STARR doing damnedest to shut down arguments

[UTUSN]

Sez:

* "Academics might disagree, but this with all due respect to the academy is not (the academy)."

* "The presidency is unique. duly elected president (not to be impeached?) "

* Now, conveniently citing a Democratic lawmaker, "the RODINO Rule - impeachment must be bipartisan."

(Funny how the Repukes come up with Dem "rules" when it's convenient for them. )


********NOTE TO STARR: No, no, and no.

[dlk]

1. Grasping at straws...

[spanone]

2. pontificating

[onenote]

3. I don't recall Ken Starr talking about the need for impeachment to be bipartisan when it was Clinton

First of all, the framers of the Constitution didn't create any "bipartisanship" requirement. Parties weren't really a big thing at the time the Constitution was ratified, but the framers did end up effectively requiring consensus on the issue of conviction by requiring a 2/3 vote. Of course, the fact that those same framers didn't impose a 2/3 threshold on the House undercuts any suggestion that impeachment in the House has to be bipartisan.

Second, the vote on the Clinton articles were anything but "bipartisan". On Article 1, 98 percent of the House repubs voted for and 97.5% of the House Democrats voted against. On Article 3, 95% of the Republicans voted for and 97.5% of Democrats voted against. In both instances not only were the Articles approved, but there were sufficient Republican votes for approval even if every single Democrat had voted against.