re: WAPO- “Trump’s lawyers shouldn’t be allowed to use bogus arguments on impeachment”

WAPO definition of "bogus argument"? Any constitutionally valid defense, of course.

Clinton & Gore and the Chinese.

You forget. There was nothing there. They told you there was nothing there, the MSM said there wad nothing there.Plus on the campaign contribution solicitation Algore said there was no controlling legal authority.....so that was the end of it.

ChiComs sent thank you note for the missile/rocket tech

quote:

---

clearly must be impeachable even though they might violate no criminal law and indeed no federal statute at all”.

---

They don’t seem to understand what “high crimes and misdemeanors” means

It fricking goes without saying that you can't use a bogus argument in a court of law. Only the most deluded can't see right through such blatant bullshite.

From the WpPo......

quote:

---

In fact, there is no evidence that the phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was understood in the 1780s to mean indictable crimes.

---

So I guess the Founding Fathers meant it to mean a high crime & misdemeanors can be whatever the the majority party in Congress says it is.

So why even have a president then? If the house can just declare anything a crime by the president, then they can impeach a president anytime they want and for any reason.

This dude is a fricking idiot.