In more modern times, before issuing his executive amnesty in 2014, President Barack Obama consistently threatened to use his “pen and phone” if Congress didn’t pass the laws he ­desired when it came to ­immigration policy. Similarly, committee chairmen routinely threaten to take away unruly lawmakers’ committee assignments if they fail to vote in accordance with congressional leadership’s desires.

To treat such cajoling as a high crime — and impeachable if the US president does it — would render governing impossible.

How can the duly elected president of the United States be removed from office for engaging in constitutionally protected speech aimed at getting a foreign leader to investigate corruption and past election meddling?

In Federalist 65, Alexander Hamilton ­defined the Constitution’s “high crimes and misdemeanors” impeachment criterion as an “abuse or violation of some public trust.” How can the president’s use of constitutionally protected speech — in pursuit of his foreign policy, however idiosyncratic — amount to such abuse? It plainly can’t.