# A squeaky-clean president but....
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-squeaky-clean-president-but/830864
**Category:** In My Humble Opinion
**Created:** [March 10, 2019, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-squeaky-clean-president-but/830864 "2019-03-10T01:36:01Z")
**Posts on this page:** 17
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)
#### Post date: [March 10, 2019, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-squeaky-clean-president-but/830864/1 "2019-03-10T01:36:01Z")
He’s also a raging incompetent. Could such a president be impeached? No “high crimes and misdemeanors”, not even low crimes. 25th amendment? Incompetence isn’t an incapacity. Would we just be stuck with such an individual until the next election or is there something that could be done?
---
### Author:  [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)
#### Post date: [March 10, 2019, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-squeaky-clean-president-but/830864/2 "2019-03-10T01:40:52Z")
Since this requires speculation, let’s move it to IMHO.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
---
### Author:  [@Beckdawrek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beckdawrek)
#### Post date: [March 10, 2019, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-squeaky-clean-president-but/830864/3 "2019-03-10T01:41:34Z")
Just throwing Jimmy Carter in the mix.
---
### Author:  [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)
#### Post date: [March 10, 2019, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-squeaky-clean-president-but/830864/4 "2019-03-10T02:20:48Z")
All questions about impeachment can be answered by saying that all impeachments are political.
If your hypothetical president has an opposition Congress and the support of the public, then sure. If some other of the million possibilities are present, then who knows?
---
### Author:  [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)
#### Post date: [March 10, 2019, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-squeaky-clean-president-but/830864/5 "2019-03-10T02:49:27Z")
There are a bunch of Presidents who history found to be raging incompetents: Warren Harding, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, fill in your own partisan pick. Johnson was impeached (and damn near convicted) essentially for disagreeing with Congress and being disagreeable about it.
The moral of the story is, if Congress wants to get rid of a president badly enough, they’ll find a reason.
---
### Author:  [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)
#### Post date: [March 10, 2019, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-squeaky-clean-president-but/830864/6 "2019-03-10T03:36:48Z")
The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” is often misunderstood. It does _not_ refer to literal crimes. It refers to behaviors which undermine high office. That can include things like incompetence, drunkenness, moral turpitude, abuse of office, and even adultery. It can also overlap with criminal behavior such as bribery, graft, or treason.
---
### Author:  [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)
#### Post date: [March 10, 2019, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-squeaky-clean-president-but/830864/7 "2019-03-10T12:55:28Z")
Imcompetence absolutely can be construed as a high crime. As friedo points out, “High crimes and misdemeanors” does not mean “a felony or a misdemeanor.” Simply not doing one’s job as a public official is a high crime.
“High crime,” as distinct from, well, a crime, means misconduct that is specifically applicable to a person in public office. That’s what the “high” means. An ordinary schmuck cannot commit a high crime because they have no public trust to betray. The first person ever impeached in the USA for high crimes and misdemeanors was a judge, for being drunk all the time.
There is a fair degree of evidence that the Founding Fathers expected impeachment to be used a lot more than it ended up being used. As you might expect, though, the term is extremely subjective.
---
### Author:  [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)
#### Post date: [March 10, 2019, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-squeaky-clean-president-but/830864/8 "2019-03-10T13:03:34Z")
The usual line I hear about impeachment is that “Congress could impeach the President because they don’t like his haircut if they felt like it.”
If enough of them want him gone bad enough they can do it for _any_ reason.
---
### Author:  [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)
#### Post date: [March 10, 2019, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-squeaky-clean-president-but/830864/9 "2019-03-10T14:19:12Z")
> [@kunilou](#):
>
> There are a bunch of Presidents who history found to be raging incompetents: Warren Harding, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, fill in your own partisan pick. Johnson was impeached (and damn near convicted) essentially for disagreeing with Congress and being disagreeable about it.
>
> The moral of the story is, if Congress wants to get rid of a president badly enough, they’ll find a reason.
Harding may have been incompetant, but there’s no way in hell you could describe him as “squeaky clean”.
---
### Author:  [@jaycat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jaycat)
#### Post date: [March 10, 2019, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-squeaky-clean-president-but/830864/10 "2019-03-10T16:50:36Z")
Carter wasn’t squeaky clean. He lusted in his heart.
---
### Author:  [@DorkVader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DorkVader)
#### Post date: [March 10, 2019, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-squeaky-clean-president-but/830864/11 "2019-03-10T17:49:20Z")
And wasn’t Carter reported to have used the phrase “I’ll whip his ass” once in regards to a physical confrontation with someone? Definately a hoodlum from the wrong side of the peanut farm.
---
### Author:  [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)
#### Post date: [March 10, 2019, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-squeaky-clean-president-but/830864/12 "2019-03-10T17:56:47Z")
The Congress would be loath to impeach on grounds of general “incompetence”. As per the precedents, they would seek to identify a \*specific \*incompetent action or pattern of actions that they can argue shows the official should not be in that office.
Moreover, it is generally accepted in our government system that _instituting a lawful policy that fails_ is NOT a political “high crime”. The established punishment for instituting a lawful policy that fails is losing the next election. And failure, or _a policy result you do not like_, does not automatically entail “incompetence” either, sometimes you just fail. If the market tanks and people lose money, well, it says right there on the paper that’s a risk you take, getting rid of the President ain’t getting it back.
The way the process has evolved the Congress has not used the impeachment process to turn this into a parliamentary system where the HOG and Cabinet serve subject to the confidence of the Legislature – the Johnson impeachment failing to end in removal thwarted an apparent attempt to move in that direction. On top of that, sure, it IS a political process, the congresspeople KNOW that. But they know, in turn, that if they actually make it a precedent that they \*\*\*will \*\*\*“impeach you for not liking your haircut”, then that weakens the power of that tool, plus it will shortly be a standard turned on _themselves_. Besides, the Clinton impeachment had the consequence of raising the bar insofar as impeaching when you know there’s no chance of removal and the people don’t care.
---
### Author:  [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)
#### Post date: [March 10, 2019, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-squeaky-clean-president-but/830864/13 "2019-03-10T17:57:34Z")
> [@kunilou](#):
>
> Johnson was impeached (and damn near convicted) essentially for disagreeing with Congress and being disagreeable about it.
That is gross understatement if I ever heard one. Trump is a shining example of competence compared to the Johnson cluster fuck.
---
### Author:  [@Melbourne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melbourne)
#### Post date: [March 10, 2019, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-squeaky-clean-president-but/830864/14 "2019-03-10T21:39:17Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#):
>
> The Congress would be loath to impeach on grounds of general “incompetence”. […] But they know, in turn, that if they actually make it a precedent that they \*\*\*will \*\*\*“impeach you for not liking your haircut”, then that weakens the power of that tool, plus it will shortly be a standard turned on _themselves_. Besides, the Clinton impeachment had the consequence of raising the bar insofar as impeaching when you know there’s no chance of removal and the people don’t care.
That’s a very human characteristic, than rings several bells with me.
My dad worked in an area where “incompetent” was somewhat subjective, like in politics. When the situation arose where someone was actually objectively incompetent (mental breakdown), it was still the case that nobody wanted to be the one to point a finger.
---
### Author:  [@Asuka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asuka)
#### Post date: [March 10, 2019, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-squeaky-clean-president-but/830864/15 "2019-03-10T22:28:18Z")
> [@jaycat](#):
>
> Carter wasn’t squeaky clean. He lusted in his heart.
Had Operation Eagle Claw actually gone as planned Carter would probably have either been impeached or forced to resign since the mission as planned would have directly lead to the death or capture of most of the American soldiers involved.
---
### Author:  [@snoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snoe)
#### Post date: [March 10, 2019, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-squeaky-clean-president-but/830864/16 "2019-03-10T22:33:43Z")
Here’s a nice (if longish) review/recap of Charles Black’s Impeachment: A Handbook (1974). He’s just one scholar, of course, but I quite like his arguments that
1. **“other high crimes and misdemeanors” shouldn’t reasonably/conscientiously be read as a blank check to Congress** (e.g., “we don’t like Trump’s weave – ITMFA!”).
> [@](#):
>
> \*f I said, “Bring me some ice cream, or some candy, or something else good,” I would think you had understood me well if you brought me a piece of good angel food cake, I would boggle a little, perhaps, if you brought me a good baked potato, and I would think you crazy or stupid or willful if you brought me a good book of sermons or a good bicycle pump.”
Black argues that the category “HC&M” should be read as fundamentally similar to treason and bribery, thus only including actions that are serious and clearly harmful to the public good, not trivial ones.
2) – but on the other hand “HC&M” must also include executive actions that are not crimes in the usual sense. I quite like these _reductios ad absurdum_:
> [@](#):
>
> Suppose a president were to move to Saudi Arabia, so he could have four wives, and were to propose to conduct the office of the presidency by mail and wireless from there. [Remember, this was written in '74.] This would not be a crime, provided his passport were in order. Is it possible that such gross and wanton neglect of duty could not be grounds for impeachment and removal? …
> Suppose a president were to announce and follow a policy of granting full pardons, in advance of indictment or trial, to all federal agents or police who killed anybody in line of duty, in the District of Columbia, whatever the circumstances and however unnecessary the killing . . . . Could anybody doubt that such conduct would be impeachable?
Anyway, that’s another vote from me for yes, impeaching a president for extreme incompetence is reasonable and desirable.
And I’ll tack on an n’thing of all the comments that, in practice, determining what’s impeachable relies on the judgement of Congress and the Senate, and all their wise little members, who doubtless when the time comes will do some deep thinking about their constitutional duty and the language, as Black thought they can, and should.
---
### Author:  [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)
#### Post date: [March 10, 2019, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-squeaky-clean-president-but/830864/17 "2019-03-10T23:05:46Z")
> [@snoe](#):
>
> And I’ll tack on an n’thing of all the comments that, in practice, determining what’s impeachable relies on the judgement of Congress and the Senate, and all their wise little members, who doubtless when the time comes will do some deep thinking about their constitutional duty and the language, as Black thought they can, and should.
I think that most of us are saying that the OP was so vague as to be meaningless. Of course there’s a vast gulf between what is legally permissible and what is politically allowable, but that difference wasn’t apparent in the question as written.