Rand Paul Puts The Screws To Wobbly Republicans

[Rightguide]

We all know Romney is honing his knife, but I wonder what he thinks about this little challenge:


Rand Paul threatens fellow Republicans with explosive witness votes

By BURGESS EVERETT

01/15/2020 06:27 PM EST

Sen. Rand Paul is waging a fierce campaign to prevent the Senate from hearing witnesses in Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, vowing to force tough votes on his fellow Republicans if they break with the president or back Democrats' demands for new evidence.

The Kentucky Republican is occasionally at odds with Trump, from his killing of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani to his national emergency to build his southern border wall. But when it comes to impeachment, Paul is taking the hardest line possible in Trump’s favor.

Paul says if four or more of his GOP colleagues join with Democrats to entertain new witness testimony, he will make the Senate vote on subpoenaing the president’s preferred witnesses, including Hunter Biden and the whistleblower who revealed the Ukraine scandal — polarizing picks who moderate Republicans aren’t eager to call. So he has a simple message for his party: end the trial before witnesses are called.

“If you vote against Hunter Biden, you’re voting to lose your election, basically. Seriously. That’s what it is,” Paul said during an interview in his office on Wednesday. “If you don’t want to vote and you think you’re going to have to vote against Hunter Biden, you should just vote against witnesses, period.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has warned Republicans not to divide the party and endanger his slim GOP majority, but Paul’s play could be useful to him. If the pressure campaign stifles the small group of Republicans open to hearing from witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton, McConnell will be able to conclude the trial in the swift fashion he’s long sought.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/15/rand-paul-witness-votes-impeachment-099407

 

[Heathergave]

Why are republicans so afraid of a witness? It looks like they are trying to obstruct justice. Innocent people would testify and welcome witnesses. Such a pathetic country.

Know your enemy!

 

[HisArpy]

Why are republicans so afraid of a witness? It looks like they are trying to obstruct justice. Innocent people would testify and welcome witnesses. Such a pathetic country.

Know your enemy!

1. Under our system of justice, the government has to present it's case and prove that the offense(s) charged are true.

2. Under that same system of justice, "innocent people" don't have to defend themselves if they don't want, or need, to.

3. The Senate cannot "obstruct justice" within it's own chamber. Under the US Constitution, the "speech and debate clause" prohibits any accountability for the things said on the floor of Congress.

4. The Senate sets the rules for the impeachment trial. If the rules don't allow witnesses, then the rules don't allow witnesses. That's not "fear", it's the Senate's rules. The SAME rules that were used for the Clinton impeachment.

Unless you want to say that the Democrats were "afraid of something" and "Clinton needed to testify to clear himself" during his impeachment trial.

 

[Heathergave]

1. Under our system of justice, the government has to present it's case and prove that the offense(s) charged are true.

2. Under that same system of justice, "innocent people" don't have to defend themselves if they don't want, or need, to.

3. The Senate cannot "obstruct justice" within it's own chamber. Under the US Constitution, the "speech and debate clause" prohibits any accountability for the things said on the floor of Congress.

4. The Senate sets the rules for the impeachment trial. If the rules don't allow witnesses, then the rules don't allow witnesses. That's not "fear", it's the Senate's rules. The SAME rules that were used for the Clinton impeachment.

Unless you want to say that the Democrats were "afraid of something" and "Clinton needed to testify to clear himself" during his impeachment trial.

Trump himself said that if you're innocent then you should testify.

I just looked, there were 3 witnesses at the clinton impeachment trial.

Not allowing any witnesses makes it look like they are scared.

 

[zipman]

Like almost every other Republican Senator, Rand Paul is more interested in reelection than in upholding the oath he took.

All of them are fucking disgraces to the Senate.

But that's okay, the latest developments in the Impeachment case are going to practically guarantee that there are witnesses.

 

[HisArpy]

Trump himself said that if you're innocent then you should testify.

I just looked, there were 3 witnesses at the clinton impeachment trial.

Not allowing any witnesses makes it look like they are scared.

Once again you show your ignorance.

That Clinton CHOSE to present a defense by no means makes that a "requirement".

 

[Heathergave]

Once again you show your ignorance.

That Clinton CHOSE to present a defense by no means makes that a "requirement".

Who said "requirement"? You did.

Stop changing what I said to fit your little agenda.

Trying to block witnesses makes Trump look guilty. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

 

[Rightguide]

Who said "requirement"? You did.

Stop changing what I said to fit your little agenda.

Trying to block witnesses makes Trump look guilty. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

You talking about Bolton? he hasn't got anything that's going to move the case for the Democrats. They made their case, now it's time for it to be judged.

 

[Heathergave]

You talking about Bolton? he hasn't got anything that's going to move the case for the Democrats. They made their case, now it's time for it to be judged.

I'm not talking about anyone in particular, I'm talking in general.

 

[Rightguide]

I'm not talking about anyone in particular, I'm talking in general.

If witnesses are blocked it will be the Senate doing the blocking, not the President, but note the President has every right to assert executive privilege when appropriate to do so.

 

[HisArpy]

Who said "requirement"? You did.

Stop changing what I said to fit your little agenda.

Trying to block witnesses makes Trump look guilty. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

If that's how you define what you said, then what you said is gibberish.

As for "blocking"; wasn't it Nadler who said that the only witnesses that should be called are the "relevant" ones? ALL other witnesses needn't be called to testify.

If that's the case, who is doing the "blocking"? It certainly sounds like the Demmies, not Trump.

 

[schism666]

"In July 2019, Paul was tapped by President Donald Trump as an envoy to Iran in order to repair Iran–United States relations.[176]"

that worked out well

 

[Rightguide]

"In July 2019, Paul was tapped by President Donald Trump as an envoy to Iran in order to repair Iran–United States relations.[176]"

that worked out well

He did more to repair those relations when he killed Salami.

 

[RocketLauncher]

 

[RocketLauncher]

 

[zipman]

You talking about Bolton? he hasn't got anything that's going to move the case for the Democrats. They made their case, now it's time for it to be judged.

No, they simply determined that Trump's actions warranted impeachment.

The actual trial (you know, that thing with evidence and witnesses) takes place in the Senate.

Fucking moron.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Why are republicans so afraid of a witness? It looks like they are trying to obstruct justice. Innocent people would testify and welcome witnesses. Such a pathetic country.

Know your enemy!

Your mistake is that you think impeachment is a judicial act.
It is a political act, no more, no less.

If the Democrats held both houses of Congress,
then they could simply remove him and undo the will of the people.

Praise be to the Gods that the House does not run our country...

 

[jomar]

Your mistake is that you think impeachment is a judicial act.
It is a political act, no more, no less.

If the Democrats held both houses of Congress,
then they could simply remove him and undo the will of the people.

Praise be to the Gods that the House does not run our country...

Will of the people? Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million and squeaked by an electoral college win by a mere 80,000 votes. That’s in no way a mandate.

Rand Paul is not upholding his oath of impartiality just like McConnell. Party before country! Stay in office at all cost! Assholes.

 

[RocketLauncher]

 

[Rightguide]

No, they simply determined that Trump's actions warranted impeachment.

The actual trial (you know, that thing with evidence and witnesses) takes place in the Senate.

Fucking moron.

There is no evidence of "crimes" committed by the President so the impeachment is unconstitutional, fucking moron.

This is a Democrat assault on the President, the Constitution, and the voting franchise of 63 million American citizens who aren't going to forget the names and party of those who did it.

 

[bestone4ever]

He did more to repair those relations when he killed Salami.

Rand Paul killed Salami in July? Huh.

 

[Rightguide]

Rand Paul killed Salami in July? Huh.

I was referring to Trump, clown.

 

[bestone4ever]

I was referring to Trump, clown.

Trump killed Salami in July? Huh.

 

[HisArpy]

Will of the people? Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million and squeaked by an electoral college win by a mere 80,000 votes. That’s in no way a mandate.

Rand Paul is not upholding his oath of impartiality just like McConnell. Party before country! Stay in office at all cost! Assholes.

Yap, yap, yap.

Trump won the election. Spinning alternate universe facts to try and make that not seem "legitimate" is a sign of a loser.

 

[zipman]

There is no evidence of "crimes" committed by the President so the impeachment is unconstitutional, fucking moron.

This is a Democrat assault on the President, the Constitution, and the voting franchise of 63 million American citizens who aren't going to forget the names and party of those who did it.

Soliciting foreign interference in a US election is a crime. Illegally withholding funds appropriated by congress is a crime. Illegally surveilling a US diplomat is a crime.

But even putting those aside, simple abuse of power is more than enough grounds to impeach the president.

And since the impeachment process is in the constitution itself, your claims that impeachment is unconstitutional is staggering in its stupidity.