Chuck Schumer is reaching this morning, feeling the end is near.
He complains @AlanDersh argued a POTUS cannot be impeached for non-crimes and @TheJusticeDept won’t indict a president.
Right, because they are impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, like he argued in 1999.
He complains @AlanDersh argued a POTUS cannot be impeached for non-crimes and @TheJusticeDept won’t indict a president.
Right, because they are impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, like he argued in 1999.
Worth noting, the legal consensus is worthless. @AlanDersh was right that it changes based on political interest.
Not only did Democrats like @SenSchumer and liberal “scholars” argue crimes were needed for impeachment in 1999, but also Clinton’s crimes were not “high” crimes.
Not only did Democrats like @SenSchumer and liberal “scholars” argue crimes were needed for impeachment in 1999, but also Clinton’s crimes were not “high” crimes.
In 1999, Democrats like @SenSchumer and @SpeakerPelosi didn’t even contest whether @BillClinton committed crimes or the necessity of a crime for impeachment.
They argued there were no “high” crimes, severe enough to remove him.
Bribery, treason and the like only.
They argued there were no “high” crimes, severe enough to remove him.
Bribery, treason and the like only.
