of course, as President Nixon proved, Presidents who have committed impeachable offenses may seek to confuse the public through manufactured ambiguity and crafty pretexts. That does not shield their misconduct from impeachment. The principle of a plainly wrong act is not about academic technicalities; it simply focuses impeachment on conduct that any person of honor would recognize as wrong under the Constitution.

To summarize: Like "Treason" and "Bribery," and consistent with the offenses historically considered by Parliament to warrant impeachment, "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" are great and dangerous offenses that injure the constitutional system. Such offenses are defined mainly by abuse of power, betrayal of the national interest through foreign entanglements, and corruption of office and elections. In addition, impeachable offenses arise from wrongdoing that reveals the President as a continuing threat to the constitutional system if allowed to remain in a position of power. Finally, they involve conduct that reasonable officials would consider to be wrong in our democracy.

Within these parameters, and guided by fidelity to the Constitution, the House must judge whether the President's misconduct is grave enough to require impeachment. That step must never be taken lightly. It is a momentous act, justified only when the President's full course of conduct, assessed