Thread by @jedshug

1/ Historical constitutional fact-checking Ken Starr.
(Without comments about his Whitewater hypocrisy or Baylor U)

This distinction between Senators taking an oath has some legal merit. The Senate process is more court-like in a trial. But Framers chose the Senate, not courts.

2/ But here's the biggest oversight in Starr relying on oath language:
The only officer to take a formulated oath in the Constitution is the President, who takes an oath of "faithful execution."
And that language is part of Anglo-American impeachment standards, beyond crimes.

3/ Starr concedes "We are in an Age of Impeachment."
"How did we get here?"

I'm sorry, this is just too much to be smacked in the face with such chutzpah. He's 3 minutes into it with zero self-awareness. He is blaming the Independent Counsel Statute for it.
What a pathetic man.

4/ "The Independent Counsel Statute made me do it."

"It was such a horrible violation of the Imperial Unitary President, how could anyone stand up to its evil powers? Like Sauron. Like Darth Vader. Pure evil.
I'm here to say do as I say, not as I did!"

5/ We can play this game:
"We are in an Age of Hypocrisy. How did we get here? Don't blame me. I was for hypocrisy before I was ag'nst it."

For the record, I was in favor of Bill Clinton's impeachment and removal in 1998-99. I wish I could google that New Haven Register...

6/ Starr is now talking about how Andrew Johnson was not impeached because of courageous "Republicans from Party of Lincoln breaking ranks" and a bipartisan acquittal.

There is much historical evidence that Republicans fell short of 2/3 vote b/c of bribery, not bipartisanship.

7/ Starr now talking about "the common law of impeachment."
The text "always talks about crimes. Treason. Bribery."
"Mysterious term 'other high crimes and misdemeanors.'"
"Impeachments should be offenses against established law."
He is being slippery here deliberately.

8/ Notice how he talks about "crimes" first, but avoids arguing that impeachment requires a crime.
He keeps falling back to "established law."

Because he knows that "high crimes and misdemeanors" are not limited to statutory crimes/felonies.

9/ Starr is right that Johnson impeach included a criminal violation: the violation of the Tenure of Office Act, which had a mix of civil and criminal penalties.
But he is overlooking how some of the articles in both Johnson and Nixon impeachment were not statutory or criminal.

10/ Starr is now using empty pundit rhetoric of "impeachment overturns a presidential election."

I'd like Starr to answer this question: Who becomes president if Trump is removed? Clinton? Tim Kaine?

Pence, despite losing the VP race by 2.8 million votes.

11/ "Impeachment must be bipartisan in nature. No Republicans voted for this impeachment."

It's disingenuous not to acknowledge @justinamash, elected as a Republican, and had the courage to leave it.

@justinamash 12/ The House impeached Andrew Johnson for 11 articles. It appears that articles 8, 9, and 10 have no criminal statutes.

In Watergate, the 2d & 3d Articles including non-criminal conduct, also no statutory violation.

The common law of impeachment cuts against Starr's argument.

@justinamash 13/ A) I agree that the 2d article on Obstruction of Congress is weak and shouldn't have passed.

B) I don't agree with Starr's argument that the House's subpoenas are void until it impeaches.
In fact, he's partly contradicting or muddling the Trump lawyers last week.

@justinamash 14/ Starr's biggest problem:
The House's Article I on Abuse of Power alleges bribery by going through explicitly each element.
And the House Report explains in detail p. 118 to 126:

@justinamash 15/ Here are headings of the House Judiciary Report
at p. 118 to 126 explaining "Constitutional Bribery" and "CRIMINAL Bribery."
Starr is misleading in saying no crimes are alleged, once he is willing to dig into the details of the Johnson articles.

@justinamash 16/ Starr:
-Misleading statements about law & record
-Shameless hypocrisy
-Blaming Congress for his own mistakes
-Legally and politically unhelpful:

Paraphrase:
"Even if Trump abused power, that's not criminal"

1) Great re-election slogan.
2) It's wrong. It's criminal bribery.

@justinamash See also @_John_Mikhail on Starr's bad textual and historical con law argument:
Thread:

https://twitter.com/_John_Mikhail/status/1221867539162112000?s=20

18/ Ken Starr’s Flaming Hypocrisy:

Today: High crimes are limited to clearly established law and statutes.

1998 Starr Report’s “possible grounds for impeachment”:
Abuse of authority
Lying to public
Declining invitations to testify
Promising to cooperate
Invoking privilege!