On the plus side, Bernie nominating three justices in his first year would be pretty awesome.
Okay fine. Starr says impeachment only applies if the president broke the law. So Impeach him for violating the ICA and then Starr will almost certainly switch sides, right?
I think he just morphed into a few light crimes being okay.
Lollllllllllllll his argument is impeachment is fine for judges, but this is the president guys
Iām back in high school civics. Starr is going to pass out a pop quiz to the Senators after the first break.
This guy.
Not a single defense of Trumpās acts.
Only urging senators to exercise restraint. Is it bad? Sure. Should he be impeached? Not now, but wait for a Dem president and weāll reassess.
Ken, that there is no bipartisan House support is not an argument against impeachment. Itās an indictment of every House GOP member.
To finish his rambling he needs to end with a variation of āScrew Flandersā
- Impeachment must follow historical precedent when it comes to criminal conduct.
- Impeachment must follow historical precedent when it comes to bipartisanship.
- Impeachment has no need to follow historical precedent when it comes to withholding cooperation, documents, witnesses.
Wtf would they even ask Obama?
Only in GOPland could you ask someone āWhat role did you play in exposing the presidentās crimesā and the assumption is that POTUS is the victim
How many unforced errors will Trumpās team commit if both sides get carte blanche for unlimited witnesses?
This is fucking terrible
I stand by goo btw
Given the months-long pervasive talking point that Trumpās defenders have no defense of his conduct and must resort to attacking the process, Iām actually pretty surprised that Starr is literally talking only about process.
Oh great here comes Seculow with more of the same. Omg Nancy had pens!
Im sure THIS clownsel will focus on a defense and not on the procedure of the houseā¦
Oh wait hes talking about pens.
Holy shit he actually used that as a point.
This is amazing