It is so deeply ironic to hear Ken Starr ... KEN STARR!!! ... argue that removing a president through impeachment is too grave a disruption without a bipartisan consensus. Bill Clinton won a popular vote AND EC vote TWICE; he was popular, and his impeachment was purely political.
Honest question to Republicans: what possible threat to national or domestic security did Clinton's consensual affair with a 24-year-old intern pose to this country? What threat did him lying about it out of embarrassment pose? What motive did Rs have to impeach besides party?
Ken Starr led that charge. He seemed to revel in it. Now he squares up to try and invalidate an impeachment based on an actual threat to national security and to a pending election, through the abuse of powers ONLY the president has? What planet is this?
Andrew Johnson was impeached for using his powers as president to try and reverse the outcome of the civil war and extinguish the rights and safety of the formerly enslaved. Nixon faced impeachment for cheating & suborning crimes to obtain the presidency.
Trump has been impeached for acting in contravention to American national security and defying congress in a way that literally threatens to permit foreign interference in the upcoming election; to try and cheat to win.
The one impeachment that stands out is Bill Clinton's. It is the lone impeachment process that lacked a findable cause beyond pure, naked partisanship. And the guy who led the charge is who Trump picked to argue about process? ... Everything is fine.
