| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Ken Starr: Witnesses Haven't Accused Trump of Breaking the Law |
| 2019-11-20 |
| [Free Beacon] Former independent counsel Ken Starr said Tuesday that the impeachment hearings have yet to produce any compelling testimony from witnesses accusing President Donald Trump of any unlawful acts. Starr, who conducted the investigation that led to President Bill Clinton's impeachment, said that impeaching Trump based on the evidence offered in the opening days of the hearing would be an "extravagant" move. "What we hear is ’improper,'" Starr said about witnesses' testimony so far. "I've never heard the suggestion ’unlawful.' I think again the president's judgment is being called into question‐whether this is wise or not, but not a crime." Starr criticized House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff (D., Calif.) for acting as a prosecutor rather than an evenhanded leader of his committee. "The chairman has chosen to be chief prosecutor," Starr said. "He long ago left the idea of being the fair and balanced chair of the committee, and he uses terms such as bribery and extortion. But we're not hearing that from the witnesses." Fox News host Bill Hemmer asked Starr about ranking Republican Devin Nunes's (Calif.) approach at the hearings. "What he's driving at is there really is no crime," Starr replied. "This is in the nature, as we've been saying, of an oversight hearing. Do we like the president's style? Was it an appropriate thing for him to do? And reasonable people can say he should not have done that. Perfectly reasonable conclusion. But the idea that this is an impeachable offense is to me quite extreme, it's extravagant." Starr said congressional Democrats were wielding their impeachment power as a political weapon. "It's certainly not what the founding generation intended," he said. "Here we are 11 months and a few days away from a presidential election. It's extravagant, it's political." During Starr's independent counsel investigation, President Clinton did commit a crime by lying under oath. The GOP-controlled House impeached him for perjury and obstruction of justice, but the Democrat-led Senate did not vote to convict him. The Senate was split 50-50 on whether Clinton obstructed justice, falling short of the needed 67 votes to convict. Starr later said he regretted how his investigation turned to Clinton's sexual relationship with then-White House intern Monica Lewinsky, although he said he still sees "no practical alternative." Clinton stridently denied the allegations but eventually admitted he had engaged in a relationship with Lewinsky. Related: Adam Schiff: 2019-11-19 Appears Scorned Ambo Yovanovitch has no recollection of Soetoro leaving Ambo Stevens to die Adam Schiff: 2019-11-19 'My friend': Adam Schiff praised TV doctor arrested on sex charges over 9-year-old girl Adam Schiff: 2019-11-18 What If They Gave an Impeachment and Nobody Came? |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #9 When reading or listening to someone use the term 'interagency agreement', caution should be advised. "When I hear the words 'interagency agreement', I release the safety of my Browning." -- misquoting some old Kraut |
| Posted by: SteveS 2019-11-20 13:16 |
| #8 That is why support for impeachment has dropped. The people gave the benefit of doubt initially but even the dim are starting to see the sham. The zealots remain but they don't care about breaking the law, they want to break Trump. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2019-11-20 12:12 |
| #7 I've been asking this question all along. Is it not wise for a president to try to ascertain that large sums of money given to a foreign government will not end up in the pockets of people like Hunter Biden? |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2019-11-20 11:19 |
| #6 They all agree they hate him, but no crime yet. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2019-11-20 10:02 |
| #5 The only charge they (think) they need is "Orange man bad". The rest is just details. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2019-11-20 08:21 |
| #4 Inter-agency consensus = covering up failure and/or fraud |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2019-11-20 08:14 |
| #3 "interagency consensus" Term formerly used in reference to national intelligence estimates, now broadened to describe collective agreements on governance and policy made by the Intelligence Community unelected shadow government and Deep State decision makers. When reading or listening to someone use the term 'interagency agreement', caution should be advised. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2019-11-20 03:18 |
| #2 Newspeak, per the Shitshow: "Austere religious scholar" = f---ing murdering monster "Some people did something" = mass jihadi slaughter of infidels on 9/11 "interagency consensus" = conspiracy behind attempted palace coup |
| Posted by: Lex 2019-11-20 02:32 |
| #1 Isn't "interagency consensus" above the law? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2019-11-20 01:48 |