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

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.
Trump is a lying fat ass windbag that sings BS to you constantly and you eat it up in gobs. Same with his defense.
E46650EA-F7C4-4B27-B656-CED40073E3E6.jpeg
 
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.
I realize in your world Trump's lawyers testify.
 
Repubs must impeach the next Prog president as soon as they can. All of this because Progs are pizzed off about the 2016 election. If Repubs do not give them push back, we will end up a banana republic.
They already impeached Clinton

Their claims of outrage ring shallow
I believe Clinton was impeached because Nixon was impeached. Repubs may have felt bamboozled as Progs will clearly never impeach one of their own as it is known now. Repubs are followers. Or have been for decades. They learn from the other side. In fact if they took full advantage of the situation it would be a war zone in D.C. The judges issue is a thorn in Progs sides. But to soothe you, they still have many extremists who can declare voters decisions null and void and remove executive orders at will

Nixon was not impeached.
 
The man persecuted a blowjob

Shows his credibility

Are you pathalogical in your lying

For the 10,000th time....he was prosecuted (not something I agreed with) for lying under oath.

What part of that simple English don't you understand ?

Liar.
 
Trombies see and hear what they wish to see and hear.

Starr was boring and professorial as he laid out no defense of Trump whatsoever.

The idea that we should not have impeachment as a check on a corrupt president
is grade A level stupid. And that is what he just claimed.

Morons eat that shit up.

What part of both fucking Articles are bullshit, constitutionally and legally don't you comprehend?

He's in an oxygen low environment with her head up Pelosi's ass.

We need to tell Nancy to breath deeper....she is breathing for many.
 
Repubs must impeach the next Prog president as soon as they can. All of this because Progs are pizzed off about the 2016 election. If Repubs do not give them push back, we will end up a banana republic.
I think it would be better if we just jailed the silly shits responsible for the silly shit. The list begins with Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler in the least. Or maybe Pelosi and all of dumbass impeachment managers.

Welcome tin-pot dictator supporter, would you also like to see Trumpybear call out and publicly hang a few Democrat legislators for daring to vote for the Constitutional remedy to rid our country of a corrupt con man like ol Trumpybear?
In real terms. You see all of the actors/media and their nasty threats over the last few years? If Trump just followed the current law, they may be in jail. Let alone being a dictator.
 
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.
 
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.
Truth is always damning to Liars.

Neither Bolton or Rudy are witnesses since they were never Subpoenaed.
 
Trumps entire defense is to say how everyone is lying but him, then refuse to present any exculpatory evidence ..
Listen stupid you don't have to defend innocence. Trump has done nothing illegal and nothing wrong.

You'd better get your collective heads out of your asses and do it PDQ. During the latest Senate pee break, of the Democrats calling in to C span at least four of them said they so were Democrats but no more and they were going to vote for Trump in the up coming election. That was four out of about six people calling in on the democrat number. Get a clue!
 
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?

It doesn't matter if it's lying about a BJ or lying about a jaywalking ticket. Perjury is a felony. You can't lie to a federal grand jury. If we allowed that, false testimony would be common place in our courts.
Perjury in a Court Case is the issue. Bill Clinton can lie 364 days of a year until he is in court and under oath. Not only that, let's not forget he was found to have committed 13 crimes and Trump was found to have committed ZERO.

Bill Clinton's impeachment was partisan as many Democrats voted to initiate an impeachment inquiry on him and wrote articles on him.

This is why I think Impeachment needs amended requiring a 2/3rds majority.
 
The man persecuted a blowjob

Shows his credibility

I was only 18 at the time but was it not lying about it and coercing others to lie? No?

Yes. Exactly.

He lied under oath. He asked others to do so as well.

Trump has refused to even answer questions under oath. That is the
only reason that he has not lied under oath.

So you're saying rightwinger lied just now?

Did he? What did he say?
 
The man persecuted a blowjob

Shows his credibility


No he prosecute Bill Clinton for committing perjury, and for lying in front of a federal judge during a deposition – that is, contempt of court. That’s why he was impeached. That’s why he paid an enormous sum of money in fines and penalties.

If he would have just admitted he got a blow job under oath when asked or took the fifth, he would have never been impeached. Also the senate voted to acquit him voting along party lines.
 
Trombies see and hear what they wish to see and hear.

Starr was boring and professorial as he laid out no defense of Trump whatsoever.

The idea that we should not have impeachment as a check on a corrupt president
is grade A level stupid. And that is what he just claimed.

Morons eat that shit up.

What part of both fucking Articles are bullshit, constitutionally and legally don't you comprehend?

No. They aren't. The evidence is clear. he abused his power for personal gain and then obstructed justice.

Impeachment is the remedy.

Idiot.
You're the idiot. There was and is no personal gain and there was no crime of any kind.

Sure there was.
 
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.
He didn't defend tRump at all, he just tried to find a way to say what he did wasn't illegal.

And he failed.
 
Trumps entire defense is to say how everyone is lying but him, then refuse to present any exculpatory evidence ..
What a pantload.

His defense against the first article is that the subpoenas were invalid. He is correct.

His defense against the second is that there was no quid pro quo, which there wasn't.

He doesn't need to present any evidence since your House Clowns have no case.

You aren't getting to your "51 votes" to remove, idiot.:5_1_12024:
 
Trombies see and hear what they wish to see and hear.

Starr was boring and professorial as he laid out no defense of Trump whatsoever.

The idea that we should not have impeachment as a check on a corrupt president
is grade A level stupid. And that is what he just claimed.

Morons eat that shit up.

What part of both fucking Articles are bullshit, constitutionally and legally don't you comprehend?
They aren't.
 

Forum List

Back
Top