“High crimes and misdemeanors” is a term used in the context of impeachment in the United States.

It refers to serious misconduct or unlawful activity by public officials, particularly those holding high office, including the presidency.

The problem is that the more specific terms 'treason' and 'bribery' are mentioned in the Constitution as impeachable offenses, but high crimes and misdemeanors are not strictly defined in the Constitution.

Congress has a right to impeach an official for high crimes and misdemeanors, but does not have all the powers of the judicial system to thoroughly investigate, prosecute in a court of law, and punish the offender. However, it can impeach and remove from government office.

It’s worth noting that impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one, and therefore does not necessarily require the commission of a crime.

The Constitution specifies that impeachable offenses include “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” but the interpretation of what constitutes such offenses is ultimately left to Congress.

Additionally, while impeachment proceedings often involve allegations of serious misconduct, they can also be initiated for reasons such as abuse of power or violation of public trust.

That seems to be what's going on with the current impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in the House four days ago, for not enforcing congressionally established law on the border.

After the House of Representatives approves articles of impeachment the case moves to the Senate for trial. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial. The Senate is responsible for conducting the trial, hearing evidence, and considering arguments from both the prosecution and the defense.

The impeachment inquiry includes witness testimony, documents, recordings, expert analysis, cross-examination, subpoenas, and public hearings. The investigative body is either a congressional committee or another relevant authority, which can be the FBI which is under the DOJ or the Department of Justice under the control of the Executive Branch.

Herein lies a dilemma.

What if the impeachment inquiry was started by a majority of Republicans in the House of Representatives and the relevant authority is a Democrat president in charge of the FBI? Do political decisions override an impartial gathering of evidence by the FBI? If witnesses plead the Fifth, documents are not provided, and subpoenas are ignored, then who is in charge of enforcement for disobedience? It seems that politically impartial enforcement of justice is not possible so impeachment is a pure political power play by one party.

Here are some potential examples of high crimes and misdemeanors, many of which have not gone through the impeachment process because it is just too hard and lengthy to gather the evidence and get Congress to voluntarily participate:

Using one’s official position for personal gain or to unlawfully influence government actions which constitutes abuse of power.

Engaging in dishonest or unethical conduct, such as embezzlement, kickbacks, or nepotism, while in office.

Obstruction of justice or interfering with legal proceedings or investigations, such as tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.

Knowingly making false statements under oath, particularly in a legal proceeding or before Congress, known as perjury.

Deceiving others for financial gain or to secure an advantage, such as by lying on official documents or misrepresenting qualifications known as fraud.

Violation of constitutional rights or acting in a manner that infringes upon the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, such as freedom of speech or due process.

Dereliction of duty or neglecting one’s responsibilities or failing to fulfill the duties of the office.

Engaging in financial misconduct, such as embezzlement, fraud, or using public funds for personal gain.

Sexual misconduct or engaging in inappropriate behavior, harassment, or assault while in office.

Behaving in a manner unbecoming of the office held, such as public indecency or moral turpitude.

Conflict of interest or acting in a manner that benefits oneself or one’s associates at the expense of the public interest.

Overstepping the bounds of executive power or disregarding the checks and balances of government.

Attempting to obstruct or influence investigations into wrongdoing.

Failing to uphold the oath of office taken upon assuming office, which includes allegiance to the Constitution and the laws of the land.

Exhibiting gross incompetence or mismanagement in the execution of one’s duties, resulting in harm to the public interest.

Conducting surveillance on citizens without proper authorization or legal justification.

Participating in a scheme or plot to commit illegal or unethical acts or conspiracy.

Taking actions that jeopardize the security or sovereignty of the nation.

Engaging in discriminatory practices based on race, gender, religion, or other protected characteristics.

Intentional negligence or willfully ignoring or failing to address important issues or crises within one’s jurisdiction.

Violating the emoluments clause.

Abuse of pardon power.

Witness intimidation.

Violation of the War Powers Act.

Using public office for personal vendettas.

Violating the rights of whistleblowers.

Refusal to comply with lawful subpoenas.

Using inflammatory or divisive rhetoric to incite violence.

Violating the Hatch Act (restriction on political activity by federal employees).

Undermining the integrity of elections or democratic processes.

Image: Screen shot from CBS Mornings video, via YouTube