Rand puts a nail in the coffin on second impeachment attempt.

[CaptUSA]

 

[DamianTV]

I did. I didn't see my question answered in it.

I thought maybe somebody here would know, so I asked the forum.

If you don't know that's fine. Others might.

I doubt anyone will answer you, except in sarcasm.

You are Gaslighting in your questioning.

If I were to ask "why didnt you do something about the Corporate World Government Takeover", that would effectively be a Gaslighting question, and we all know it and quite frankly are sick of your bullshit.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

MAGA was allegedly backstabbed by some factions of deep neocons "friends" and such lobbies seem to be turning on one another, don't see what's the upside of Rand getting in the way. IMO he should stay out of this and watch from sidelines what becomes of whatever is leftover of GOPA wing that was bound to sink.
Hopefully there is third party birth/rebirth of GOP wing not tainted with neocons swamp that would attract attention of liberty minded folks to channel their energies.

 

[tfurrh]

Rand Paul for President CSA 2024

Yes i think given the Stephanopoulos interview and now this, it looks like Rand is running for prezzy-prez.

 

[TheTexan]

Rand made front page of CNN

and more shocking, the article stayed surprisingly factual

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/01/26/...mpeachment-trial-constitutionality/index.html

Something fishy is going on.

They must be up to something.

 

[oyarde]

What is the reason for thinking the trial is unconstitutional?

I think the more legitimate question is why are elected officials wasting taxpayer money on a ceremony meant for elected officials for an official not in office . Shouldnt they be punished for that ?

 

[acptulsa]

Rand made front page of CNN

and more shocking, the article stayed surprisingly factual

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/01/26/...mpeachment-trial-constitutionality/index.html

Something fishy is going on.

They must be up to something.

You mean besides putting a band aid on one of the gushing wounds of their reputation?

They do that now and then.

 

[69360]

I don't think an impeachment of a president after he has left office is constitutional. I think it was petty and a waste of time and resources for the democrats to impeach with 2 weeks left in Trump's term. However I do think he is guilty.

 

[acptulsa]

I don't think an impeachment of a president after he has left office is constitutional. I think it was petty and a waste of time and resources for the democrats to impeach with 2 weeks left in Trump's term. However I do think he is guilty.

Do you?

And is Maxine Waters guilty of the same?

 

[TheTexan]

I don't think an impeachment of a president after he has left office is constitutional. I think it was petty and a waste of time and resources for the democrats to impeach with 2 weeks left in Trump's term. However I do think he is guilty.

Guilty of what? Claiming there was election fraud?

Maybe if the left didn't want people to riot over election fraud, they shouldn't have election frauded to begin with.

 

[69360]

Do you?

And is Maxine Waters guilty of the same?

Possibly yes.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

What I find amazing are all the Senators that know how they will vote prior to the trial. That is some crazy schit. I also thought since Trump is being impeached for insurrection by starting a riot based on lies of a stolen election, the Senate would be a great place for Trump to submit all this massive evidence of election fraud he has. Since SCOTUS would not hear his cases, Bring Witness after witness and make his case that the election was stolen so therefore he was not lying.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

MAGA was allegedly backstabbed by some factions of deep neocons "friends" and such lobbies seem to be turning on one another, don't see what's the upside of Rand getting in the way. IMO he should stay out of this and watch from sidelines what becomes of whatever is leftover of GOPA wing that was bound to sink.
Hopefully there is third party birth/rebirth of GOP wing not tainted with neocons swamp that would attract attention of liberty minded folks to channel their energies.

Maybe he figures any free publicity is good publicity.

 

[acptulsa]

What I find amazing are all the Senators that know how they will vote prior to the trial. That is some crazy schit. I also thought since Trump is being impeached for insurrection by starting a riot based on lies of a stolen election, the Senate would be a great place for Trump to submit all this massive evidence of election fraud he has. Since SCOTUS would not hear his cases, Bring Witness after witness and make his case that the election was stolen so therefore he was not lying.

Unfortunately, the same senators who tabled the motion to dismiss will decide what they want to hear. That, combined with the fact that such evidence may explain why the crowd was there, but is irrelevant to whether Trump incited them to riot or not, makes that highly unlikely.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Unfortunately, the same senators who tabled the motion to dismiss will decide what they want to hear. That, combined with the fact that such evidence may explain why the crowd was there, but is irrelevant to whether Trump incited them to riot or not, makes that highly unlikely.

Seems to me like he should be able to mount any defense he pleases. He is being tried for high crimes and Treason! He is entitled to his defense. I guess they can pause the trial while the SCOTUS makes a ruling on how Trump defends himself. Heck they should just appoint Adam Schiff as Trump's defense Lawyer.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Unfortunately, the same senators who tabled the motion to dismiss will decide what they want to hear. That, combined with the fact that such evidence may explain why the crowd was there, but is irrelevant to whether Trump incited them to riot or not, makes that highly unlikely.

If I am accused of killing my estranged wife in Topeka Kansas but the court will not let me provide evidence that I was vacationing in Alaska then it is not a fair trial. If people thought they needed popcorn before, they had better stock up. Get Ready for Showtime.

 

[Invisible Man]

I doubt anyone will answer you, except in sarcasm.

You are Gaslighting in your questioning.

If I were to ask "why didnt you do something about the Corporate World Government Takeover", that would effectively be a Gaslighting question, and we all know it and quite frankly are sick of your bullshit.

My question isn't like that.

Notice how you keep doing this with my posts.

 

[Invisible Man]

I think the more legitimate question is why are elected officials wasting taxpayer money on a ceremony meant for elected officials for an official not in office . Shouldnt they be punished for that ?

I agree. I think they're putting on a show and it's stupid. I wish Rand would have just said that, instead of trying to frame it as a violation of the Constitution.

 

[acptulsa]

My question isn't like that.

Notice how you keep doing this with my posts.

From the OP:

“The Chief Justice’s absence demonstrate that this is not a trial of the president, but one of a private citizen,” Paul said in an address to the Senate floor Tuesday. “Therefore I make a point of order that this proceeding, which would try a private citizen and not a president, a vice president or civil officer violates the Constitution, and is not in order.”

Surely you can understand how a person could take your question wrong, considering it was answered before it was asked.

 

[Invisible Man]

From the quotes in my OP

“The Chief Justice’s absence demonstrate that this is not a trial of the president, but one of a private citizen,” Paul said in an address to the Senate floor Tuesday. “Therefore I make a point of order that this proceeding, which would try a private citizen and not a president, a vice president or civil officer violates the Constitution, and is not an order.”

Is that the extent of the argument? I don't see the logic there. The conclusion "violates the Constitution" doesn't follow from what comes before it in those sentences. And it looks like Rand misread the Constitution.

The Constitution only requires that the Chief Justice preside over an impeachment trial when it is the President being tried. It does not require that when it is a vice president or other civil officer, as Rand implies by including those in his claim. It's clear from Article 1 Section 3 that in an impeachment trial of anyone other than the President, the Chief Justice need not preside.

Donald Trump is not the President. Therefore, having an impeachment trial that is not presided over by the Chief Justice does comport with what Article 1 Section 3 says, taken woodenly literally.

Trump is a private citizen now. That's true. But so are all former Presidents. And I don't see anything unconstitutional about impeaching former presidents and subsequently trying them in the Senate. Since the allowable punishments that can be issued in judgement for impeachment trials in the Senate extend beyond just removal from office, and also include "disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States," this could still be applicable to former presidents, and other former office holders.