Jack Durish's answer to Should there be a law that properly defines the standards of impeachment?...

Respectfully, not much of this essay actually makes much sense. Indeed, some of it is factually incorrect.
For example, the “committee to insure that it was written in plain language that every citizen could interpret” didn’t, “...reduce the standard for impeachment to “high crimes and misdemeanors”?
Don’t forget, the standard also includes Treason or Bribrery. And the term, ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ was submitted by George Mason....who was not on that committee.

Anyway, if you’re interested, I’d be happy to explain further.
*additionally, it’s more of an essay than a treatise. There’s a difference.

SGT (Join to see) - Trump is being impeached for his presumed intent, not his actions. So there's that.....

LTC (Join to see) - I genuinely hope you get back to me on Johnson and any academic source, journal, historical document, etc that claims that article 10 of Johnson’s impeachment wasn't about his offensive speech. While I can virtually guarantee that you won’t be able to find anything of the sort, I’d generally be interested to read it if you found it.

That stated, have you read President Trump’s articles of impeachment? He’s not being impeached for intent. He’s being impeached for the actions he carried out because of his intent. The House didn’t impeach because he intended to Use the powers of his high office to solicit the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.
Article 1 states that he actually DID solicit the interference of a foreign government...(cont.)
Article 1 goes on to state, “ President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means:”
And then it lists three courses of action that the President actually took for the charge of Abuse of Power Not intended to take. Actually took.

Article 2 states that, “President Trump abused the powers of his high office through the following means:”
And then it lists three courses of action that the President actually took for the charge of Obstruction of Congress. Not intended to take. Actually took.

Please cite the Articles that demonstrate President is being charged due to presumed intent.

*note. The better argument you might want to make is whether or not his actions are impeachable. However, to state that President Trump is being impeached for presumed intent really doesn’t make sense.

article one states that he actually did solicit interference. and yet not a single witness called during the proceedings in the house provided a single scrap of evidence that he did. everything was presumption and assumption. Even their star witness, Sondland, said he had no evidence, he just "assumed" Trump did it. The whole thing is a ploy by the democrats because they know none of their candidates have a snowball's chance in hell of beating him in a fair election. there's you some abuse of power. politicians using their political office to try to rig the outcome of an election by slandering their opponent.

LTC (Join to see) - so we agree then, the articles of impeachment for President Trump are actually for his actions, not for his presumed intent.

The rest of your paragraph is actually a presumption of intent. Please cite one House manager trying the impeachment that has stated this case is a, “ploy by the democrats because they know none of their candidates have a snowball's chance in hell of beating him in a fair election.”
That might be harder to find than an academic/historical source claiming Article 10 of Johnson’s impeachment wasn’t about his improper speech.