Rand Paul has put Senate Reps on notice; peach mint related

Love that little pube headed Patriot

quote:

---

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

---

Rand gets a lot of hate here but he is the only DC politician I know of that posseses a bit of integrity.

Right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of who it hurts

This is how I'd like to see it play out:

Mitch moves to dismiss
Dems object
Roberts sides with Dem objection & says he can't just dismiss
Mitch says "Mr. Chief Justice, I'm the boss in these chambers, keep your place."
Mitch says "case dismissed"

We don't need a dismissal.

We need nothing less than FULL acquittal.

quote:

---

Graham will call Rudy to introduce hard evidence into the public arena

---

Graham ain't gonna do shite

quote:

---

Rand gets a lot of hate here but he is the only DC politician I know of that posseses a bit of integrity.

Right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of who it hurts

---

He's not as good as his dad was, but he's pretty damn good compared to his peers.

Dr Jheri Curl on point!

quote:

---

Rand Paul

---

He better watch out or the Dems are going to send his crazy neighbor over to finish the job...

quote:

---

TLDNR: He is SAYING, “vote against allowing ANY witnesses, so you can avoid voting against (or “for”) SPECIFIC witnesses and thereby losing your job.”

---

I think that many folks fail to understand the point that Rand is making here. It is basically an analysis containing two elements: procedural and political.

First, the procedural. The 1986 Rules do not require the Senate to hear from ANY witnesses. They can vote to convict (or not) based solely upon the Articles and the arguments of the advocates.

In order to hear ANY witnesses at all (in a general sense), a majority of the Senate must vote to include witness testimony in the process. He is advocating AGAINST that procedure. If that procedure is approved, however, a majority of the Senate must vote as to whether they will allow the testimony of EACH proposed witness.

Now the political. He is also reminding reminding his GOP colleagues (if such a proposal to hear ANY witnesses should pass) that the votes regarding each individual proposed witness have the potential to be politically damaging to individual Senators at the next election.

For example, Senator Purple is from a swing state. Senator Purple votes to allow testimony from Bolton (because the Senator thinks it is relevant) and votes to exclude Biden (because he thinks it is irrelevant).

Rand is reminding his colleagues that a certain percentage of Trump voters will read those decisions as “failing to support GEOTUS” and suggesting that Senator Purple will likely be unseated by those voters.

He is SAYING, “vote against allowing ANY witnesses, so you can avoid voting against (or “for”) SPECIFIC witnesses and thereby losing your job.”

quote:

---

We don't need a dismissal.

We need nothing less than FULL acquittal.

---

disagree = But I want a dismissal with some sort of official stigma associated with it

Put that damned asterisk* on Pelosi, the DEMOCRATS, and the Impeachment documents themselves.

= DISMISSED because of BAD FAITH in House of Representationve.

Followed by a bill to REQUIRE some sort of fair process in future Impeachment actions. Make SURE it cannot be just personal animosity or policy disagreement.

PLUS - censure of all the despicable actors in this past process -

Then initiate a hearing to investigate SEDITION on the part of the DEMOCRATs for all their activities in the past 3 years.