Huh, I did not know that. In any case it matches what other sources said. Do you have a cite that disagrees with them?
Here- this place is considered unbiased
Much of the controversy surrounding the Impeachment Clause has revolved around the meaning of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” a phrase that is unique to the impeachment context. The Clause seems to rule out the possibility of Congress impeaching and removing officials simply for incompetence or general unfitness for office. Impeachments are not a remedy for government officials who are simply bad at their jobs. It is a remedy for abuses of public office. But the line between general unfitness and abuse of office can be blurry…While still serving as a member of the House of Representatives, Gerald Ford once said that impeachable offenses are whatever a majority of the House considered them to be. T
and here
James Madison explained the requirement for impeachment during the debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787: “[S]ome provision should be made for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief magistrate. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers.”
Alexander Hamilton explained in The Federalist Papers (No. 65) that impeachment of the president should take place for “offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself.”
And, in The Federalist Papers (No. 70), Hamilton further explained: “Men in public trust will much oftener act in such a manner as to render them unworthy of being any longer trusted, than in such a manner as to make them obnoxious (subject) to legal punishment.”
There is a wapo article behind a paywall
Here is a university
The deliberations that took place in Philadelphia during the Summer of 1787 involved the most esteemed delegates to the Constitutional Convention (aka founding fathers) – Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Elbridge Gerry, James Wilson, Edmund Randolph, and George Mason. They worked hard to craft an impeachment provision (high crimes and misdemeanors) that would collectively reflect an abuse of power (“misuse of official powers”; “neglect of duty”; “maladministration or corruption”; “malpractice or neglect of duty”. The Founders saw to it that such abuses of power would be labeled as high crimes and misdemeanors, which was consistent with traditional terminology in English law and were included in the Constitution as grounds for impeachment. But they also included as impeachable offenses two wrongdoings had traditionally been considered crimes against the state: treason and bribery. .. Many who are offended by the current president’s action are concerned that his transgressions do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. In their continuing search for legal sufficiency, they would do well to reflect on the words of Hamilton, who wrote in Federalist 65 that:
“…impeachable offenses were “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men; they are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done to the society itself.”
I do not see anything in any of those other cites that disagree strongly with my original cite.
Do you?