Today's Front Page   View All of Tue 07/05/2022 View Mon 07/04/2022 View Sun 07/03/2022 View Sat 07/02/2022 View Fri 07/01/2022 View Thu 06/30/2022 View Wed 06/29/2022
2021-01-27 Home Front: Politix
Rand Paul: Impeachment Trial ‘Dead on Arrival' ‐ Democrats ‘Don't Have the Votes to Win'
[Breitbart] Tuesday, in an appearance on FNC’s "Fox News Primetime," Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) reacted to the 55-45 vote in the U.S. Senate earlier in the day, which paved the way for former President Donald Trump’s impeachment to proceed on a constitutional basis.

Paul insisted the process was still unconstitutional and pointed out that Chief Justice John Roberts was a no-show. He said that given there were 45 votes against proceeding showed that impeachment was "dead on arrival."

"We put forward a motion that said that basically, you can’t impeach a private individual. You can impeach a president, but this is why the chief justice didn’t show up. If it was the president, the chief justice shows up. The fact that the chief justice wouldn’t come and refused to come means that this is a private citizen, but the Constitution doesn’t allow for impeachment of a private citizen. So, we put this issue forward, but the most important takeaway from the issue is they don’t have the votes to convict. We have 45 people, 45 Republican senators say that the whole — the whole charade is unconstitutional.

So what does that mean? It means that impeachment — the trial is dead on arrival. There will be a show, there will be a parade of partisanship, but the Democrats really will not be able to win. They will be able to play a partisan game that they wish to play. But it’s all over. This shows they don’t have the votes to win. So, they will just slog through this, and they will try to punish Republicans. But that’s all this has ever been about. Not justice. It’s about a partisan game, where they don’t want the election to be over.
Posted by Besoeker 2021-01-27 04:22|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [6554 views ]  Top

#1 They know they do not have the votes, they have always known. Winning an impeachment trial is not the desired end-state or goal. The goal is filling and controlling the media narrative.

Without Donald Trump and the conservative movement, his briefings, interviews, rallies, etc, there is a huge media and public information vacuum. This vacuum simply cannot be filled with a dementia suffering POTUS surfacing from the basement two to three times per week.
Posted by Besoeker 2021-01-27 04:33||   2021-01-27 04:33|| Front Page Top

#2 I wish Rand Paul didn't get ahead of himself on this. They were't voting to convict Trump, they were voting weather to have a trial. In the case of and actual vote to convict the results might be quire different, and the rationalizations among RINOs to vote to convict would be numerous, even if self-serving, faux-pious or outright inane.
Posted by M. Murcek 2021-01-27 07:23||   2021-01-27 07:23|| Front Page Top

#3 If they really believed that Trump committed a crime they could get DoJ to prosecute. But they know the charges would never hold up in court.
Posted by Abu Uluque 2021-01-27 11:55||   2021-01-27 11:55|| Front Page Top

#4 Socialist-Democrat Logic
Let us waste MILLIONS of TAXPAYER $$$$$$ to IMPEACH a person, to remove him from an Office that he no longer holds?

If passed and the prescient set, upheld by the SCOTUS and becomes US common legal practice.

Then there are is long list of former Political types that should should also be impeached after the fact also. Especially given their well documented crimes, some resulting in MURDER of Federal Agent (Fast and the Furious), Foreign $$$, (Biden, Nancy, Chucky)and open calls for Physical violence on opposing elected officials. (Maxie-Mouth).

Posted by NN2N1 2021-01-27 11:58||   2021-01-27 11:58|| Front Page Top

#5 Boy, When You Guys From Georgia Get on A Roll, You Don't Hold Back... Keep Going NN2N1, Watch Out he's a House on Fire...Yee Haa ! Get the Horses Out of The Barn, We're Ride'n and No Body Can Stop Us !!! No not Jo, Nan C, Shoe Mar,or Lay Hee. Onward to Biden Bog we ride !!!
Posted by ee green 2021-01-27 12:19||   2021-01-27 12:19|| Front Page Top

#6 Thx for comment Double-E. We enjoy a healthy
critique of the articles and comments. We generally leave the individual poster to his business.
Posted by Besoeker 2021-01-27 12:29||   2021-01-27 12:29|| Front Page Top

#7 Ok - Mr B, read your message, understand clear, mea culpa.
Posted by ee green 2021-01-27 12:58||   2021-01-27 12:58|| Front Page Top

#8 The objective is to deter every member of the general public from calling for, organizing or participating in any non-leftist rally or demonstration.

The People and the People's core political free speech rights are on pseudo-trial. The chilling effect is being created no matter any pseudo-legal maneuvering.
Posted by Elmerert Hupens2660 2021-01-27 15:26||   2021-01-27 15:26|| Front Page Top

#9 I don't think without the chief justice presiding the show trial is anything more than a joint resolution; not a legally binding condition.

Those are the old rules though.

What they can do is sling enough mud, and get the mouths on loop, and try to convince enough Joes and Janes that he is in fact guilty and ineligible for office and responsible for all the rioting last year.

Obviously the commies, NWOs, and iconoclasts have to erase him from history; SOPs donchyaknow? If if we are talking about how Trump is the worst person since Zhang Jue we are not talking about the massive vote fraud industrial complex or censorship or how Xiben forgot how to use a pen during an sweeping EO session.

If you are of the mind Trump will continue in politics, then reviewing the 2022 slate we see 36 governorships are up for election. Two state in particular stand out, as their current governor will term out: Arizona and Pennsylvania. Imagine Trump and/or Trump backed candidates running for any of these elections. The NWOs in the primary, and commies in the general, can play the insurrection card every time vote fraud gets brought up, along with the myriad of other claims made against Trump. If/When The Club loses an election it wants won, they turn on the conjure-a-vote machine and make the lie believable enough to not sir the pot.
Posted by swksvolFF 2021-01-27 16:14||   2021-01-27 16:14|| Front Page Top

#10 "you can’t impeach a private individual"

Trump was impeached while still being president. The question rather is: what does "trial" mean. If the only result is to remove a president from office, the trial might be moot.

But does the removal come with other consequences? E.g. loss of pension and other perks, and of course being barred from running again.

If you consider this part of the removal, then things aren't that clear anymore.

Just imagine a president who TRULY commits an egregious impeachable offense. In order to make sure he could still run again he could simply resign when impeached, and no trial would happen. And he would keep his pension.

Is this what the framers intended?
Posted by European Conservative 2021-01-27 16:43||   2021-01-27 16:43|| Front Page Top

#11 Trump was impeached while still being president. The question rather is: what does "trial" mean. If the only result is to remove a president from office, the trial might be moot.

Is this what the framers intended?

From several experts I have read on over the years, impeachment is to remove a sitting president as an official removal of the privileges and command structure the president is part of. While there is no prison or penalties, other than removal of privileges and office, it does clear the way for federal or state charges to be levied at that person that was impeached.

The removal of pensions and secret service is after the original founders intent.

From a originalist point of view, confirming the impeachment by the Senate after the president is a private citizen doesn't make a lot of sense. In the after view of stripping privileges given to a president after their office is part of the modern view, not the founders.
Posted by DarthVader 2021-01-27 17:53||   2021-01-27 17:53|| Front Page Top

#12 Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

So disqualification is in the Constitution.
Posted by European Conservative 2021-01-27 18:36||   2021-01-27 18:36|| Front Page Top

#13 So impeachment could actually have been intended to remove Secret Service protection.... My mind goes to dark places with that thought, because I don't think highly of Pelosi.
Posted by rjschwarz 2021-01-27 18:43||   2021-01-27 18:43|| Front Page Top

#14 What is clear is that impeachment isn't just about removal from office but extends to disqualification. And the one can't happen without the other.

Which doesn't only apply to a president (retired or not) but to any person impeached. This means that any impeached person could prevent his/her disqualification by simply resigning before being convicted by the Senate.
Posted by European Conservative 2021-01-27 18:49||   2021-01-27 18:49|| Front Page Top

#15 I'm sorry, EC, but he won't be convicted because what he said wasn't inciting and the "RIOT!!1!" was planned before hand by others, including BLM and Antifa. Have you seen or read all of this incredibly rabble-rousing speech? No, because the media and Dems are silencing it and trying to spin it. You may just have to live with a potential 2nd term POTUS some more ;-)
Posted by Frank G 2021-01-27 19:28||   2021-01-27 19:28|| Front Page Top

#16 FrankG, indeed I have. Will comment on this another time
Posted by European Conservative 2021-01-27 20:03||   2021-01-27 20:03|| Front Page Top

#17  Just imagine a president who TRULY commits an egregious impeachable offense. In order to make sure he could still run again he could simply resign when impeached, and no trial would happen. And he would keep his pension.

President Nixon stepped down upon the threat of impeachment for doing exactly what his Democratic predecessors had done — only the press reported it endlessly in shocked tones rather than covering it up. I don’t recall anything about revoking his retirement privileges, and his privacy thereafter was respected, as far as I know.
Posted by trailing wife 2021-01-27 20:05||   2021-01-27 20:05|| Front Page Top

#18 I can't help but think of disgraced--but reelected--D.C. mayor Marion Barry.
Posted by Clem 2021-01-27 21:40||   2021-01-27 21:40|| Front Page Top

#19 >>> Marion Barry

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL)

So much for disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.
Posted by Big Craish6553 2021-01-27 22:33||   2021-01-27 22:33|| Front Page Top

#20 bueno Big Craish6553

many more of these inquiries por judicious mana need purformo, dia ist corrupto
Posted by Cromoger Poodle3181 2021-01-27 22:46||   2021-01-27 22:46|| Front Page Top

#21 The decision to disqualify a convicted impeachee is a separate decision
Posted by Rambler in Virginia  2021-01-27 22:52||   2021-01-27 22:52|| Front Page Top

04:46 Mike Kozlowski
04:13 Dale
04:10 Dale
04:07 Dale
02:17 Dron66046
01:26 CrazyFool
01:21 badanov
01:04 trailing wife
00:54 Frank G
00:49 Rambler in Virginia
00:39 Seeking Cure For Ignorance
00:33 Seeking Cure For Ignorance
00:31 trailing wife

Search WWW Search rantburg.com