It to some extent depends on an individual basis, but basically:
Any significant abuse of power to personal political and economic ends regardless of whether it is strictly illegal or not. For example withholding FEMA assistance from any state that didn’t vote for him.
Illegal Election shenanigans that may bring into question the legitimacy of the election that brought them to power.
Extreme incompetence (beyond even what we have seen in Trump) that puts the nation at risk. For example Launching a nuclear strike on Lithuania, because their psychic advisor told them that the ascension of Zorp was upon us.
I checked a lot of them. However, impeachment is a trial, there are acts for which a president should be impeached but not necessarily removed from office. The poll also specifies “any [act]” in many of the choices, there are degrees of severity to improper and illegal acts. Some could be so trivial it’s not worth an impeachment.
I generally referred to any “meaningful act” because I wanted to ignore trivialities. Where I didn’t specify meaningful it was because that is exactly the distinction I wanted to draw. So, there are two questions about illegal conduct during the presidential term but unrelated to the office. One is a meaningful crime (tax evasion) which in fact was linked to earlier corruption by Agnew) versus crime that isn’t particularly meaningful (lying about a blow job in an unrelated civil suit).
Although I didn’t specify “meaningful” illegal promises during the post-election, pre-inaugural period, I hope it’s clear that I meant corrupt bargains based on the forthcoming power of the presidency. I think even small amounts of corruption are impeachable and I was curious if others agreed.
Impeachment, trial, and removal are a POLITICAL process, not CRIMINAL. Presidents and their minions can and do violate many laws, with little punishment while they’re in office. Except for the occasional confession, grand jury, prison, etc for the minions.
The standard for removal is political “high crimes” as decided by impeachment (indictment) and trial… by politicians, not a jury. Court rules do not apply. The biased are not excluded - they’re ALL biased, ALL tampered with.
Each member of the Senate jury will vote, not on crimes, but on their own self interest. Does keeping or ousting that “shitstain on the face of the planet” benefit their career? Will enough horrendous evidence prompt them to commit political suicide? Do not expect national interest to intrude on a senate of whores.
What is an indictable offense? To nauseatingly degrade the office and the nation.
The Constitution says “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors” are impeachable.
So a President who is committing bribery should be impeached and removed. But aside from just that one particular crime, IMHO you’d want to use that as a yardstick: any offense that’s roughly as serious an offense as bribery, or of greater seriousness, should get a President impeached and removed.
Directly relevant to the current situation is that bribery and extortion are two sides of the same coin. If bribery is grounds for removal, so is extortion.
Also of current relevance is that the Constitution just says “bribery,” but not who’s bribing whom. Presumably either bribing or taking bribes would be grounds for removal.
But to the general question, I’d ask: how does a given Presidential action stack up against giving/receiving bribes in terms of seriousness? If equal or greater seriousness, then impeach and remove.
If not, then I’d say it’s possible to make a case for why such an action should be grounds for impeachment anyway, but IMHO you’d start with a pretty strong presumption that it shouldn’t be, that your argument would have to overcome.
The Justice Department’s current position is that the President cannot be indicted, much less convicted, for any federal crime whatsoever, and that impeachment is the only recourse against a criminal President.
The logical corollary of this is that any federal crime whatsoever is valid grounds for impeachment.
I think that this is an accurate reflection of the Constitutional state of affairs, though I would prefer that it were instead possible for the President to face the normal consequences for normal crimes.
Pretty clearly above “the law” isn’t he. And we saw our last US Supreme Kangaroo Court Justus. And we see the police murdering unarmed nonthreatening citizens in the streets with impunity, Amber Guyger notwithstanding recently. And how many bogus illegal wars of aggression are we currently prosecuting? We support 73% of the world’s dictators.
And still we prattle on about being a “nation of laws”?