No worries. He begins with a racial slur, moving quickly into what he believes are insults. Essentially a "yo momma" street talk.

His "case" for impeaching the President is hinged on his understanding of the word "malconduct" claiming that this was the intent of the Framers of the Constitution. He gives a blog as reference who gives their credit to Federalist Paper 65 where Alexander Hamilton uses the word one time in his elegant opinion on removal of a Supreme Court judge.

My contention is, the evidence of original meaning overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that, at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, the composite term “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was a well-established, familiar legal term of art that the framers consciously borrowed from longstanding English practice and usage dating back four centuries. The term “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” had a broad meaning in English practice and in the American understanding, confiding to the two houses of the national legislature a sweeping range of power to punish those political bodies determined to be guilty of misconduct or abuse of power. The meaning of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was, so to speak, its own distinct thing. It was not a combination of “crimes” and “misdemeanors” or even commonsense as understood in today’s criminal-law sense. It was instead a unique legal term with its own meaning.

My argument was the Framers borrowed the phrase from the English Parliament with less pedestrian intent. I proposed the meaning at the time of the Convention meant a range of crimes that are “political” offenses: offenses against the constitution, laws, system of government, prerogatives of other institutions, or the rights and liberties of the people – as well as common law offences that might be punishable by ordinary criminal law. I also argued that the charges for impeachment must be a crime, not merely a dislike for an individual.

My esteemed colleague could not understand this, so he went on the offence with personal attacks and introduced modern day understanding of the "average man" determination on moral values. He then, in a very unique manner, dismissed me and my opinions as those of an ignorant white man.

Yes, all that from his misused word finds in his Thesaurus in hopes of sounding educated.