General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPssssssssssssst! Grounds for impeachment if Trump lied about trying to fire Mueller Ken Starr
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/28/trump-robert-mueller-russia-ken-starr<snip>
Independent counsel who investigated Bill Clinton says: Lying to the American people is a serious issue that has to be explored
If Donald Trump lied to the American people when he called reports he tried to fire Robert Mueller fake news, that would be grounds for impeachment, the independent counsel who investigated the Clinton White House said on Sunday.
Ken Starr, who used Bill Clintons false statements about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky as grounds for impeachment, told ABCs This Week: Lying to the American people is a serious issue that has to be explored. I take lying to the American people very, very seriously, so absolutely.
Starr said: That is something Bob Mueller should look at.
Mueller, the special counsel, is investigating Russias interference in the 2016 presidential election, including alleged collusion between Russian officials and Trump aides, and numerous instances of possible obstruction of justice by the president.
----------------------
Now I detest Ken Starr but it would be 'delish' for his love of the phrase 'fake news' to finally fuck him up!!
Different Drummer
(7,614 posts)in connection to Faux, of course.
malaise
(268,960 posts)I detest the phrase - should be Fake Fox News.
Different Drummer
(7,614 posts)Kirk Lover
(3,608 posts)pbmus
(12,422 posts)sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)It's like a Starbucks exploded in the WH. Aren't there something like 64 emoluments violations? GOP congress has been exceedingly lenient, giving him dozens of mulligans and blatantly overlooking the illegality of half of everything he does.
madville
(7,408 posts)was proven wrong about that as well. No Ken, simply lying to the public or media is not an impeachable offense if actual perjury has been proven not to be.
TalenaGor
(1,104 posts)For all of em...
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)I just wanted to punch his lights out. He was so obnoxious! Finally Martha Raddatz got him on the fact that he tried to bust Clinton on "lying" to the American people so eventually he had to admit that if Trump lied to the American people, that he too was subject to legal action, but up until she challenged him, he wouldn't back down and basically said DT had done nothing wrong. He was such an arrogant prick. Dan Abrams did a good job, but Starr was such a dickhead he was too stupid to know how stupid he was being.
malaise
(268,960 posts)So he was forced to admit this.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)was getting so exasperated with him because he just wouldn't back down even though he was wrong. He was such an arrogant, stupid fucktard. I wanted to throw something at the television. Martha did a good job though! Wish you all could have seen it!
Takket
(21,563 posts)obstruction without proof of collusion doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of everygetting past the House in an impeachment vote.
as it is, even if mueller brings proof that drumpf is guilty of working with Russia, the prospects of him being impeached are not good. but if all we can bring to the table is "well we can't prove the russia thing but drumpf did try to obstruct us from looknig into the collusion that it turns out we can't prove"..... uh... no way. Congress is NEVER impeaching over simple obstruction without proof of an underlying crime that drumpf was trying to avoid being discovered.