Ken Starr says Pelosi engaging in 'abuse of power' and Senate may have to dismiss impeachment case

Fox News ^ | December 5,2019 | Nick Givas

[Hojczyk]

He noted that 31 Democrats supported the Bill Clinton impeachment inquiry and in the case of Richard Nixon, he was facing a united House of Representatives before he resigned.

"Just the opposite of what we're experiencing now. A strict party-line vote," said Starr, adding that Pelosi is acting to achieve her desired political outcome.

"I think this may lead to a [Senate] motion to dismiss, which I don't favor. If the House of Representatives says we're going to impeach, then the Senate should hold a trial. But I think this may be the straw that breaks the camel's back. And that Republicans in the Senate just rise up in righteous indignation and say, 'this is absolutely unacceptable.'"

[truthkeeper]

If I were Trump I would demand that the Senate put on a full-blown Swamp trial. In fact, drag the whole thing out for the whole year. Could be very enlightening.

Be careful what you wish for...

[irishjuggler]

I’m in favor of a trial... IF the Senate GOP is willing to play hardball (i.e., hauling Hunter Biden before the world and making him plead the 5th).

[kiryandil]

And it was cut from the youtube.

Say what?

[crz]

It takes only one member to submit a vote to dismiss. It passes by simple majority?..its OVER!

[romanesq]

Wasn’t Starr saying impeachment is awesome just a few days back?

Now he thinks a motion to dismiss is in order? Gee, make up your mind and make sense.

They need to scourge them with a hot rod in the Senate. Let them burn.

[HotHunt]

[timestax]

[Veto!]

Thanks. Very funny.

[AndyJackson]

. If the House of Representatives says we're going to impeach, then the Senate should hold a trial.

Linda should already be holding hearings with Shiftshow and Quidpro testifying as well as the whistle blower.

Then dismiss.

And Starr is being stupid. Since he is a trial lawyer he knows that the road to trial is perilous and fraught with the potential for dismissals, like have factually unsupported or legally deficient claims. You only get to proceed to trial if you have a genuine issue to try that can lead to a disposition of the matter placed before the trial body.

[Engedi]

Even if the Senate votes no impeachment, does anyone think from here on until election and if Trump wins another 4 years that they will STOP FINDING a crime to fit the President? This will never be over.

[timestax]

[Inspectorette]

Yup. Stretch it out for a few months. Warren, Booker and Klobuchar would not be able to campaign.

Neither would Bernie. Beautiful!

[timestax]

[fantail 1952]

ping

[Amendment10]

""Just the opposite of what we're experiencing now. A strict party-line vote [emphasis added]," said Starr, adding that Pelosi is acting to achieve her desired political outcome."

I agree with Mr. Starr about the constitutionally undefined political parties muddying the Constitution’s impeachment process for president.

In fact, the earliest of the constitutionally undefined US political parties not only weren’t established until after the Constitution had been ratified, but they opposed the Constitution.

Anti-Administration party

It’s no surprise that today’s Democratic and Republican parties have effectively scandalously repealed 12th Amendment procedures for electing POTUS imo, state winner-take-all laws for electoral votes appearing to be unconstitutional under that amendment for example.

Excerpted from the 12th Amendment: "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice- President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate [emphasis added]; […]"

Remember in November!

MAGA! Now KAG! (Keep America Great!)

Corrections, insights welcome.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

Exactly right. Treat their stupid little shenanigans with derision and contempt. Delegating it to trusted people is a good idea. He could take the high ground and say he is doing the work he was elected to do unlike the Dems.

But I think it would be a serious strategic blunder to say “you have no standing and we refuse to participate” or for the Senate to derisively dismiss the case.

[basalt]

senators dont say a word at the trial...they just sit and listen...

[odawg]

“...history will proclaim that it was strictly partisanship that saved Donald Trump.”

That would be a contradiction, since it is strictly partisanship that accuses him.

[Lysandru]

The moral thing to do would be to immediately dismiss the articles. Now, that does present the possibility of the House just passing them again. It certainly presents the certainty that Democrats will squeal that the Senate GOP is just a bunch of political hacks.

But I have come to believe that the more politically powerful course-of-action is to have a full-blown trial lasting 2-3 months and dragging the So-Called-Whistleblower, Hunter Biden, and Joe Biden, and other slimes in to testify under oath. The Democrats could be tortured then.

The real wild cards are now Horowitz and Durham. I am trying to keep my hopes modest, but the whole course of events may take a radical turn real fast. Nanzi may run out of time to get her vote in.

[gswilder]

You have it perfect. The senate must have a trial. If not, they will hang this around Trump and the R’s forever. Maybe this was even the dems strategy in the house.

Have a trial, and show the real facts.