On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 3:38:11 PM UTC-8, Expert wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 1:21:05 PM UTC-8, hal lillywhite wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 12:16:43 PM UTC-8, Expert wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 9:28:52 AM UTC-8, hal lillywhite wrote:
> > > > So the dems articles of impeachment are for "abuse of power" and "obstruction of
> > > > Congress." I have to wonder if there are actually any laws against such? If not,
> > > > they can hardly accuse Trump of breaking the law.
> > >
> > > Why not parse "high crimes". That seems to fit what they are charging trump with.
> >
> > A crime, by definition, is something illegal. If there is no law against it, it
> > is not illegal.
>
> You confuse the common law and constitutional law. In this case what is "illegal" is determined by the House of Rep as they interpret the Constitution.
Go read the Constitution! The House cannot make law by itself, it requires the
Senate to agree and either the president to agree or 2/3 of each house.
And if they were to claim that they can now make what Trump is accused of illegal,
that would be a clearly unconstitutional ex post facto law.
> Some years ago the repubs in the house led by Gingrich decided that Monica sucking Bill's cock fit the description of a "high crime" and impeached Clinton.
Are you really that ignorant? He was impeached for lying under oath, and was
clearly guilty of that. In fact he lost his law license over it. His sleazy
relationship with Lewinsky was bad but not the reason for impeachment.