— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) January 27, 2020Good. Let the impeachment trial run for a month or two. Meanwhile, in the courts:
It would certainly be that "Constitutional crisis" the media is always fainting for fear of. And Ken Starr this morning took his argument straight from FoxNews:Any attempt by the White House to silence or censor John Bolton by going to a federal court would run into the quadruple buzz saw of the Senate’s “sole” power to try impeachments, the First Amendment, the Speech and Debate Clause, and political reality.https://t.co/x62ENSzs5Q— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) January 27, 2020
Starr argued that the House shouldn't have impeached Trump because it hasn't been at least 100 years since Clinton was impeached. Oh, and Britain dropped impeachment from its law over 100 years ago. I'm not making this up. Somehow the Constitutional provision for impeachment is rendered moot because the Brits decided impeachment didn't lead to justice 100 years ago. And besides we hardly ever remove Art. III judges via impeachment, and they're appointed for life! Presidents last, what, four years, eight at most? Impeachment just really shouldn't be used against a President at all. And certainly not when there is no crime:We can call this the “Fifth Avenue Murder” defense. https://t.co/iPASLylaUW— George Conway (@gtconway3d) January 27, 2020
Well, not for another 100 years, anyway.Starr in 1998: "The referral is instead about obstruction of justice, lying under oath, tampering with witnesses and misuse of power." https://t.co/oSAPKWX3jc— Michael Tackett (@tackettdc) January 27, 2020
Yeah, it really is.Ken Starr unironically lamenting that impeachments are happening "all too frequently" is so much better with a laugh track pic.twitter.com/qmuHjQNe0G— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 27, 2020
I hope Starr got his money in advance.
No comments:
Post a Comment