Law? Who needs the law?

Byron York: "In Trump impeachment, 'no one is above the law' could backfire on Democrats" because no Democrat can define what law has been broken:

The bottom line is, it will be very, very hard for House Democrats to show that Trump committed a crime in the Ukraine affair. Which is why some Democrats seem to be moving toward accusing Trump of engaging in misconduct that is more difficult to define, such as violating his oath of office or betraying his country. Those are charges that seem solemn and weighty but are also fuzzy enough to use without getting into any detailed — and losing — legal argument.

The Constitution says a president "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." There has been a very long debate on what that means. To lay ears, it sounds like the president must be shown to have committed a crime to be impeached and removed from office. But the Framers did not define "high crimes and misdemeanors," and it is up to Congress to decide whether a president should be impeached, and, if so, on what grounds.

So far, Democrats have not helped their cause by accusing Trump of criminal behavior. "No man is above the law" sounds good, but it requires the impeachers to make a case that the president did, indeed, break the law.

Yes, the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" is ill-defined but by placing it on equal footing as treason, it implies a serious charge.