• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pay attention please, Ken Starr is an actual expert on impeachment

At least Trump actually broke a law Clinton got a blowjob and yet Starr is an expert and Congress by Republicans never ever abuse their power...The whole system is abused by both parties yet all you can muster is how bad one side is only..

Did he? Which Section of Title 18 of the US Code did Trump violate?

The two of the four Articles of Impeachment the House passed against Clinton were for Perjury before a Grand Jury, 18 U.S. Code § 1621, and Obstruction of Justice, 18 U.S. Code § 1505. You see, in the real-world they call those crimes. There was never any Articles of Impeachment concerning a blowjob. You must be having one of those Democrat delusions, yet again. Let us know when you get a grasp on reality. We won't be holding our breath.
 
Last edited:
Please read my response carefully! Ken Starr's partisan hackery lacks all credibility.

Even with Trump's rigorous efforts to withhold, spin and control evidence of impeachable acts, enough evidence via witnesses surfaced to convince a majority of the House to vote for both Articles of Impeachment. I wholeheartedly support their decision!

We can do better than Trump as POTUS.

Trump suggested at a Michigan rally that the late Rep. John Dingell Jr. resides in Hell.

Thank God, out of the two major parties, the majority in one of them decided to uphold integrity.

Trump couldn't and can't uphold his oath.

Trump continues to prove his worth as another useful idiot for Putin.

The modern day Republican Party has become a cult, puts party above principles and has become willing to shamelessly associate with corruption.

Please find your way out of the abyss. Wishing you and yours a wonderful holiday season!

My life was not risen up by Dingell nor has it collapsed upon his death. Trump had a larger point to make. That she took up attacking him. Should he have simply taken it?

Trump is a fighter, a warrior and you should be used to it by this time. Why do Trump haters watch for his Tweets is what I want to find out?
 
At least Trump actually broke a law Clinton got a blowjob and yet Starr is an expert and Congress by Republicans never ever abuse their power...The whole system is abused by both parties yet all you can muster is how bad one side is only..

Why do Democrats love to admit Clinton got a Blowjob? Seems they never understood his impeachment.
 
Ken Starr is a hack. That's been proven.

Starr and the team of the FBI did a wonderful job coming up with 11 charges.

Stated possible grounds for impeachment
Specifically, Starr reported:

There is substantial and credible information supporting the following eleven possible grounds for impeachment:

1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him.

4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case.

5. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms. Jones's attorneys.

6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means: (i) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship; (ii) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the President's purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their relationship; (iii) Ms. Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit; (iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and (v) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

7. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones case.

8. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones case.

9. The President improperly tampered with a potential witness by attempting to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie, in the days after his civil deposition.

10. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand jury investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and lying to senior White House aides with knowledge that they would relay the President's false statements to the grand jury – and did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the grand jury.

11. President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (i) lying to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (ii) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation; (iii) later refusing six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (iv) invoking Executive Privilege; (v) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (vi) lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 – all as part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States.[8]

Starr Report - Wikipedia
 
Ken had better get cracking again. I'll bet there are tons of blow jobs going on out there that nobody knows about. Step up your game, Ken!

Yah I think that is what really bugs trump,he has been Impeached and he didn't even get the blowjob...
 
Yah I think that is what really bugs trump,he has been Impeached and he didn't even get the blowjob...

I think that he's ok with his porn star sex. After all, he paid $130k for it, or at least Ol' Dave D. did.
 
I suspect that will be the case as well. Nobody ever accused Sen. McConnell of being particularly bright. Of course it still requires Speaker Pelosi to forward the Articles of Impeachment passed by the House to the Senate, which she hasn't done. If she sits on them and never submits the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, it is effectively the same thing. If there is no Senate vote, either way, then there is no impeachment.


Wrong trump has been Impeached and all the lying, screaming and stomping your feet will not change the fact that trump has the honor of being the most corrupt president in American history, the only one to be put into office by a hostile foreign nation, he is now he third president to be legally Impeached.

Now all that remains is to see if the senate does their job and remove him so the criminal charges can begin to flow...
 
Wrong trump has been Impeached and all the lying, screaming and stomping your feet will not change the fact that trump has the honor of being the most corrupt president in American history, the only one to be put into office by a hostile foreign nation, he is now he third president to be legally Impeached.

Now all that remains is to see if the senate does their job and remove him so the criminal charges can begin to flow...
It would look a whole lot better if you had not had a Representative resign in protest over the impeachment.
 
It would look a whole lot better if you had not had a Representative resign in protest over the impeachment.


You man the one from a Republican district that would lose his seat if he didn't defect?
 
You man the one from a Republican district that would lose his seat if he didn't defect?
As may be. You cannot claim it was bipartisan impeachment but there was bipartisan opposition.
 
What part of "high crimes and misdemeanors" do you...and Nancy...not understand?

Look. Nancy and her Lawfare buddies can trot out all the political-based nonsense they want. All that does is make them look like idiots if they actually push this impeachment thing.

This will not end well for Nancy & Co.



You are the one failing to understand the terminology of grounds for impeachment in the Constitution. The terminology was based on English parliamentary practice. At the time of the Constitutional Convention the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" had been in use for over 400 years in impeachment proceedings in English Parliament. In fact, Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist that Great Britain had served as "the model from which [impeachment] has been borrowed.”

Characteristically, impeachment was used in individual cases for offenses, as perceived by Parliament, against the system of government. The charges, variously denominated "treason," "high treason," "misdemeanors," "malversations," and high Crimes and Misdemeanors," thus included allegations of misconduct. You see, Mycroft, an impeachable offense need not be a crime. Which, by the way, has been said in many threads in this forum. You must have read such posting, but have failed to comprehend or just ignore them and bluster on.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc_2.htm
 
What is happening is Pelosi is looking for polling data after the holidays. There is no way in God’s green earth would she push such a loser unless her back is to the wall. This is purely a political stunt pushed by her left wing. She knows in 2020 the Senate will not change hands, Trump will win*,and the House may or may not change hands**. Secondly the debate audience was dismal, (meaning people are tuning out the messengers***).

All she can do is follow the left wings scorched earth method of politics and hope the idea of justice and fair play has left America for good, and the far left really is on to something.

* the D’s have no candidates except Biden.
** internal polling of swing districts shows them trending red, but it’s early.
*** Pelosi is concerned about Bloomberg stealing the spotlight then going home.



What in your post has to do with my saying “Impeachment does not have to be for a crime”, as you quoted? Please clarify.
 
Technically, impeachment does require a crime. As in "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." All of which are crimes. It is one of the things that makes the Articles of Impeachment passed by the House unconstitutional. They cannot impeach a President except for the criminal conditions mentioned specifically within the US Constitution, and "obstruction of congress" is not "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors," therefore it is unconstitutional.



No actual crime is required. It is not a criminal trial. Even if an article of impeachment was for a crime, it would not be tried as a criminal procedure. Please see my post #63.
 
Obstruction of Congress is truly a ridiculous charge, particularly since it isn't even a crime....

I'm fairly sure than Contempt of Congress is criminal behavior

Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia

It is possible for Sen. McConnell to effectively undo the damage caused by the Democrats with this unconstitutional impeachment....

The hearings and vote to impeach Trump were absolutely constitutional.


...if he refuses to hold a trial and does not schedule any of the Articles of Impeachment for vote in the Senate then at the end of the 116th Session of Congress (January 3, 2021) the Articles of Impeachment passed by the House vanish into oblivion, like every other piece of legislation passed by the House and not voted on by the Senate. It would be as if the House vote never happened. Assuming Demcrats take control of the House in the 117th Session of Congress, they could resubmit and vote again on the Articles of Impeachment. However, if Republican take back control of the House next November, then the impeachment of Trump never happened.

You talk of "unconstitutional", the Constitution states that the Senate ", Article I, Section 3 says, “The Senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments.”

If McConnell schedules either of the Articles of Impeachment for a vote in the Senate then it validates the House impeachment, regardless whether the Senate convicts or acquits. But if there is no vote in the Senate before the session ends, then there is no impeachment.


The Senate cannot refuse to hold a trial.

The Senate rules say they must.

McConnell probably has the votes to acquit Trump but he doesn't have te votes to change the Senates own rules.
 
I'm fairly sure than Contempt of Congress is criminal behavior
It isn't. To be a crime it must appear under Title 18 of the US Code. Furthermore, the Article of Impeachment says "Obstruction of Congress" not "Contempt of Congress." Or are you incapable of reading?

The hearings and vote to impeach Trump were absolutely constitutional.
Wrong yet again. Impeachment is specifically for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Obstruction of Congress is none of those, making the Article of Impeachment illegal and unconstitutional.

You talk of "unconstitutional", the Constitution states that the Senate ", Article I, Section 3 says, “The Senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments.”

The Senate cannot refuse to hold a trial.

The Senate rules say they must.

McConnell probably has the votes to acquit Trump but he doesn't have te votes to change the Senates own rules.

Of course they can completely ignore the House's Articles of Impeachment. It is the Majority Leader of the Senate that determines the Senate rules and schedules votes on the Senate floor. If Sen. McConnell chooses, he can simply ignore the Articles of Impeachment completely and never bring them to the floor of the Senate for a vote. That is within his authority as Majority Leader.
 
Obstruction of Congress is truly a ridiculous charge, particularly since it isn't even a crime. It demonstrates just how mentally unhinged the Democratic Party has become.

It is possible for Sen. McConnell to effectively undo the damage caused by the Democrats with this unconstitutional impeachment. If he refuses to hold a trial and does not schedule any of the Articles of Impeachment for vote in the Senate then at the end of the 116th Session of Congress (January 3, 2021) the Articles of Impeachment passed by the House vanish into oblivion, like every other piece of legislation passed by the House and not voted on by the Senate. It would be as if the House vote never happened. Assuming Demcrats take control of the House in the 117th Session of Congress, they could resubmit and vote again on the Articles of Impeachment. However, if Republican take back control of the House next November, then the impeachment of Trump never happened.

If McConnell schedules either of the Articles of Impeachment for a vote in the Senate then it validates the House impeachment, regardless whether the Senate convicts or acquits. But if there is no vote in the Senate before the session ends, then there is no impeachment.

Did you feel the same about the Bill Clinton obstruction charge ?

Fear not, the electorate will be impeaching Trump Nov 2020.
 
Of course we can do better, and then Democrats nominated the criminal Hillary.

If you are swimming in an ocean with a man-eating shark and a beat-up raft happens to come along, you aren't going to pass it up to wait to be rescued by a yacht. Naturally the States would choose Trump over Hillary. If Charles Manson were running for President they would have elected him before Hillary, she is that offensive.

I can't say I blame him one bit. Rep. Dingell was a POS traitor. In January 2003 Representatives Dingell, Thompson, and McDermott traveled to Iraq in order to give Saddam Hussein aid and comfort. He should have been arrested, tried, and shot for his crimes.

Name a Democrat who can.

Still believing in Hillary's lies I see. And you have wonder why people consider the Democrats to be mentally unhinged? Seriously?

The modern day Republican Party consists primarily of former registered Democrats. Including Trump.

Yet Hilldog received 3 million more votes, that one really chaps Trumps rump.
 
It isn't. To be a crime it must appear under Title 18 of the US Code. Furthermore, the Article of Impeachment says "Obstruction of Congress" not "Contempt of Congress." Or are you incapable of reading?


Then why would the sergeant at arms be at liberty to arrest you if you're found in Contempt of Congress ?

"...the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment...)"


Imprisonment for a non criminal offense ?



The opening line of the link I gave you reads:

"Contempt of Congress or obstruction of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of the United States Congress or one of its committees. Historically, the bribery of a U.S. Senator or U.S. Representative was considered contempt of Congress. In modern times, contempt of Congress has generally applied to the refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by a Congressional committee..."

So Contempt or Obstruction appear to be the same thing and historically included bribery which is definitely a criminal offense.

To answer your rather aggressive reply "are you incapable of reading?"
Sounds like someone is a little upset that their favorite criminal has been impeached.


Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia




Wrong yet again. Impeachment is specifically for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Obstruction of Congress is none of those, making the Article of Impeachment illegal and unconstitutional.

Do you ever take time to read? Or to answer your own question, are you incapable of reading?

I said the hearings and vote to impeach were absolutely constitutional - because they were.

Obstruction of Congress and the Abuse of Power articles are covered by "high crimes and misdemeanors". Many Republicans think a crime has to be committed in order to secure an impeachment, it does not.

So to throw your aggressive tone back at you "wrong yet again"

Of course they can completely ignore the House's Articles of Impeachment. It is the Majority Leader of the Senate that determines the Senate rules and schedules votes on the Senate floor. If Sen. McConnell chooses, he can simply ignore the Articles of Impeachment completely and never bring them to the floor of the Senate for a vote. That is within his authority as Majority Leader.

I looked into this and no, he cannot refuse to hold a trial. Though what constitutes a "trial" specifically a fair trial is open to debate.


IMO, McConnell is exhibiting disgusting prejudice and should be excused from his position. It's like the foreman of a jury discussing a case with the accused in a criminal trial.
 
Back
Top Bottom