Ken Starr: Impeachment inquiry 'coup d'etat' by House Democrats

[Johnny]

By Julia Musto
Published 18 mins ago

The Democrats' impeachment inquiry is essentially a "coup d'etat in the
House of Representatives," former independent counsel Ken Starr said
Saturday.

The probe to date is "far removed" from the drama of the Watergate
scandal, Starr said on "Fox & Friends: Weekend." Also appearing on the
show was a member of President Trump's legal team, Jordan Sekulow.

In the Democrats' current investigation, there has been nothing to
match the spellbinding testimony of John Dean, the former White House
counsel for President Richard Nixon.

"Here's John Dean testifying dramatically: 'I'm in the Oval Office and
I am participating in a criminal conspiracy with the president of the
United States,'" said Starr, who headed the Whitewater investigation
into allegations against President Clinton. "Here we have a witness
who does not have a connection to the president ... and knows of no
crime. So it's really night and day."

https://www.foxnews.com/media/ken-starr-marie-yovanovitch-impeachment-inquiry-watergate

[CLOISTER]

----------------------

Coup d'état definition, a sudden and decisive action in politics, especially one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force.

This has been going on before President Trump was sworn in

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Impeaching Trump in the House and removing in the Senate is *the* legal
way of removing Trump from office. How can that process be a coup?

[CLOISTER]

There will be no impeachment. The melodrama and the grandstanding
ain't effecting the voters one bit.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

You didn't answer my question.

[Johnny]

Because the democrats really expected Hillary to win. I did too.

When Trump won they could see all their work being wasted, and Trump
reversing everything they think Obama accomplished, so they have been
trying to find something to impeach Trump for from day one.

When you try to remove a president from office for three straight years,
going on four, I would call that an attempted coup.

[John Wesley Harding]

He never does because, well, he can't.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

You didn't address my point that it can't be an attempted coup if you
follow the Constitutionality-prescribed process. You could argue the
Democrats are attempting to unfairly impeach and remove Trump. But,
that's not what a coup is.

[El Castor]

The coup process, a well planned removal of Trump by any means or
excuse, dates back to well before the current hearings -- a fact that
makes any pretense of fairness and objectivity in the latest witch
hunt look more than a little suspect.

"Mark Zaid, one of the attorneys representing the intelligence
community whistleblower at the center of the Democrats' ongoing
impeachment inquiry, tweeted conspicuously in January 2017 that a
"coup has started" and that "impeachment will follow ultimately."
Then, in July 2017, Zaid remarked, "I predict @CNN will play a key
role in @realDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as
president." Also that month, Zaid tweeted, "We will get rid of him,
and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his
supporters."
Amid a slew of impeachment-related posts, Zaid assured his Twitter
followers that "as one falls, two more will take their place,"
apparently referring to Trump administration employees who defy the
White House. Zaid promised that the "coup" would occur in "many
steps.""
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/coup-has-started-whistleblowers-attorney-said-in-2017-posts-calling-for-impeachment

[Josh Rosenbluth]

As with Johnny, you are confusing a lack of fairness and a coup. A coup
can only occur when the process is illegal (what you called "by any
means"). If Trump is removed by the Constitutionally-prescribed
process, no matter how unfair you believe the removal may be (what you
called "by any excuse"), it is by definition not a coup.

If two-thirds of the Senators believe Trump should be removed, then
two-thirds of the Senators don't agree with you that it is unfair. And
in our legal system, it is therefore not a coup.

[Johnny]

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 16:03:30 -0800

Ken Starr called it a coup. Maybe we should call it a non-violent
revolution.

What did Trump do that was so bad, that there were plans for
impeachment before he became president?


Efforts to impeach Donald Trump
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Various people and groups assert that U.S. president Donald Trump has
engaged in impeachable activity both before and during his
presidency,[1][2] and talk of impeachment began before he took
office.[3][4] Formal efforts were initiated by Representatives Al Green
and Brad Sherman, both Democrats, in 2017, the first year of his
presidency.

Grounds asserted for impeachment have included possible violations of
the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution by accepting payments
from foreign dignitaries; alleged collusion with Russia during the
campaign for the 2016 United States presidential election; alleged
obstruction of justice with respect to investigation of the collusion
claim; and accusations of "Associating the Presidency with White
Nationalism, Neo-Nazism and Hatred", which formed the basis of a
resolution for impeachment brought on December 6, 2017. Since the
Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate during 2017 and
2018, the likelihood of impeachment during that period was considered
by all to be low.[8][9] A December 2017 resolution of impeachment
failed in the House by a 58–364 margin.[10] The Democrats gained
control of the House in 2019 and launched multiple investigations into
Trump's actions and finances. Speaker Nancy Pelosi initially resisted
calls for impeachment. In May 2019 she indicated that Trump's continued
actions, which she characterized as obstruction of justice and refusal
to honor congressional subpoenas, might make an impeachment inquiry
necessary. An increasing number of House Democrats and one Republican
were requesting such an inquiry. Protesters calling for impeachment on
the day of Trump's inauguration

In December 2016, Democratic senators Elizabeth Warren, Dick Durbin,
Chris Coons, Ben Cardin, and Jeff Merkley introduced a bill that would
require the president of the United States to divest any assets that
could raise a conflict of interest, including a statement that failure
to divest such assets would constitute high crimes and misdemeanors
"under the impeachment clause of the U.S. Constitution".[3] Vanity Fair
characterized this as a preemptive effort to lay the groundwork for a
future impeachment argument.[3] Concerns had previously been expressed
that Trump's extensive business and real estate dealings, especially
with respect to government agencies in other countries, may violate the
Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution,[4] sparking debate as to
whether that is the case.[11][12]

Immediately after his inauguration, The Independent and The Washington
Post each reported on efforts already underway to impeach Trump, based
on what the organizers regard as conflicts of interest arising from
Trump's ability to use his political position to promote the interests
of "Trump"-branded businesses, and ongoing payments by foreign entities
to businesses within the Trump business empire as a violation of the
Foreign Emoluments Clause.[1][2] In March 2017, China provisionally
granted 38 "Trump" trademark applications set to take permanent effect
in 90 days, which were noted to come in close proximity to the
president's making policy decisions favorable to China.[13]

The Washington Post further noted the creation of
ImpeachDonaldTrumpNow.org by Free Speech For People and RootsAction,
two liberal advocacy groups.[2] On February 9, Congressman Jerrold
Nadler (D, NY) had filed a resolution of inquiry titled "H.Con.Res. 5"
to force the Trump administration to turn over documents relating to
potential conflicts of interest and to ties with Russia.[14] Some
sources identified this as the first step in the process of impeaching
Trump.[15][16] Fox News outlined two potential bases for impeachment,
one being the Emoluments Clause and the other being complicity with
Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential
election.[17] On March 21, it was widely reported that Congresswoman
Maxine Waters tweeted "Get ready for impeachment," which Waters
explained was in reference to the allegations of collusion with Russian
interference in the election.[18]

On January 17, 2019, new accusations involving Trump surfaced, claiming
he instructed his long-time lawyer, Michael Cohen, to lie under oath
surrounding Trump's involvement with the Russian government to erect a
Trump Tower in Moscow.[19] This also sparked calls for an investigation
and for the president to "resign or be impeached" should such claims be
proven genuine.[20] The Mueller Report was released on April 18, 2019,
and Robert Mueller himself made follow-up comments on May 29. The
report reached no conclusion about whether Trump had committed criminal
obstruction of justice.[21] Mueller strongly hinted that it was up to
Congress to make such a determination. Congressional support for an
impeachment inquiry increased as a result.[22]

A formal impeachment inquiry was launched on September 24, 2019, as a
response to the Trump–Ukraine scandal, in which Trump and his personal
attorney Rudy Giuliani pressed the Ukrainian government repeatedly
since at least May 2019 to investigate Hunter Biden, the son of 2020
presidential candidate Joe Biden.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trump

[wolfbat359]

False -- Provide exidence!

[wolfbat359]

No facts provided!

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Following the Constitutionally-prescribed process is not a revolution.

> What did Trump do that was so bad, that there were plans for
> impeachment before he became president?

I do not dispute there were efforts to impeach and remove Trump from the
very beginning, or even before he took office. The problem with your
argument nonetheless remains that it can't be an attempted coup to try
to convince two-thirds of the Senators that Trump should be removed.

[El Castor]

On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 08:25:32 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

A cop sees a guy he dislikes, a guy who is dating his ex wife. The man
is not speeding, but the cop pulls him over and gives him a speeding
ticket. The cop is acting within the scope of authority granted by the
nature of his job, therefore the ticket is lawfully issued. Correct?

[Josh Rosenbluth]

No. A judge will throw out the ticket and the book at the cop. In
impeachment, the Senate is the judge and jury.

[El Castor]

On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 11:56:10 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

The point is not ability of the sleaze bag Democrat congress to issue
a speeding ticket, or in this case, impeachment indictment. The point
is that whatever name you choose to put on it, our House of
Representatives is behaving just as irresponsibly as that crooked cop.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 11/17/2019 12:41 PM, El Castor wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 11:56:10 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:

{snip}

>>>>>> Impeaching Trump in the House and removing in the Senate is *the* legal
>>>>>> way of removing Trump from office. How can that process be a coup?
>>>>>
>>>>> The coup process, a well planned removal of Trump by any means or
>>>>> excuse, dates back to well before the current hearings -- a fact that
>>>>> makes any pretense of fairness and objectivity in the latest witch
>>>>> hunt look more than a little suspect.
>>>>
>>>> As with Johnny, you are confusing a lack of fairness and a coup. A coup
>>>> can only occur when the process is illegal (what you called "by any
>>>> means"). If Trump is removed by the Constitutionally-prescribed
>>>> process, no matter how unfair you believe the removal may be (what you
>>>> called "by any excuse"), it is by definition not a coup.
>>>>
>>>> If two-thirds of the Senators believe Trump should be removed, then
>>>> two-thirds of the Senators don't agree with you that it is unfair. And
>>>> in our legal system, it is therefore not a coup.
>>>
>>> A cop sees a guy he dislikes, a guy who is dating his ex wife. The man
>>> is not speeding, but the cop pulls him over and gives him a speeding
>>> ticket. The cop is acting within the scope of authority granted by the
>>> nature of his job, therefore the ticket is lawfully issued. Correct?
>>
>> No. A judge will throw out the ticket and the book at the cop. In
>> impeachment, the Senate is the judge and jury.
>
> The point is not ability of the sleaze bag Democrat congress to issue
> a speeding ticket, or in this case, impeachment indictment. The point
> is that whatever name you choose to put on it, our House of
> Representatives is behaving just as irresponsibly as that crooked cop.

The crooked cop knowingly made a false arrest. The Democrats honestly
believe they are acting properly.

[El Castor]

On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 19:32:28 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

They probably do believe they are "acting properly", but I suspect
that belief is based more on emotion and self interest than a desire
to seek the nonpartisan truth. Human history is unfortunately strewn
with the victims of people who believed they were acting properly.