The idiot just posted in another thread he would vote for bloomturd over everyone in the field.Wtf do you mean you can't accept the fact?
I cannot accept the fact there are actually people who think this way Originally Posted by claudefive
Just watched Ken Starr give his opening remarks. Talk about impressive. It was an interesting history lesson but it was just the last few minutes when he eviscerated the House that was most impressive. Of course, as I just saw in another thread, the first and only thing Democrats would like you to consider, is the messenger. If you hate the messenger, turn them off, do not consider their words, stick your head in the sand, ignore any critical thinking. If you don't hear his words, you don't have to offer a debate about what he said, you just ignore it because, well, because it was Ken Starr and we don't like him.An opposing view to your Starr evaluation
Starr gave reason to why crimes, actual modern day crimes should be apart of any Articles of Impeachment. I have been saying this from day one and of course others have been saying, you don't need a crime and will reflect on a different position Dershowitz for one may have taken in the past.
Starr made a compelling argument as to why there "should" be assertion of a crime before bringing articles of impeachment and not a general abuse of power argument which is leveled at every single President by the opposition party and he gave as example, the draft of impeaching Reagan over Iran Contra which the Speaker of the House then, said no to.
Starr also came down on the side of Philbin's argument that Pelosi had mis-read the Constitution when she decided that a committee could call for subpoena's and documents before a full vote of the House was taken. Others argue differently but what Philbin and Starr have in their corner besides a compelling brief, is that the President was acting under the recommendation of the OLC at the Justice Department. This wasn't Trump's idea to willy nilly reject witnesses and documents, he was advised not to do it. As a matter of fact, as Starr laid out, it was his duty under the Constitution to do this to protect the Presidency and the powers given to the Executive by the Constitution.
In other words, Trump had no choice but to do this even if he thought it was a good idea and would acquit him. He had to do it to preserve this privilege for future Presidents as the Constitution demands he does and just like every President before him has done.
What was most compelling was Starr's argument about how the House and Nancy Pelosi failed to follow established presedent and instead said, "I can do what ever I want". Funny how when Trump said that he was routinely condemned for it. He further went into detail as to how when confronted with this denial by the President, it was her duty to take the matter to court. Ignoring this was to ignore history and the Constitution, giving cause to the argument that it was Pelosi and the House who were the biggest threats to our democracy and Constitution.
And of course the argument that this is purely a partisan impeachment by virtue of the fact that not one member of the opposition party agreed to the inquiry and as a matter of fact, two Democrats were against it.
I believe after hearing Starr's remarks, more than a few non lunatic Democrats, were agreeing with Starr's analysis, that Pelosi handled this all wrong and both Articles of Impeachment were Un-Constitutional but especially Article 2 for reasons stated above.
I think if McConnell could have stopped the proceedings after Starr's speech and called for a vote to dismiss, he might very well have gotten a few Democrats, that's how impressive his argument was. Originally Posted by HedonistForever
Why would I post your review of someone finger fucking your butthole? Originally Posted by WTFYou’re the fucking one who brought it up you moron. You check my reviews everyday. There’s not one of my reviews that’s says anything but a girls tongue was in my ass. Butt that seems to your fantasy noodle dick.
An opposing view to your Starr evaluation
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/me...ce-77644869898 Originally Posted by WTF
I thi k you need to swallow Starr's jizz before posting another word.
Jesus, talk about Starr envy....you take the cake.
Starr is a hypocrite and was run out of Waco for letting all the sexual abuse be swept under the rug. Originally Posted by WTF
Wow! I was overwhelmed by the detail, not! Maybe I was doing something wrong but all I read was one paragraph citing nothing of substance. I was kind of hoping to see a transcript so I could pick it a part. If there was a transcript of this opposing view, please print it because I saw nothing and I was really looking forward to reading it. I don't have time right now but I will try and find a transcript of Starr's remarks like I did with Philbins so those that missed it can read a truly brilliant commentary. Originally Posted by HedonistForeverIt should be a link to a video.
Originally Posted by WTF
