On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:30:27AM +0100, Peter Fairbrother wrote: > On 09/10/2019 22:26, jim bell wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, October 9, 2019, 01:52:57 PM PDT, Peter Fairbrother > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 09/10/2019 21:02, jim bell wrote: > > >> I try to avoid posting "political" issues, or at least initiating them, > > >> but Joe Biden just called for Trump to be impeached because Trump > > called > > >> on Ukraine and China to investigate him, Joe Biden. > > > >> I wonder why this doesn't qualify as "attempted obstruction of > > >> justice". > > > > >Not even if Biden is guilty of something (for which we have > > >approximately zero evidence) and was trying to hide it. > > > > >Trump was not performing the lawful investigative act of a Government > > official - whether or not his motive was purely the administration of > > justice, his act is clearly and specifically illegal under US election > > law - therefore obstructing that unlawful act cannot be obstruction of > > justice. > > > > Could you cite which specific part of US election law" that Trump's action > > was "clearly and specifically illegal"? > Nope, no idea. I just read that in the UK papers. It was widely reported. > > But if it wasn't illegal, how could Trump be potentially impeached for a "high > crime"? What crime? > > How could Biden complain about Trump's doings unless they were illegal? Well > of course he could complain, but why would people take any notice? > > Only makes sense to me if it really was illegal.
Oh seriously, you missed the most compelling ground for illegality - is that CNN said so. I mean, I read it on the Internet, it simply MUST be true! Nice to see you shilling for Trump :) > Suppose a cop was following you for months, was parked outside your house > every day, was all-the-time-asking your family and neighbours about you. Could > you go to a Judge and get a restraining order? > > Whether he was doing it because your and his kids had a fight, because you > slept with his wife, or because he thinks (without sufficient evidence to > justify it) that you are a serial killer, the Judge should grant it. > > That would not be attempted or actual obstruction of justice, even if you were > a serial killer. Because the cop's actions were illegal. > > Peter F
