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

[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 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 has subpoena power to investigate the activity of the Federal government and needs not call "Impeachment" for those subpoena's to be valid and lawful. They are taking it to court and the matter will be resolved over time. However, actively soliciting foreign intervention in our elections, combined with the drip drip drip of information that will be coming out about the Ukraine Shakedown Scheme over the next year, I think the Trumpublicans Rats will soon be abandoning the sinking ship.

Keep hope alive.....we'll see in November.

 

[The Original Tree]

I have never seen a finer group of lawyers all very diverse from one another.

 

[CowboyTed]

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.

Starr believes that for removal of a president by the senate a serious "high" crime must have been committed by the president.
The House can impeach for non-crimes, as an abuse of their power, but for removal by the senate it needs to be both bi-partisan and a serious crime.
If the House impeachment process isn't bi-partisan and fair, the impeachment should fail.

Starr thinks lying about getting a BJ from and Intern is the same as compromising US national security for the aid of a US enemy while shaking them down for a bribe of announcing an investigation into his Political Rival...

At the time Clinton was let off because Starr was considered to be over zealous (he was meant to looking into a land deal) by threatening the put the young woman mother jail after shaming her to the whole world. Republicans in the Senate were disgusted with him. He then wrote a porn book on the government's dime. There was no reason to do that to that young woman, two adults had an affair and Clinton lied about it, he could have left it at that but he didn't.

Starr is a failed prosecutor.

 

[The Original Tree]

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.

Starr believes that for removal of a president by the senate a serious "high" crime must have been committed by the president.
The House can impeach for non-crimes, as an abuse of their power, but for removal by the senate it needs to be both bi-partisan and a serious crime.
If the House impeachment process isn't bi-partisan and fair, the impeachment should fail.

Starr thinks lying about getting a BJ from and Intern is the same as compromising US national security for the aid of a US enemy while shaking them down for a bribe of announcing an investigation into his Political Rival...

At the time Clinton was let off because Starr was considered to be over zealous (he was meant to looking into a land deal) by threatening the put the young woman mother jail after shaming her to the whole world. Republicans in the Senate were disgusted with him. He then wrote a porn book on the government's dime. There was no reason to do that to that young woman, two adults had an affair and Clinton lied about it, he could have left it at that but he didn't.

Starr is a failed prosecutor.

You are a dishonest man, and a failed condemned sinner who has no virtue and there is no Truth in you. When a man draws water from a corrupt well, the whole man is corrupt. When God comes to judge all men, he will not find virtue in you, so you will have no part in him.

There is Hope to those who Want it, but not to those who reject it.

 

[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 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 impeachment, the argument that Courts can tell the House how to conduct impeachment is pure nonsense.

Congress further has the power to subpoena, 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.

1. Dershowitz rejected Maxine's assertion that impeachment is whatever the House says it is. That is simply an abuse of power by the House.
2. The Framers wanted tension between the House and Executive, those disagreements need to be decided by the courts, not by impeachment
3. According to Starr & Dershowitz Resolution 660, authorizing impeachment inquiry by the whole House, needed to precede the subpoenas regarding impeachment.
4. Trump has due process rights, that is not obstruction. The USSC took the Trump v House subpoena for Trump's tax records, that proves the point.

 

[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.

Trump is a lying fat ass windbag that sings BS to you constantly and you eat it up in gobs. Same with his defense.

Starr believes that for removal of a president by the senate a serious "high" crime must have been committed by the president.
The House can impeach for non-crimes, as an abuse of their power, but for removal by the senate it needs to be both bi-partisan and a serious crime.
If the House impeachment process isn't bi-partisan and fair, the impeachment should fail.

Starr thinks lying about getting a BJ from and Intern is the same as compromising US national security for the aid of a US enemy while shaking them down for a bribe of announcing an investigation into his Political Rival...

At the time Clinton was let off because Starr was considered to be over zealous (he was meant to looking into a land deal) by threatening the put the young woman mother jail after shaming her to the whole world. Republicans in the Senate were disgusted with him. He then wrote a porn book on the government's dime. There was no reason to do that to that young woman, two adults had an affair and Clinton lied about it, he could have left it at that but he didn't.

Starr is a failed prosecutor.

1. Starr showed that the "partisan" Articles of Impeachment against Trump are unconstitutional.
Article-1 is not an impeachable "high crime", abuse of power claims routinely happen against every president
Article-2 is not constitutional. Trump does have due process rights. The USSC killed Article-2 when they took the Trump v House subpoena for tax records

2. Perjury is a crime. Trump committed no crime. Trump protected national security more than Obama. Trump gave Ukraine lethal aid (Javelins) and Obama sent MREs and blankets. The aid was given on time and no announcement of an investigation was made, so what "High crime" do you allege?

 

[Rye Catcher]

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.

Ken Starr put most of the viewers and Senators to sleep. The one takeaway before the mind began to drift away from his monotone delivery was how he contradicted his opinion when prosecuting President Clinton. Proving he is a scumbag partisan hack.

 

[iceberg]

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.

so then is this revenge for those actions or did trump actually do something wrong?

you can't have both.

 

[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.

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

give me proof that is what trump was doing.

every time i ask that i get:

1. called a lot of names
2. told it's in the testimony
3. ignored

but i NEVER EVER EVER get shown the smoking gun that proves this is what trump was doing. digging for dirt on biden for the strict purposes of the next election.

and given the D's hired Steele and relied on bullshit lies on trump to spawn RUSSIA - then i honestly don't care how mad they are someone said to look into their bullshit.

so - either prove this was trumps intent and it was NOT to start investigating potential crimes against the bidens, it was ONLY to get dirt and make shit up.

like they did to trump.

 

[BlindBoo]

When a man draws water from a corrupt well, the whole man is corrupt.

So when Trumpybear touted and used the tainted, stolen emails from the Russians's hack, Trumpybear was corrupted. By accept this corruption I think the Trumpublicans should be doomed to Hellfire and Damnation for eternity. They will continuously feel their flesh burn in Hell's furious fires, into infinity and beyond. If you believe such a thing.

 

[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 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 impeachment, the argument that Courts can tell the House how to conduct impeachment is pure nonsense.

Congress further has the power to subpoena, 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.

1. Dershowitz rejected Maxine's assertion that impeachment is whatever the House says it is. That is simply an abuse of power by the House.
2. The Framers wanted tension between the House and Executive, those disagreements need to be decided by the courts, not by impeachment
3. According to Starr & Dershowitz Resolution 660, authorizing impeachment inquiry by the whole House, needed to precede the subpoenas regarding impeachment.
4. Trump has due process rights, that is not obstruction. The USSC took the Trump v House subpoena for Trump's tax records, that proves the point.

1. Who the fuck is Dershowitz? Because he says something it is therefore so? He is just another shill for Trump as far as I'm concerned.
2. HOUSE HAS THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT - it's black and white simple, what courts?
3. Who the fuck is Starr? Just another Trump shill. Not impressive argument.
4. Trump has no right to wholesale, unspecified executive privilege. He has no right to tell people they can't testify before Congress and his Obstruction has no basis in the law. DUH, courts already ruled as much.

 

[The Original Tree]

When a man draws water from a corrupt well, the whole man is corrupt.

So when Trumpybear touted and used the tainted, stolen emails from the Russians's hack, Trumpybear was corrupted. By accept this corruption I think the Trumpublicans should be doomed to Hellfire and Damnation for eternity. They will continuously feel their flesh burn in Hell's furious fires, into infinity and beyond. If you believe such a thing.

Filthy Man, I will not drink from your filthy well. Repent.

 

[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 impeachment, the argument that Courts can tell the House how to conduct impeachment is pure nonsense.

Congress further has the power to subpoena, 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.

1. Dershowitz rejected Maxine's assertion that impeachment is whatever the House says it is. That is simply an abuse of power by the House.
2. The Framers wanted tension between the House and Executive, those disagreements need to be decided by the courts, not by impeachment
3. According to Starr & Dershowitz Resolution 660, authorizing impeachment inquiry by the whole House, needed to precede the subpoenas regarding impeachment.
4. Trump has due process rights, that is not obstruction. The USSC took the Trump v House subpoena for Trump's tax records, that proves the point.

1. Who the fuck is Dershowitz? Because he says something it is therefore so? He is just another shill for Trump as far as I'm concerned.
2. HOUSE HAS THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT - it's balck and white, what courts?
3. Who the fuck is Starr? Just another Trump shill. Not impressive argument.
4. Trump has no right to wholesale, unspecified executive privilege. He has no right to tell people they can't testify before Congress and his Obstruction has no basis in the law. DUH, courts already ruled as much.

shootin down other teams shills while proppin up your own.

how...funny.

 

[AntonToo]

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?

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 impeachment, the argument that Courts can tell the House how to conduct impeachment is pure nonsense.

Congress further has the power to subpoena, 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.

1. Dershowitz rejected Maxine's assertion that impeachment is whatever the House says it is. That is simply an abuse of power by the House.
2. The Framers wanted tension between the House and Executive, those disagreements need to be decided by the courts, not by impeachment
3. According to Starr & Dershowitz Resolution 660, authorizing impeachment inquiry by the whole House, needed to precede the subpoenas regarding impeachment.
4. Trump has due process rights, that is not obstruction. The USSC took the Trump v House subpoena for Trump's tax records, that proves the point.

1. Who the fuck is Dershowitz? Because he says something it is therefore so? He is just another shill for Trump as far as I'm concerned.
2. HOUSE HAS THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT - it's balck and white, what courts?
3. Who the fuck is Starr? Just another Trump shill. Not impressive argument.
4. Trump has no right to wholesale, unspecified executive privilege. He has no right to tell people they can't testify before Congress and his Obstruction has no basis in the law. DUH, courts already ruled as much.

shootin down other teams shills while proppin up your own.

how...funny.

Never proped up anyone. I prop up reasonable arguments and evidence, not characters with agendas.

It's not reasonable to say that Congress has no oversight over POTUS conducting corrupt foreign policy for personal benefit. That sort of unchecked swamp Founders would never stand for.

It's not reasonable to say that President can order blanket executive privaledge to defy Congressional supoenas. It has no basis in law and it renders Congressional oversight a meaningless concept.

 

[Dick Foster]

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 has subpoena power to investigate the activity of the Federal government and needs not call "Impeachment" for those subpoena's to be valid and lawful. They are taking it to court and the matter will be resolved over time. However, actively soliciting foreign intervention in our elections, combined with the drip drip drip of information that will be coming out about the Ukraine Shakedown Scheme over the next year, I think the Trumpublicans Rats will soon be abandoning the sinking ship.

I think you need to get a grasp and gain a better understanding of what has gone on and what is going on before you make yourself out the fool again.

 

[colfax_m]

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?

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?

give me proof that is what trump was doing.

every time i ask that i get:

1. called a lot of names
2. told it's in the testimony
3. ignored

but i NEVER EVER EVER get shown the smoking gun that proves this is what trump was doing. digging for dirt on biden for the strict purposes of the next election.

and given the D's hired Steele and relied on bullshit lies on trump to spawn RUSSIA - then i honestly don't care how mad they are someone said to look into their bullshit.

so - either prove this was trumps intent and it was NOT to start investigating potential crimes against the bidens, it was ONLY to get dirt and make shit up.

like they did to trump.

I’m not going to feel sorry that people call you names. From what I’ve seen, you have no problem doing so yourself.

Who investigates crimes in this country?

 

[Dick Foster]

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.

You clearly need a better understanding of the constitution, division of and the limitations of powers that our founders so wisely laid down for us.
I gain new found and ever growing respect for their foresight and wisdom each and every day.

 

[iceberg]

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 impeachment, the argument that Courts can tell the House how to conduct impeachment is pure nonsense.

Congress further has the power to subpoena, 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.

1. Dershowitz rejected Maxine's assertion that impeachment is whatever the House says it is. That is simply an abuse of power by the House.
2. The Framers wanted tension between the House and Executive, those disagreements need to be decided by the courts, not by impeachment
3. According to Starr & Dershowitz Resolution 660, authorizing impeachment inquiry by the whole House, needed to precede the subpoenas regarding impeachment.
4. Trump has due process rights, that is not obstruction. The USSC took the Trump v House subpoena for Trump's tax records, that proves the point.

1. Who the fuck is Dershowitz? Because he says something it is therefore so? He is just another shill for Trump as far as I'm concerned.
2. HOUSE HAS THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT - it's balck and white, what courts?
3. Who the fuck is Starr? Just another Trump shill. Not impressive argument.
4. Trump has no right to wholesale, unspecified executive privilege. He has no right to tell people they can't testify before Congress and his Obstruction has no basis in the law. DUH, courts already ruled as much.

shootin down other teams shills while proppin up your own.

how...funny.

Never proped up anyone. I prop up reasonable arguments and evidence, not characters with agendas.

It's not reasonable to say that Congress has no oversight over POTUS conducting corrupt foreign policy for personal benefit.

It's not reasonable to say that President can order blanket executive privaledge to defy Congressional supoenas. It has no basis in law and it renders Congressional oversight a meaningless concept.

it's also not reasonable congress would use this "power" to simply get rid of people they don't like on vague charges that to date, have yet to be proven.

just speculated into reality.

i don't care how much i may not care for any given president, i'm not going to destroy a country in the process of wanting him gone. as far as i can tell, this is what the rabid left is willing to do.

 

[iceberg]

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?

give me proof that is what trump was doing.

every time i ask that i get:

1. called a lot of names
2. told it's in the testimony
3. ignored

but i NEVER EVER EVER get shown the smoking gun that proves this is what trump was doing. digging for dirt on biden for the strict purposes of the next election.

and given the D's hired Steele and relied on bullshit lies on trump to spawn RUSSIA - then i honestly don't care how mad they are someone said to look into their bullshit.

so - either prove this was trumps intent and it was NOT to start investigating potential crimes against the bidens, it was ONLY to get dirt and make shit up.

like they did to trump.

I’m not going to feel sorry that people call you names. From what I’ve seen, you have no problem doing so yourself.

Who investigates crimes in this country?

so you're not going to offer proof, just comment on #1, which means your answer is #1.

now - can you offer the physical evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt trump was doing this? then even if so, i also understand no crime is even needed.

so why push for something you don't need?

seems to beg a lot of strange questions that you don't want to go into, just bitch at my posting style. and damn straight i can be harsh. but i can also be very civil and reasonable.

whoever is answering my posts and how they do it determine which side of me i use.

 

[colfax_m]

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?

give me proof that is what trump was doing.

every time i ask that i get:

1. called a lot of names
2. told it's in the testimony
3. ignored

but i NEVER EVER EVER get shown the smoking gun that proves this is what trump was doing. digging for dirt on biden for the strict purposes of the next election.

and given the D's hired Steele and relied on bullshit lies on trump to spawn RUSSIA - then i honestly don't care how mad they are someone said to look into their bullshit.

so - either prove this was trumps intent and it was NOT to start investigating potential crimes against the bidens, it was ONLY to get dirt and make shit up.

like they did to trump.

I’m not going to feel sorry that people call you names. From what I’ve seen, you have no problem doing so yourself.

Who investigates crimes in this country?

so you're not going to offer proof, just comment on #1, which means your answer is #1.

now - can you offer the physical evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt trump was doing this? then even if so, i also understand no crime is even needed.

so why push for something you don't need?

seems to beg a lot of strange questions that you don't want to go into, just bitch at my posting style. and damn straight i can be harsh. but i can also be very civil and reasonable.

whoever is answering my posts and how they do it determine which side of me i use.

So now you’re only going to accept physical evidence?

Seems the bar is moving further and further back.

If you want to claim that this was part of an investigation into crimes, then the criminal justice system would be a part of it. They weren’t. If this was part of a personal endeavor, his personal lawyer would be involve. He was.

Not all crimes have a smoking gun. People are convicted regardless. You’ve set an impossibly high standard which does not exist.