Bonus: the lawyer who argued the winning side in Nixon v US, against judicial review of impeachment, was Ken Starr.
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
17 Gop wont vote to convict anyway
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Interesting to see you say this in light of the Luttig argument.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Disagree. Nixon was about impeachment *procedure*, not who could be convicted.
-
The Court held that it was completely a political process and that the courts had no involvement. They left the entire process to Congress, which has already established precedent that it can try former officials.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The case was 9-0 and one of the justices is still on the Court. That precedent seems pretty rock solid safe.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The Constitution gives Congress the "sole" power of impeachment. It's as clear as the President's pardon power at least.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Watch the entire rally start start to finish on
@RSBNetwork or@news_ntd. How many "insurrections" include The Lord's Prayer? - Show replies
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.