>>7931252
Republican Peach Mint Defense Mon Jan 27 2020
PAGE 2
Ken Starr
talks about impartiality & the process of impeachment
we're living in the "age of impeachment"
House has discussed for months
How did we get here?
Story begins 42 years ago after Watergate
Ethics in Govt Act 1978 - Independent Counsel provision
Justice Dept: IC is unconstitutional bc it interferes with executive branch
SCOTUS disagreed, upheld the statute
But Scalia dissented: "statute is acrid with the small of threatened impeachment"
Why? Because it directed the IC to become an agent of the House of Reps; very low threshold to impeachment
Clinton signed reauthorized measure into law–and Whitewater inquiry commenced
After Clinton's acquittal: end of IC Era ("enough was enough")
21 year IC experiment ended: Congress allowed the law to expire in 1999
Replaced by Justice Dept regs by Janet Reno; there is no reference to impeachment; poison pill provisions were gone
Impeachment would not longer be embedded in the law of the land
Dawn of 21st century: impeachment habit proved to be hard to kick
UK: impeachment process disappeared; Parliament said it was obsolete bc it does not meet modern proc. stds of fairness 10:30 PSD
But in US, impeachment became a weapon; Peggy Noonan: "impeachment has now been normalized"
Of 63 impeachment inquiries authorized by the House, only 8 have been convicted–all were Federal judges
[discusses historical impeachment proceedings, including Andrew Johnson]
Wasn't til a century later that impeachment was used again: Nixon
But it was bipartisan.
"Like war, impeachment is hell. Or at least, Presidental is hell." It's like domestic warfare.
[What Senate should ask:] Was there a crime alleged?
Re impeachment: Constitution uses the "language of crimes"
Framers wanted to limit the power of impeachment
Has the House, with these 2 articles of impeachment, charged a crime or not?
Johnson, Clinton, Nixon impeachments charged crimes
No crimes are alleged in Trump impeachment
Here there is no national consensus [not bipartisan]
[Starr's whole presentation seems more designed to educate the public than the Senators]
Alternative to impeachment = oversight.
Example: Iran-Contra [but even then a measure to impeach Reagan was introduced]
Starr: "Let the people decide"
Factors counseling restraint:
On due process & executive privilege:
[VERY IMPORTANT to protect executive privilege, to avoid "injuring the Presidency"]
All subpoenas issued before House 660 [when House voted for impeachment] are INVALID
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/660/all-info [passed 10/31/19]
[Re obstruction: cannot be supported]
It's not an impeachable offense for POTUS to defend constitutional prerogatives of the Presidency
This House turned its back on its own established procedures
"All those procedures were torn asunder" over the objections of the [repub] minority
But they were under no oligation to be non-partison; "they were oathless"
This was a runaway House, despite being warned "don't do it that way"
Due process could have been honored…but what's done is done"
This procedure is "dripping with fundamental process violations"
Justice: Constitutional priority; thus courts would not allow this [House procedure]
Why? "To secure the blessings of liberty….liberty under law 11:11am pst
Sekulow/Purpura next
con't