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

[iceberg]

We are discussing the Articles of Impeachment against Trump, and if they are serious enough for removal, i.e. "high crimes".
They clearly are not, so end the sham and get back to the business of the country.

Absuing your office to pressure a country with American foreign aid to squeeze out personal favors is not serious crime according to you?

According to Dershowitz, handing over Alaska to Russian control isn’t even an impeachable offense.

Dershowitz literally wrote that in his book.

Forget crazy Dershowitz, no way Americans would consider what Trump is accused of doing in Ukraine "not serious".

It's wrong, it's texbook corrupt and absolutely is subject to Congressional oversight. It is therefore impeachable.

it isn't serious. it's made up bullshit from the dems who have been looking since day 1 for a reason, ANY REASON, to do this. they count on lemming-like fools to repeat the crap they say and hey - here you are.

Every Congress is looking for a reason to impeach the president. That’s called oversight. You are a terrible cop if you aren’t looking for people commuting crimes.

no every congress is not. name me ANY OTHER CONGRESS that from day 1 of ANY president being elected started screaming IMPEACH.

damn you can go out of your way to say stupid shit.

 

[colfax_m]

Absuing your office to pressure a country with American foreign aid to squeeze out personal favors is not serious crime according to you?

According to Dershowitz, handing over Alaska to Russian control isn’t even an impeachable offense.

Dershowitz literally wrote that in his book.

Forget crazy Dershowitz, no way Americans would consider what Trump is accused of doing in Ukraine "not serious".

It's wrong, it's texbook corrupt and absolutely is subject to Congressional oversight. It is therefore impeachable.

it isn't serious. it's made up bullshit from the dems who have been looking since day 1 for a reason, ANY REASON, to do this. they count on lemming-like fools to repeat the crap they say and hey - here you are.

Every Congress is looking for a reason to impeach the president. That’s called oversight. You are a terrible cop if you aren’t looking for people commuting crimes.

no every congress is not. name me ANY OTHER CONGRESS that from day 1 of ANY president being elected started screaming IMPEACH.

damn you can go out of your way to say stupid shit.

If Congress isn’t overseeing the executive, then they’re failing their constitutional responsibility.

You can whine about people saying things you don’t like, but at the end of the day, Congress needs to do its job.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Now show us where Trump told Zelensky that the aid was based on his cooperation. I'll wait right here.

 

[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.

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 procedure to Trump's lawyer's liking, so oh well, he can't be impeached"

You seriously think thats going to fly?

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.

You see the disagreement between the House and the Executive regarding the requirements for impeachment. Resolution 660 needed to be passed first, before the subpoenas regarding impeachment, so the subpoenas are not valid, period. If the House disagrees, take it to court.

As Alan further explained, the House does not take the same oath that the senate does. That is for a reason. The Framers understood that partisan pressure would make the House more likely to pull the trigger on impeachment. The senate is supposed to be more thoughtful and bi-partisan in evaluating the Articles. The senate's constitutional duty is to avoid partisanship, which is why 67 votes are needed for removal. The Articles should have been bi-partisan instead of partisan. The Articles needed to prove serious "high crimes" against the nation comparable to treason, which they don't. They aren't even crimes.

The HOUSE SHALL HAVE THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.

No one BUT the House has a say on how it conducts impeachemnt, the argument that Courts can tell the House how to conduct impeachment is pure nonsense.

Congress further has the power to supoena, with or without impeachment, so again, the argument is bust.

Further, the administration's goals were, AND STILL ARE, to obstruct the impeachment, so again, the argument is bust.

that works for you today. but when we have a D president and a R house, you're not going to like those events.

it's GOING to fall out like that. it's just what we're setting up and somehow you'd manage to be a bigger fool than i ever thought possible if you don't see this coming.

shit, stevie wonder sees it coming.

 

[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.

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.

Now show us where Trump told Zelensky that the aid was based on his cooperation. I'll wait right here.

you looking for actual proof?

that will get you removed from his xmas card list.

 

[BlindBoo]

overheard by unreliable actors.

President "Shakedown" Trump himself responded to a question about what he wanted the Ukraine to do after his phone call.

Granted he is the most unreliable actor in this whole mess, but he wasn't just overheard saying it, it was his statement. "Investigate the Bidens! BTW, China, if you're listening....."

It will never be enough for the Senate however. Even if Bolton comes out and says "Yep that's exactly what he did, withhold the aid until he got the announcements he wanted" They'll just pivot to "So What?"

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We are discussing the Articles of Impeachment against Trump, and if they are serious enough for removal, i.e. "high crimes".
They clearly are not, so end the sham and get back to the business of the country.

Absuing your office to pressure a country with American foreign aid to squeeze out personal favors is not serious crime according to you?

According to Dershowitz, handing over Alaska to Russian control isn’t even an impeachable offense.

Dershowitz literally wrote that in his book.

Forget crazy Dershowitz, no way Americans would consider what Trump is accused of doing in Ukraine "not serious".

It's wrong, it's texbook corrupt and absolutely is subject to Congressional oversight. It is therefore impeachable.

Impeachment is for high crimes, misdemeanors, treason and bribery. What Trump did is none of those things.

Even Bolton said the aid was contingent on providing data for 2016 not 2020.

I don't know that Bolton said that. To my knowledge, the aid was not contingent on anything. They got the aid, Trump got nothing in return, so there was no quid pro quo.

 

[martybegan]

overheard by unreliable actors.

President "Shakedown" Trump himself responded to a question about what he wanted the Ukraine to do after his phone call.

Granted he is the most unreliable actor in this whole mess, but he wasn't just overheard saying it, it was his statement. "Investigate the Bidens! BTW, China, if you're listening....."

It will never be enough for the Senate however. Even if Bolton comes out and says "Yep that's exactly what he did, withhold the aid until he got the announcements he wanted" They'll just pivot to "So What?"

More hearsay and assumption of motive.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We are discussing the Articles of Impeachment against Trump, and if they are serious enough for removal, i.e. "high crimes".
They clearly are not, so end the sham and get back to the business of the country.

Absuing your office to pressure a country with American foreign aid to squeeze out personal favors is not serious crime according to you?

According to Dershowitz, handing over Alaska to Russian control isn’t even an impeachable offense.

Dershowitz literally wrote that in his book.

Forget crazy Dershowitz, no way Americans would consider what Trump is accused of doing in Ukraine "not serious".

It's wrong, it's texbook corrupt and absolutely is subject to Congressional oversight. It is therefore impeachable.

it isn't serious. it's made up bullshit from the dems who have been looking since day 1 for a reason, ANY REASON, to do this. they count on lemming-like fools to repeat the crap they say and hey - here you are.

Every Congress is looking for a reason to impeach the president. That’s called oversight. You are a terrible cop if you aren’t looking for people commuting crimes.

Except the President never committed any crime. That's the problem with this impeachment.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Absuing your office to pressure a country with American foreign aid to squeeze out personal favors is not serious crime according to you?

According to Dershowitz, handing over Alaska to Russian control isn’t even an impeachable offense.

Dershowitz literally wrote that in his book.

Forget crazy Dershowitz, no way Americans would consider what Trump is accused of doing in Ukraine "not serious".

It's wrong, it's texbook corrupt and absolutely is subject to Congressional oversight. It is therefore impeachable.

Impeachment is for high crimes, misdemeanors, treason and bribery. What Trump did is none of those things.

Even Bolton said the aid was contingent on providing data for 2016 not 2020.

I don't know that Bolton said that. To my knowledge, the aid was not contingent on anything. They got the aid, Trump got nothing in return, so there was no quid pro quo.

He claims Trump was going to hold up aid until Ukraine announced an investigation into the Bidens regarding the 2016 election. Nothing about 2020.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

Now show us where Trump told Zelensky that the aid was based on his cooperation. I'll wait right here.

Anton is a troll. Don’t bother. Ask him to put me off ignore and watch how he squirms.

 

[colfax_m]

Absuing your office to pressure a country with American foreign aid to squeeze out personal favors is not serious crime according to you?

According to Dershowitz, handing over Alaska to Russian control isn’t even an impeachable offense.

Dershowitz literally wrote that in his book.

Forget crazy Dershowitz, no way Americans would consider what Trump is accused of doing in Ukraine "not serious".

It's wrong, it's texbook corrupt and absolutely is subject to Congressional oversight. It is therefore impeachable.

it isn't serious. it's made up bullshit from the dems who have been looking since day 1 for a reason, ANY REASON, to do this. they count on lemming-like fools to repeat the crap they say and hey - here you are.

Every Congress is looking for a reason to impeach the president. That’s called oversight. You are a terrible cop if you aren’t looking for people commuting crimes.

Except the President never committed any crime. That's the problem with this impeachment.

He abused his office. That’s a problem for the president.

 

[colfax_m]

Absuing your office to pressure a country with American foreign aid to squeeze out personal favors is not serious crime according to you?

According to Dershowitz, handing over Alaska to Russian control isn’t even an impeachable offense.

Dershowitz literally wrote that in his book.

Forget crazy Dershowitz, no way Americans would consider what Trump is accused of doing in Ukraine "not serious".

It's wrong, it's texbook corrupt and absolutely is subject to Congressional oversight. It is therefore impeachable.

Impeachment is for high crimes, misdemeanors, treason and bribery. What Trump did is none of those things.

Even Bolton said the aid was contingent on providing data for 2016 not 2020.

I don't know that Bolton said that. To my knowledge, the aid was not contingent on anything. They got the aid, Trump got nothing in return, so there was no quid pro quo.

This blew up in Trump’s face before it got that far.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

According to Dershowitz, handing over Alaska to Russian control isn’t even an impeachable offense.

Dershowitz literally wrote that in his book.

Forget crazy Dershowitz, no way Americans would consider what Trump is accused of doing in Ukraine "not serious".

It's wrong, it's texbook corrupt and absolutely is subject to Congressional oversight. It is therefore impeachable.

it isn't serious. it's made up bullshit from the dems who have been looking since day 1 for a reason, ANY REASON, to do this. they count on lemming-like fools to repeat the crap they say and hey - here you are.

Every Congress is looking for a reason to impeach the president. That’s called oversight. You are a terrible cop if you aren’t looking for people commuting crimes.

Except the President never committed any crime. That's the problem with this impeachment.

He abused his office. That’s a problem for the president.

Not according to Alan Dershowitz. Oh oh. Colfax is another Leftist buffoon

 

[BlindBoo]

that works for you today. but when we have a D president and a R house, you're not going to like those events.

Didn't we see that between 2011 and 2016. How many investigations did the R's launch against Obama and finally Clinton. They are reaping what they sowed. How do you like it now? Getting ready for a shellacking? You know those investigations are still open and there is plenty of time for the courts and the press to uncover more and more details about Trumpybears Ukraine Shakedown scheme.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

According to Dershowitz, handing over Alaska to Russian control isn’t even an impeachable offense.

Dershowitz literally wrote that in his book.

Forget crazy Dershowitz, no way Americans would consider what Trump is accused of doing in Ukraine "not serious".

It's wrong, it's texbook corrupt and absolutely is subject to Congressional oversight. It is therefore impeachable.

Impeachment is for high crimes, misdemeanors, treason and bribery. What Trump did is none of those things.

Even Bolton said the aid was contingent on providing data for 2016 not 2020.

I don't know that Bolton said that. To my knowledge, the aid was not contingent on anything. They got the aid, Trump got nothing in return, so there was no quid pro quo.

He claims Trump was going to hold up aid until Ukraine announced an investigation into the Bidens regarding the 2016 election. Nothing about 2020.

When did he claim that? First I've heard of it. I know it was assumed by the House witnesses that's what Trump wanted, but nobody to my knowledge got those instructions from the President himself.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Forget crazy Dershowitz, no way Americans would consider what Trump is accused of doing in Ukraine "not serious".

It's wrong, it's texbook corrupt and absolutely is subject to Congressional oversight. It is therefore impeachable.

Impeachment is for high crimes, misdemeanors, treason and bribery. What Trump did is none of those things.

Even Bolton said the aid was contingent on providing data for 2016 not 2020.

I don't know that Bolton said that. To my knowledge, the aid was not contingent on anything. They got the aid, Trump got nothing in return, so there was no quid pro quo.

He claims Trump was going to hold up aid until Ukraine announced an investigation into the Bidens regarding the 2016 election. Nothing about 2020.

When did he claim that? First I've heard of it. I know it was assumed by the House witnesses that's what Trump wanted, but nobody to my knowledge got those instructions from the President himself.

Per Bolton.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Impeachment is for high crimes, misdemeanors, treason and bribery. What Trump did is none of those things.

Even Bolton said the aid was contingent on providing data for 2016 not 2020.

I don't know that Bolton said that. To my knowledge, the aid was not contingent on anything. They got the aid, Trump got nothing in return, so there was no quid pro quo.

He claims Trump was going to hold up aid until Ukraine announced an investigation into the Bidens regarding the 2016 election. Nothing about 2020.

When did he claim that? First I've heard of it. I know it was assumed by the House witnesses that's what Trump wanted, but nobody to my knowledge got those instructions from the President himself.

Per Bolton.

To my knowledge, Bolton didn't even comment on what's going on. I do know that there is some sort of leak out there from his book, but it's a publishing tactic to get everybody to buy the book, and many times those leaks are not true. They make it up to pump up sales.

 

[colfax_m]

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 procedure to Trump's lawyer's liking, so oh well, he can't be impeached"

You seriously think thats going to fly?

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.

You see the disagreement between the House and the Executive regarding the requirements for impeachment. Resolution 660 needed to be passed first, before the subpoenas regarding impeachment, so the subpoenas are not valid, period. If the House disagrees, take it to court.

As Alan further explained, the House does not take the same oath that the senate does. That is for a reason. The Framers understood that partisan pressure would make the House more likely to pull the trigger on impeachment. The senate is supposed to be more thoughtful and bi-partisan in evaluating the Articles. The senate's constitutional duty is to avoid partisanship, which is why 67 votes are needed for removal. The Articles should have been bi-partisan instead of partisan. The Articles needed to prove serious "high crimes" against the nation comparable to treason, which they don't. They aren't even crimes.

The HOUSE SHALL HAVE THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.

No one BUT the House has a say on how it conducts impeachemnt, the argument that Courts can tell the House how to conduct impeachment is pure nonsense.

Congress further has the power to supoena, with or without impeachment, so again, the argument is bust.

Further, the administration's goals were, AND STILL ARE, to obstruct the impeachment, so again, the argument is bust.

that works for you today. but when we have a D president and a R house, you're not going to like those events.

it's GOING to fall out like that. it's just what we're setting up and somehow you'd manage to be a bigger fool than i ever thought possible if you don't see this coming.

shit, stevie wonder sees it coming.

When we have a D president, can that president launch investigations into the people running for the Republican nomination for any reason they want?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Even Bolton said the aid was contingent on providing data for 2016 not 2020.

I don't know that Bolton said that. To my knowledge, the aid was not contingent on anything. They got the aid, Trump got nothing in return, so there was no quid pro quo.

He claims Trump was going to hold up aid until Ukraine announced an investigation into the Bidens regarding the 2016 election. Nothing about 2020.

When did he claim that? First I've heard of it. I know it was assumed by the House witnesses that's what Trump wanted, but nobody to my knowledge got those instructions from the President himself.

Per Bolton.

To my knowledge, Bolton didn't even comment on what's going on. I do know that there is some sort of leak out there from his book, but it's a publishing tactic to get everybody to buy the book, and many times those leaks are not true. They make it up to pump up sales.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/27/bolton-lawyer-implies-that-white-house-leaked-book-manuscript/

“The latest story from the New York Times, coordinated with a book launch, has more to do with publicity than the truth. John Bolton never informed Mick Mulvaney of any concerns surrounding Bolton’s purported August conversation with the President. Nor did Mr. Mulvaney ever have a conversation with the President or anyone else indicating that Ukrainian military aid was withheld in exchange for a Ukrainian investigation of Burisma, the Bidens, or the 2016 election.