Here’s why Trump’s tweets are impeachable offenses legally defined as ‘scandalous harangues’

On Friday, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank said that history can point us in the right direction when debating if President Donald Trump should be impeached or not.

"We don’t have to wonder. A president already has been impeached for something similar," Milbank said. "In 1868, the House impeached President Andrew Johnson because of his firing of Edwin Stanton as secretary of war and, at root, Johnson’s thwarting of Reconstruction."

Johnson was guilty of a “high misdemeanor in office” for his use "scandalous harangues" the article explained.

He went on to explain that Trump's tweets can count as "scandalous harangues," and the majority of his behavior is indecent.

"Trump’s indecency is commonplace. At a National Day of Prayer service Thursday, just after talking about how 'we proudly come together as one nation,' he spoke of God helping him survive 'witch hunts.' He has in recent days called Joe Biden, the Democratic presidential front-runner, 'Sleepy Joe' and 'not very bright.' Add to that a recent Twitter stream of invective about Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, the 'dues sucking' firefighters’ union, Democrats with 'sick and demented ideas' — and, of course, a 'Deep State coup effort,' collusion delusion' and the Mueller 'witch hunt,'" he wrote.

He then added that there is not any precedent for Trump's behaviors because the framers of the Constitution could not have predicted someone like Trump would ever be in office.

"The framers assumed a president would be upstanding. Federalist Paper No. 68 says future presidents would likely be 'characters preeminent for ability and virtue,' reasoning that the electoral process would eliminate those who had only 'talents for low intrigue and the little arts of popularity'", he wrote.

"Alexander Hamilton never met Donald Trump," he said.

Read the full column here.