>>12696322 (pb)
How do you impeach a president that, theoretically, is not the president? Unless….you KNOW he actually won and IS the president, and not butt hole Biden.
Hmmm, now that I think of it, the phrase, "knowningly," comes to mind.
*Knowingly
Sounds like Biden and gang have something to worry about to me.
"High crimes and misdemeanors", in the legal and common parlance of England in the 17th and 18th centuries, is corrupt activity by those who have special duties that are not shared with common persons.[5] Toward the end of the 18th century, "High crimes and misdemeanors" acquired a more technical meaning. As Blackstone says in his Commentaries: The first and principal high misdemeanor…was mal-administration of such high offices as are in public trust and employment.[6]
The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was a common phrase when the U.S. Constitution was written and did not require any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt, but meant the opposite. The crimes are called "high crimes" because they are carried out by a person in a position of public authority, or by misusing the position of public authority they have been given. It does not mean that the crimes themselves are unusual or "higher" types of crime. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes. In 1974 the Senate's Judiciary Committee's stated that "'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' has traditionally been considered a 'term of art', like such other constitutional phrases as 'levying war' and 'due process.' [7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States
Presidential Impeachment: The Legal Standard and Procedure
Last updated April 19, 2017
The involuntary removal of a sitting President of the United States has never occurred in our history. The only legal way such can be accomplished is by the impeachment process. This article discusses the legal standard to be properly applied by members of the U.S. House of Representatives when voting for or against Articles of Impeachment, and members of the U.S. Senate when voting whether to convict and remove from office a President of the U.S., as well as the procedure to be followed.
Article I § 2 of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach (make formal charges against) and Article I § 3 gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. Article II § 4 of the Constitution provides as follows:
"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
Thus, the operative legal standard to apply to an impeachment of a sitting President is "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." There is substantial difference of opinion over the interpretation of these words.
There are essentially four schools of thought concerning the meaning of these words, although there are innumerable subsets within those four categories.
https://www.findlaw.com/litigation/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html
Key point I notice is that the wording seems to say, "The involuntary removal of a sitting President…"
So, WHO is the sitting president then?
Which then begs the question, WHY is Schumer pushing for impeachment? Inquiring minds wanna know. KEK.
Maybe some pepes peeking in?