Judge Ken Starr just sank Nancy's "Impeachment of Trump"

[okfine]

Since when? Link....pretty sure he gets acquitted. Impeachment doesn’t equate to guilt. Hence the debate in the Senate.

Clinton kept the office and he wasnt acquitted - unless of course he was innocent, is that what youre saying.

not acquitted
not exonoraded

the Senate's duty is remove him or not

I was a young kid then but WJCs lie seemed trivial. Not sure why he was impeached. Political theater is my guess.

HE LIED TO CONGRESS

now u know

Lied over something trivial. Was that worth impeachment in your opinion?

HE LIED ABOUT GETTING A BLOW JOB -

a 55 year old man, and a 20 year old intern -

I give him a medal

I bet she initiated the BJ, too, since she blew the Beverly Hills High School football team. Second nature to her and Bill was along for the ride. I guess you might say he was all in.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Democrats are giving invaluable instruction on sabotaging a president.

 

[kyzr]

Ken Starr's testimony was outstanding. He very carefully explained how the House's Articles had no constitutional basis.
The president has the authority to conduct foreign policy, period. The "Rodino Rule" was violated in that for an impeachment to be justified it MUST be bi-partisan. Nixon's was, and Clinton's was, but Trump's was not.

Article-2 is simply void because the subpoenas issued before Resolution 660, the impeachment by the full House are not constitutional. Nancy has no authority to start an impeachment inquiry without the full House vote. Further, Trump has every legal right to "due process" and can have the courts evaluate subpoenas and executive privilege claims.

The defense could have rested right after Ken Starr's summary. It was fantastic.
Starr advised that a crime is essential based on the Constitution in order for the senate to remove a president, and Trump committed no crime.

Bolton's testimony is irrelevant, because it would not allege a crime. No witnesses are needed. The fat lady just sang.

Pressuring a foreign government to investigate a political rival is not a legitimate foreign policy. That clearly was partisan.

Please tell us where in the Constitution it states that a impeachment vote has to be taken. The Constitution clearly leaves it up to the House on how to proceed. Judge Napolitano confirmed that everything was done according to the House rules that Republicans set up.

Even the Republican expert Jonathan Turley disagrees as he stated in 2014 that a statutory crime is not required. Starr is a partisan hack.

The Constitution says that impeachment is the "sole power of the House". THE WHOLE HOUSE, not just the speaker, not just committees.

If you saw Dershowitz' presentation or lecture, he "proved" that a crime against the nation is required for impeachment. Not just a personal crime.

 

[AntonToo]

Ken Starr's testimony was outstanding. He very carefully explained how the House's Articles had no constitutional basis.
The president has the authority to conduct foreign policy, period. The "Rodino Rule" was violated in that for an impeachment to be justified it MUST be bi-partisan. Nixon's was, and Clinton's was, but Trump's was not.

Article-2 is simply void because the subpoenas issued before Resolution 660, the impeachment by the full House are not constitutional. Nancy has no authority to start an impeachment inquiry without the full House vote. Further, Trump has every legal right to "due process" and can have the courts evaluate subpoenas and executive privilege claims.

The defense could have rested right after Ken Starr's summary. It was fantastic.
Starr advised that a crime is essential based on the Constitution in order for the senate to remove a president, and Trump committed no crime.

Bolton's testimony is irrelevant, because it would not allege a crime. No witnesses are needed. The fat lady just sang.

Dummy, what is it that you think Ken Starr told you that makes Trump immune from impeachment for Abusing his Office and induging in a corrupt conduct of foreign policy for personal benefit?

Constitution plainly states that the House has the sole power to impeach, and to subpoena witnesses, wtf do you think Ken Starr told you that makes it not true?

"Yea Trump is guilty as sin, but hey, the House didn't follow the proceedure to Trump's lawyer's liking, so oh well, he can't be impeached"

You seriously think thats going to fly?

 

[martybegan]

The man persecuted a blowjob

Shows his credibility

He prosecuted perjury.

All the testimony was about a blowjob

How DARE Starr claim that the Trump impeachment is excessive?

Perjury is Perjury.

 

[martybegan]

The man persecuted a blowjob

Shows his credibility

He prosecuted perjury.

For sake of completeness, Clinton was prosecuted for perjury (18 U.S. Code § 1621), suborning perjury (18 U.S. Code § 1622) and obstruction of justice (18 U.S. Code § 1503)

Yep he was impeached for lying about an extra-marital blowjob. Democrats in the Senate own the corruption of lying about a blowjob. Republicans on the other hand, will own Trumpybears corruption of shaking down foreign governments by leveraging bipartisan foreign-aid to gin up announced investigations into his political rivals.

That might be true if it actually happened, but as we all know, it didn't. But even if it did, it's not a crime or impeachable offense.

History has just proven that what ol'Trumpybear did was impeachable. He is impeached. The evidence is exposed before the American independent voters and I expect more evidence of his Shakedown of the Ukraine Scheme will be dripping out for the next 10 months or so. My dream may come true after all and the American Voters will have the opportunity to say to Trumpybear "You're Fired"

What history? If any other President did they same thing they weren't impeached for it.

 

[martybegan]

For sake of completeness, Clinton was prosecuted for perjury (18 U.S. Code § 1621), suborning perjury (18 U.S. Code § 1622) and obstruction of justice (18 U.S. Code § 1503)

Yep he was impeached for lying about an extra-marital blowjob. Democrats in the Senate own the corruption of lying about a blowjob. Republicans on the other hand, will own Trumpybears corruption of shaking down foreign governments by leveraging bipartisan foreign-aid to gin up announced investigations into his political rivals.

That might be true if it actually happened, but as we all know, it didn't. But even if it did, it's not a crime or impeachable offense.

History has just proven that what ol'Trumpybear did was impeachable. He is impeached. The evidence is exposed before the American independent voters and I expect more evidence of his Shakedown of the Ukraine Scheme will be dripping out for the next 10 months or so. My dream may come true after all and the American Voters will have the opportunity to say to Trumpybear "You're Fired"

No, it was not impeachable. That's the defense of Trump. Impeachment is for high crimes, misdemeanors, bribery and treason. That's it. Trump engaged in none of that, and neither impeachment article highlights any crime.

I believe they felt the Abuse of Power based on the claim that he:—"corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into— (A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; and (B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine—rather than Russia—interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election." reached the bar for High Crimes.

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres755/BILLS-116hres755enr.pdf

That's why he was impeached.

he was impeached because they promised their base they would do it, and this is the "best" reason they could find.

A purely political action.

 

[martybegan]

The man persecuted a blowjob

Shows his credibility

He prosecuted perjury.

And obstruction.

The obstruction charges were a stretch. The perjury one was provable, but not enough Senators thought it was bad enough to remove him from office.

 

[kyzr]

Ken Starr's testimony was outstanding. He very carefully explained how the House's Articles had no constitutional basis.
The president has the authority to conduct foreign policy, period. The "Rodino Rule" was violated in that for an impeachment to be justified it MUST be bi-partisan. Nixon's was, and Clinton's was, but Trump's was not.

Article-2 is simply void because the subpoenas issued before Resolution 660, the impeachment by the full House are not constitutional. Nancy has no authority to start an impeachment inquiry without the full House vote. Further, Trump has every legal right to "due process" and can have the courts evaluate subpoenas and executive privilege claims.

The defense could have rested right after Ken Starr's summary. It was fantastic.
Starr advised that a crime is essential based on the Constitution in order for the senate to remove a president, and Trump committed no crime.

Bolton's testimony is irrelevant, because it would not allege a crime. No witnesses are needed. The fat lady just sang.

Dummy, what is it that you think Ken Starr told you that makes Trump immune from impeachment for Abusing his Office and indulging in a corrupt conduct of foreign policy for personal benefit?

Constitution plainly states that the House has the sole power to impeach, and to subpoena witnesses, wtf do you think Ken Starr told you that makes it not true?

"Yea Trump is guilty as sin, but hey, the House didn't follow the procedure to Trump's lawyer's liking, so oh well, he can't be impeached"

You seriously think thats going to fly?

1. There is a big difference between an "abuse of power" and an "impeachable offense". Every president was accused of abuses of power.
2. "The whole House" has the power to impeach and issue subpoenas for an impeachment inquiry. Resolution 660 needed to be passed by the whole House to have valid subpoenas regarding impeachment. If the House disagrees take it to court, see how they interpret the Constitution.
3. If the Articles don't fit you must acquit.
4. The senate needs to vote ASAP to dismiss the illegitimate Articles against Trump, no witnesses needed to support unconstitutional Articles.

 

[LeftofLeft]

The man persecuted a blowjob

Shows his credibility

He prosecuted lying under oath and obstruction of justice; not obstruction of Congress. Show US in the legal documentation where Starr prosecuted the President for getting head from an intern?

 

[LeftofLeft]

Ken Starr's testimony was outstanding. He very carefully explained how the House's Articles had no constitutional basis.
The president has the authority to conduct foreign policy, period. The "Rodino Rule" was violated in that for an impeachment to be justified it MUST be bi-partisan. Nixon's was, and Clinton's was, but Trump's was not.

Article-2 is simply void because the subpoenas issued before Resolution 660, the impeachment by the full House are not constitutional. Nancy has no authority to start an impeachment inquiry without the full House vote. Further, Trump has every legal right to "due process" and can have the courts evaluate subpoenas and executive privilege claims.

The defense could have rested right after Ken Starr's summary. It was fantastic.
Starr advised that a crime is essential based on the Constitution in order for the senate to remove a president, and Trump committed no crime.

Bolton's testimony is irrelevant, because it would not allege a crime. No witnesses are needed. The fat lady just sang.

Ah the Iran contra/ bjs king.
Current supreme sitting right behind him. The guy who got illegal Linda trip recordings for the bjs.
Terrific guys
Know why he was fired from his university job?
And omg it doesn't have to be a crime Derz and 1000 legals said it himself in the 90s

..... and yet still brings more credibility to the process thanks Schiff and Pelosi.

 

[AntonToo]

Ken Starr's testimony was outstanding. He very carefully explained how the House's Articles had no constitutional basis.
The president has the authority to conduct foreign policy, period. The "Rodino Rule" was violated in that for an impeachment to be justified it MUST be bi-partisan. Nixon's was, and Clinton's was, but Trump's was not.

Article-2 is simply void because the subpoenas issued before Resolution 660, the impeachment by the full House are not constitutional. Nancy has no authority to start an impeachment inquiry without the full House vote. Further, Trump has every legal right to "due process" and can have the courts evaluate subpoenas and executive privilege claims.

The defense could have rested right after Ken Starr's summary. It was fantastic.
Starr advised that a crime is essential based on the Constitution in order for the senate to remove a president, and Trump committed no crime.

Bolton's testimony is irrelevant, because it would not allege a crime. No witnesses are needed. The fat lady just sang.

Dummy, what is it that you think Ken Starr told you that makes Trump immune from impeachment for Abusing his Office and indulging in a corrupt conduct of foreign policy for personal benefit?

Constitution plainly states that the House has the sole power to impeach, and to subpoena witnesses, wtf do you think Ken Starr told you that makes it not true?

"Yea Trump is guilty as sin, but hey, the House didn't follow the procedure to Trump's lawyer's liking, so oh well, he can't be impeached"

You seriously think thats going to fly?

1. There is a big difference between an "abuse of power" and an "impeachable offense". Every president was accused of abuses of power.

Horseshit, no president was accused of something like pressuring a country with American foreign aid to sqeeze out personal favors.

Maybe not every instance of Abuse of Power is impeachable, but certainly this is. It's pure corruption.

 

[BlindBoo]

The Constitution says that impeachment is the "sole power of the House". THE WHOLE HOUSE,

Where does it say the "Whole House". I must have missed that. The Majority party has the power and the whole House voted on the rules at the beginning of the legislative session.

 

[AntonToo]

Yep he was impeached for lying about an extra-marital blowjob. Democrats in the Senate own the corruption of lying about a blowjob. Republicans on the other hand, will own Trumpybears corruption of shaking down foreign governments by leveraging bipartisan foreign-aid to gin up announced investigations into his political rivals.

That might be true if it actually happened, but as we all know, it didn't. But even if it did, it's not a crime or impeachable offense.

History has just proven that what ol'Trumpybear did was impeachable. He is impeached. The evidence is exposed before the American independent voters and I expect more evidence of his Shakedown of the Ukraine Scheme will be dripping out for the next 10 months or so. My dream may come true after all and the American Voters will have the opportunity to say to Trumpybear "You're Fired"

No, it was not impeachable. That's the defense of Trump. Impeachment is for high crimes, misdemeanors, bribery and treason. That's it. Trump engaged in none of that, and neither impeachment article highlights any crime.

I believe they felt the Abuse of Power based on the claim that he:—"corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into— (A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; and (B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine—rather than Russia—interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election." reached the bar for High Crimes.

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres755/BILLS-116hres755enr.pdf

That's why he was impeached.

he was impeached because they promised their base they would do it

Wtf are you talking about? Did Democrats make Trump coduct these corrupt operations??

If that swamper could keep his nose clean he would not be impeached today. Period.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Ken Starr's testimony was outstanding. He very carefully explained how the House's Articles had no constitutional basis.
The president has the authority to conduct foreign policy, period. The "Rodino Rule" was violated in that for an impeachment to be justified it MUST be bi-partisan. Nixon's was, and Clinton's was, but Trump's was not.

Article-2 is simply void because the subpoenas issued before Resolution 660, the impeachment by the full House are not constitutional. Nancy has no authority to start an impeachment inquiry without the full House vote. Further, Trump has every legal right to "due process" and can have the courts evaluate subpoenas and executive privilege claims.

The defense could have rested right after Ken Starr's summary. It was fantastic.
Starr advised that a crime is essential based on the Constitution in order for the senate to remove a president, and Trump committed no crime.

Bolton's testimony is irrelevant, because it would not allege a crime. No witnesses are needed. The fat lady just sang.

Dummy, what is it that you think Ken Starr told you that makes Trump immune from impeachment for Abusing his Office and indulging in a corrupt conduct of foreign policy for personal benefit?

Constitution plainly states that the House has the sole power to impeach, and to subpoena witnesses, wtf do you think Ken Starr told you that makes it not true?

"Yea Trump is guilty as sin, but hey, the House didn't follow the procedure to Trump's lawyer's liking, so oh well, he can't be impeached"

You seriously think thats going to fly?

1. There is a big difference between an "abuse of power" and an "impeachable offense". Every president was accused of abuses of power.

Horseshit, no president was accused of something like pressuring a country with American foreign aid to sqeeze out personal favors.

Maybe not every instance of Abuse of Power is impeachable, but certainly this is. It's pure corruption.

This can’t be the first time in US History that a President negotiated with a foreign power for political gain nor will it be the last. But it is the closest thread you people have for Impeachment of Trump after your epic fail of trying to map him to Russia Collusion in the 2016 Election. Further, Democrats have vowed to keep Impeaching him no matter what.

 

[BlindBoo]

Yep he was impeached for lying about an extra-marital blowjob. Democrats in the Senate own the corruption of lying about a blowjob. Republicans on the other hand, will own Trumpybears corruption of shaking down foreign governments by leveraging bipartisan foreign-aid to gin up announced investigations into his political rivals.

That might be true if it actually happened, but as we all know, it didn't. But even if it did, it's not a crime or impeachable offense.

History has just proven that what ol'Trumpybear did was impeachable. He is impeached. The evidence is exposed before the American independent voters and I expect more evidence of his Shakedown of the Ukraine Scheme will be dripping out for the next 10 months or so. My dream may come true after all and the American Voters will have the opportunity to say to Trumpybear "You're Fired"

No, it was not impeachable. That's the defense of Trump. Impeachment is for high crimes, misdemeanors, bribery and treason. That's it. Trump engaged in none of that, and neither impeachment article highlights any crime.

I believe they felt the Abuse of Power based on the claim that he:—"corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into— (A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; and (B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine—rather than Russia—interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election." reached the bar for High Crimes.

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres755/BILLS-116hres755enr.pdf

That's why he was impeached.

he was impeached because they promised their base they would do it, and this is the "best" reason they could find.

A purely political action.

Using the good will of the entire nation, and the tax money of us all, to coerce foreign intervention in our election, was an attempted attack on half of our Republic. He should be removed from office for the good of the country.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Ken Starr's testimony was outstanding. He very carefully explained how the House's Articles had no constitutional basis.
The president has the authority to conduct foreign policy, period. The "Rodino Rule" was violated in that for an impeachment to be justified it MUST be bi-partisan. Nixon's was, and Clinton's was, but Trump's was not.

Article-2 is simply void because the subpoenas issued before Resolution 660, the impeachment by the full House are not constitutional. Nancy has no authority to start an impeachment inquiry without the full House vote. Further, Trump has every legal right to "due process" and can have the courts evaluate subpoenas and executive privilege claims.

The defense could have rested right after Ken Starr's summary. It was fantastic.
Starr advised that a crime is essential based on the Constitution in order for the senate to remove a president, and Trump committed no crime.

Bolton's testimony is irrelevant, because it would not allege a crime. No witnesses are needed. The fat lady just sang.

Dummy, what is it that you think Ken Starr told you that makes Trump immune from impeachment for Abusing his Office and indulging in a corrupt conduct of foreign policy for personal benefit?

Constitution plainly states that the House has the sole power to impeach, and to subpoena witnesses, wtf do you think Ken Starr told you that makes it not true?

"Yea Trump is guilty as sin, but hey, the House didn't follow the procedure to Trump's lawyer's liking, so oh well, he can't be impeached"

You seriously think thats going to fly?

1. There is a big difference between an "abuse of power" and an "impeachable offense". Every president was accused of abuses of power.

Horseshit, no president was accused of something like pressuring a country with American foreign aid to sqeeze out personal favors.

Maybe not every instance of Abuse of Power is impeachable, but certainly this is. It's pure corruption.

It’s hard to take bullshit cries of “pure corruption” seriously while names like Biden, Pelosi, Kerry, and Democrat staffers have been on the take from Burisma.

 

[Care4all]

Ken Starr's testimony was outstanding. He very carefully explained how the House's Articles had no constitutional basis.
The president has the authority to conduct foreign policy, period. The "Rodino Rule" was violated in that for an impeachment to be justified it MUST be bi-partisan. Nixon's was, and Clinton's was, but Trump's was not.

Article-2 is simply void because the subpoenas issued before Resolution 660, the impeachment by the full House are not constitutional. Nancy has no authority to start an impeachment inquiry without the full House vote. Further, Trump has every legal right to "due process" and can have the courts evaluate subpoenas and executive privilege claims.

The defense could have rested right after Ken Starr's summary. It was fantastic.
Starr advised that a crime is essential based on the Constitution in order for the senate to remove a president, and Trump committed no crime.

Bolton's testimony is irrelevant, because it would not allege a crime. No witnesses are needed. The fat lady just sang.

Pressuring a foreign government to investigate a political rival is not a legitimate foreign policy. That clearly was partisan.

Please tell us where in the Constitution it states that a impeachment vote has to be taken. The Constitution clearly leaves it up to the House on how to proceed. Judge Napolitano confirmed that everything was done according to the House rules that Republicans set up.

Even the Republican expert Jonathan Turley disagrees as he stated in 2014 that a statutory crime is not required. Starr is a partisan hack.

The Constitution says that impeachment is the "sole power of the House". THE WHOLE HOUSE, not just the speaker, not just committees.

If you saw Dershowitz' presentation or lecture, he "proved" that a crime against the nation is required for impeachment. Not just a personal crime.

It also states the House and Senate, set their own rules, which is done by the Majority in power.

Check Mate!

 

[LeftofLeft]

That might be true if it actually happened, but as we all know, it didn't. But even if it did, it's not a crime or impeachable offense.

History has just proven that what ol'Trumpybear did was impeachable. He is impeached. The evidence is exposed before the American independent voters and I expect more evidence of his Shakedown of the Ukraine Scheme will be dripping out for the next 10 months or so. My dream may come true after all and the American Voters will have the opportunity to say to Trumpybear "You're Fired"

No, it was not impeachable. That's the defense of Trump. Impeachment is for high crimes, misdemeanors, bribery and treason. That's it. Trump engaged in none of that, and neither impeachment article highlights any crime.

I believe they felt the Abuse of Power based on the claim that he:—"corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into— (A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; and (B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine—rather than Russia—interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election." reached the bar for High Crimes.

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres755/BILLS-116hres755enr.pdf

That's why he was impeached.

he was impeached because they promised their base they would do it, and this is the "best" reason they could find.

A purely political action.

Using the good will of the entire nation, and the tax money of us all, to coerce foreign intervention in our election, was an attempted attack on half of our Republic. He should be removed from office for the good of the country.

Good luck with that one. The Bidens, Pelosis and Democrat staffers are still cashing checks from Burisma. You don’t think anyone falling in this category can replace Trump? How serious are you about ridding corruption or are you just heavily motivated to GETTrump?

 

[iceberg]

Ken Starr's testimony was outstanding. He very carefully explained how the House's Articles had no constitutional basis.
The president has the authority to conduct foreign policy, period. The "Rodino Rule" was violated in that for an impeachment to be justified it MUST be bi-partisan. Nixon's was, and Clinton's was, but Trump's was not.

Article-2 is simply void because the subpoenas issued before Resolution 660, the impeachment by the full House are not constitutional. Nancy has no authority to start an impeachment inquiry without the full House vote. Further, Trump has every legal right to "due process" and can have the courts evaluate subpoenas and executive privilege claims.

The defense could have rested right after Ken Starr's summary. It was fantastic.
Starr advised that a crime is essential based on the Constitution in order for the senate to remove a president, and Trump committed no crime.

Bolton's testimony is irrelevant, because it would not allege a crime. No witnesses are needed. The fat lady just sang.

Pressuring a foreign government to investigate a political rival is not a legitimate foreign policy. That clearly was partisan.

Please tell us where in the Constitution it states that a impeachment vote has to be taken. The Constitution clearly leaves it up to the House on how to proceed. Judge Napolitano confirmed that everything was done according to the House rules that Republicans set up.

Even the Republican expert Jonathan Turley disagrees as he stated in 2014 that a statutory crime is not required. Starr is a partisan hack.

The Constitution says that impeachment is the "sole power of the House". THE WHOLE HOUSE, not just the speaker, not just committees.

If you saw Dershowitz' presentation or lecture, he "proved" that a crime against the nation is required for impeachment. Not just a personal crime.

It also states the House and Senate, set their own rules, which is done by the Majority in power.

Check Mate!

just remember this "clever bit" from you when it comes back to haunt the left.

and it will.

and you will ***** and whine that suddenly all this is NOT fair. or legal. or anything at all but bullshit. of which it will be.

much like what the left is doing now.

but hey - you got your pom poms, roy fuchs, so sell that used car and make believe all the crap you make up as you go has some anchor in truth. somewhere.