I've asked this question several times in the forums without a response. My argument is that as the leader of the United States, it should be expected that the head of the Executive Branch is basically honest and truthful. If someone in such a position is basically dishonest, not truthful, and can't be expected to tell the truth, this is no way to run the Executive Branch, harms the country to a great degree, and such a person should be removed from office. I'll also clarify that the standard is not to be caught in spin or a single lie, but a pattern of habitual lying. That said, the basic problem depending on your perspective and who it is applied to, is that impeachment is a political not a criminal action, which places the bar really high for success, because you basically have to alarm 2/3 of the Senate to such a degree that they want you removed, and the same as jury, they can vote whichever way they think is appropriate or politically advantageous, irregardless of what the President is accused of. I'm always interested in the reasoning behind votes, but for "no" I'd love to hear the reason. Background info from the Constitutional Rights Foundation: High Crimes and Misdemeanors Mason abandoned “maladministration” and proposed “high crimes and misdemeanors against the state.” The convention adopted Mason’s proposal, but dropped “against the state.” The final version, which appears in the Constitution, stated: “The president, vice-president, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.