The principle of no crime without law has been described as one of the most “widely held value-judgments in the entire history of human thought.” It is embedded throughout the Constitution — particularly in its prohibitions against ex post facto laws that criminalize behavior retroactively; against bills of attainder that tailor a crime to fit an accused; and against deprivations of liberty without prior notice of what was illegal.Isn't this obviously what is meant by "Rule of Law"?
Quoting these prohibitions alongside the Constitution’s discussion of impeachment, Curtis found it “impossible not to come to the conclusion” that a person should be impeached only for “high criminal offenses against the United States, made so by some law of the United States existing when the acts complained of were done.” Otherwise, he told the senators, “when each one of you ... called God to witness that he would administer impartial justice in this case according to the Constitution and the laws, he meant such laws as he might make as he went along.” Curtis repeated: “There must be some law; otherwise there is no crime.”
There is an argument that common law crimes could be prosecuted. But those are also defined in advance. Trump is not even accused of anything that anyone thought was wrong before 2016.
The family court is the place where Rule of Law is ignored. A parent can lose child custody for supposed offenses that are not written anywhere. The judge is allowed to use his own judgment, with broad discretion to use whatever crieria he please. The system does not work, and a lot of states are moving towards a presumption of joint custody.
Before Trump, no one ever said it was a crime for the executive branch to delay delivery of foreign aid, or to foreign information or an investigation. The only thing that makes Trump's actions impeachable is that he supposedly did it "corruptly", but that is never defined. Not even Schiff and the other Dems give any definition of what they now claim are crimes. And they do not argue that Trump violated anything with a pre-Trump definition.
The NY Times is doing everything it can to make it look as if John Bolton has incriminated Trump, but it says:
In his book, Mr. Bolton writes that Mr. Trump told him in August that he wanted to continue freezing congressionally approved security assistance to Ukraine until its government helped with investigations into Democrats including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden — exactly what Mr. Trump is on trial for.This is just some second-hand opinion about what Trump wanted to do. Even if it is true that Trump wanted to continue freezing aid, and it might well be, nobody has ever said that it was a crime to want to continue freezing aid.