Threshold For Impeachment
Commentary by Phil Valentine  / September 16, 1998

The grounds for impeachment are wrapped in purposeful ambiguity. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution states, "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." Why not list a whole host of offenses that are grounds for impeachment? Simple. The Founding Fathers were wise enough to realize that such rigidity might break under the test of time. Who could know what evils future generations of presidents might contrive. Tying Congress down to a specific list of offenses might allow a scoundrel to go unpunished. Instead they left the definition broad enough to be interpreted by Congress. If it looks like an impeachable offense and walks like an impeachable offense, it probably is an impeachable offense. Yet the notion that Congress is left to decide what is and what isn't doesn't sit well with some who fear a partisan Congress will abuse their power of impeachment.
Let's look at the specifics of the Constitutional guidelines. Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. We can assume that, if nothing else, treason and bribery are serious enough for impeachment. What's unclear is what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors. The good news is we don't have to wonder. The answer is right under our noses. According to the Justice Department's sentencing guidelines, with 1 being the least severe and 43 being the most severe, treason rates a 43 along with first degree murder. Bribery ranks a 10. It would stand to reason that anything equal to or more serious than bribery would be grounds for impeachment. Now for the easy part. Perjury, obstruction of justice and subornation of perjury all rate a 15. That's right, they're all considered more serious than bribery. If bribery is an impeachable offense, and it clearly is according to the Constitution, then it only stands to reason that perjury certainly is. Compound that with multiple counts of it, throw in obstruction and subornation and abuse of power and you have a doomed presidency. Now you know why the ridiculous semantical hair-splitting by Clinton's lawyers continues. If I, as a lowly talk show host, know this then surely they do too.