Constitution did not Limit Impeachment to Codified Crimes

   Impeachments are for more that statutory crimes. If you reflect on Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, you will see evidence of this.
   "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
   In other words, Congress can only remove you from office, but if you have committed a statutory crime, that remains the purview of the regular court system.
   It seems rather likely the Founding Fathers recognized the things presidents might be impeached for could include things that didn't fall under statutory law. Therefore, they only gave the Senate power to remove from office. If statutory crimes were the only concern, you could send the offending president through the normal criminal courts, then have the Senate hearing on whether to impeach. And, no trial at all would be needed. All that would have been covered in the regular trial, and you would just be voting on whether to impeach.
   And, if no trial would be needed, then what of this? "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments," says Article I, Section 3, Clause 6. This indicates a trial shall take place.
   The phrase. "High crimes and misdemeanors," has been in English impeachment law for perhaps 400 years. The impeachments often were for abuse of office. Alexander Hamilton, writing in the Federalist Papers, said the U.S. impeachment was modeled after that of England. Knowing this, and combining it with consideration of what I have written above, it seems clear impeachments are for more than statutory crimes.
   Said Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, in explaining his vote for impeachment:
   "The historic meaning of the words high crimes and misdemeanors, the writings of the founders and my own reasoned judgment convinced me that a president can indeed commit acts against the public trust that are so egregious that while they are not statutory crimes, they would demand removal from office. To maintain that the lack of a codified and comprehensive list of all the outrageous acts that a president might conceivably commit renders Congress powerless to remove such a president defies reason."