Rand Paul: Constitution Void Day One(?)--"Never Been Done Before(?)!" "Way To Go Rand Paul! Let's Go!

[mascale]

So at least one of the various U.S. National impeachment trials was held after the indicted had left office. The Trumped-Up lawyers are likely to contend that on that basis: There is no precedent for that having ever happened(?)! Senator Paul acknowledges the precedent, but notes that never before has it happened to a President. That was in an interview on the Fox Soap Opera channel, even(?). One of the various stars was involved, having not been fired.

Another Sunday Senator recalled that Nixon had resigned before an impeachment. Nothing further happened. No comparison was made with the basis: The Trumped-Up leader did not resign. So lawful Impeachment happened. That is as far as that contention can go. The Senate, in writing, then tries all impeachments, as in each and every one.

Chris Wallace Pokes Holes in Rand Paul’s Impeachment Defense

Fox NewsFox News anchor Chris Wallace confronted Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) over his assertion that it’s unconstitutional to impeach former President Donald Trump, pointing out on Sunday that there is precedent for impeaching an official who’s left office.During an interview with the Kentucky senator...

news.yahoo.com

Then The Rand Paul reasoning is even baseless on its face. Day One one after ratification: The Constitution was not thought to be invalid since it had never been done before(?)! The Rand Paul contention(?): The whole document is therefore Unconstitutional(?): From Day One!

More Likely House Managers will contend that the document is valid, and embraces language sufficient to meet the circumstance, not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The problem of a "January Exemption," or "Exception:" Had a lot of time to happen, from that pesky, "Day One."

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Matt 25: 14-30, in the backdrop of Matt 20: 1-16--has had a lot time to actually happen(?)!)

 

[The Irish Ram]

Because revenge is more important than our economy, health, children's education, unemployment, lock downs, bankruptcies, borders...
And we pay them to do it!

 

[TheGreatSatan]

Democrats must impeach Trump because to many Americans don't believe biden is legit. So to legitimize Biden, Trump must be impeached and found guilty.

 

[White 6]

Democrats must impeach Trump because to many Americans don't believe biden is legit. So to legitimize Biden, Trump must be impeached and found guilty.

Nah. If possible, they would just like to insure he cannot ever serve or even be appointed to a position in the federal government, as his is unfit.

 

[rightwinger]

Because revenge is more important than our economy, health, children's education, unemployment, lock downs, bankruptcies, borders...
And we pay them to do it!

Revenge?

 

[dudmuck]

Because revenge is more important than our economy, health, children's education, unemployment, lock downs, bankruptcies, borders...
And we pay them to do it!

Revenge?

View attachment 454321

yes, this was the revenge

 

[The Irish Ram]

Chain worthy, Ringer???

 

[Burgermeister]

For fuck's sake. The Senate has no power to try and and punish a private citizen. Period. It's called separation of powers.

 

[mascale]

Separation of Powers is not about the lawful impeachment of an office-holder in their lawful term. The trial is a mandatory Senate requirement.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Matt 25: 14-30, in the backdrop of Matt 20: 1-16--has had a lot time to actually happen(?)!)

 

[Concerned American]

Because revenge is more important than our economy, health, children's education, unemployment, lock downs, bankruptcies, borders...
And we pay them to do it!

So let me get this straight. We want to defund police, do away with bail and incarceration, let murderers, rapists, arsonists and varied and assorted other law breakers walk away free, but it is important to run a scam impeachment on a one-party president that the democrats don't like. Got it.

 

[shockedcanadian]

So at least one of the various U.S. National impeachment trials was held after the indicted had left office. The Trumped-Up lawyers are likely to contend that on that basis: There is no precedent for that having ever happened(?)! Senator Paul acknowledges the precedent, but notes that never before has it happened to a President. That was in an interview on the Fox Soap Opera channel, even(?). One of the various stars was involved, having not been fired.

Another Sunday Senator recalled that Nixon had resigned before an impeachment. Nothing further happened. No comparison was made with the basis: The Trumped-Up leader did not resign. So lawful Impeachment happened. That is as far as that contention can go. The Senate, in writing, then tries all impeachments, as in each and every one.

Chris Wallace Pokes Holes in Rand Paul’s Impeachment Defense

Fox NewsFox News anchor Chris Wallace confronted Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) over his assertion that it’s unconstitutional to impeach former President Donald Trump, pointing out on Sunday that there is precedent for impeaching an official who’s left office.During an interview with the Kentucky senator...

news.yahoo.com

Then The Rand Paul reasoning is even baseless on its face. Day One one after ratification: The Constitution was not thought to be invalid since it had never been done before(?)! The Rand Paul contention(?): The whole document is therefore Unconstitutional(?): From Day One!

More Likely House Managers will contend that the document is valid, and embraces language sufficient to meet the circumstance, not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The problem of a "January Exemption," or "Exception:" Had a lot of time to happen, from that pesky, "Day One."

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Matt 25: 14-30, in the backdrop of Matt 20: 1-16--has had a lot time to actually happen(?)!)

I listen to Weasel Wallace and I can't help but think to myself, "How would this guy act under pressure by the Gestapo?".

The most enduring quality to me is courage. I don't care if someone is physically a weakling, that's now how I measure a man (or woman). I measure you by your ability to face up to reality, even if inconvenient, and to call out the powerful or violator of human rights or law.

Wallace illustrated a lack of spine during the debate. That show that he put on wasn't for the benefit of America. It's difficult for me to ever get past that.

Unless Trump said "go to the Capitol and over throw the government and injure the police", I see no way anyone can be impeached. We saw what happened during the Kavanaugh Hearings. The double standard once again is presented and Weasel Wallace can't even defend his Establishment friends in the process.

 

[BluesLegend]

Separation of Powers is not about the lawful impeachment of an office-holder in their lawful term. The trial is a mandatory Senate requirement.

I see, and when Dem senator Chuck Schumer incited a mob outside the SCOTUS one of the three branches of government and other leading Dems cheered him on?

 

[mascale]

People watching, "Saturday Night Live," often come away so incited: They have never laughed so hard in their lives. That puts them in the same basis as the atrocity-murders insurrection! The atrocity-murders admit that they were incited about their whole war-campaign--subsequent all the lead-up!

People not following BluesLegend poster's absurd contention, but following the Trumped-Up lead-up and remarks: Expressly state they were incited. No record of testimony about other events is presented in the post.

See BluesLegend poster, supportive of the murder-atrocity incited--showing no evidence of how any other protesters in any other event recalled what they did. BluesLegend states the brand of the incited to murder! It must be cool, the Presidentially incited thing to do!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Matt 25: 14-30, in the backdrop of Matt 20: 1-16--has had a lot time to actually happen(?)!)

 

[toobfreak]

So at least one of the various U.S. National impeachment trials was held after the indicted had left office. The Trumped-Up lawyers are likely to contend that on that basis: There is no precedent for that having ever happened(?)! Senator Paul acknowledges the precedent, but notes that never before has it happened to a President. That was in an interview on the Fox Soap Opera channel, even(?). One of the various stars was involved, having not been fired.

Another Sunday Senator recalled that Nixon had resigned before an impeachment. Nothing further happened. No comparison was made with the basis: The Trumped-Up leader did not resign. So lawful Impeachment happened. That is as far as that contention can go. The Senate, in writing, then tries all impeachments, as in each and every one.

Chris Wallace Pokes Holes in Rand Paul’s Impeachment Defense

Fox NewsFox News anchor Chris Wallace confronted Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) over his assertion that it’s unconstitutional to impeach former President Donald Trump, pointing out on Sunday that there is precedent for impeaching an official who’s left office.During an interview with the Kentucky senator...

news.yahoo.com

Then The Rand Paul reasoning is even baseless on its face. Day One one after ratification: The Constitution was not thought to be invalid since it had never been done before(?)! The Rand Paul contention(?): The whole document is therefore Unconstitutional(?): From Day One!

More Likely House Managers will contend that the document is valid, and embraces language sufficient to meet the circumstance, not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The problem of a "January Exemption," or "Exception:" Had a lot of time to happen, from that pesky, "Day One."

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Matt 25: 14-30, in the backdrop of Matt 20: 1-16--has had a lot time to actually happen(?)!)

BULLSHIT. MORE FAKE NEWS and leftwing lies. I watched the whole interview and Wallace poked NOTHING through Paul's answers!

 

[BluesLegend]

So at least one of the various U.S. National impeachment trials was held after the indicted had left office. The Trumped-Up lawyers are likely to contend that on that basis: There is no precedent for that having ever happened(?)! Senator Paul acknowledges the precedent, but notes that never before has it happened to a President. That was in an interview on the Fox Soap Opera channel, even(?). One of the various stars was involved, having not been fired.

Another Sunday Senator recalled that Nixon had resigned before an impeachment. Nothing further happened. No comparison was made with the basis: The Trumped-Up leader did not resign. So lawful Impeachment happened. That is as far as that contention can go. The Senate, in writing, then tries all impeachments, as in each and every one.

Chris Wallace Pokes Holes in Rand Paul’s Impeachment Defense

Fox NewsFox News anchor Chris Wallace confronted Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) over his assertion that it’s unconstitutional to impeach former President Donald Trump, pointing out on Sunday that there is precedent for impeaching an official who’s left office.During an interview with the Kentucky senator...

news.yahoo.com

Then The Rand Paul reasoning is even baseless on its face. Day One one after ratification: The Constitution was not thought to be invalid since it had never been done before(?)! The Rand Paul contention(?): The whole document is therefore Unconstitutional(?): From Day One!

More Likely House Managers will contend that the document is valid, and embraces language sufficient to meet the circumstance, not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The problem of a "January Exemption," or "Exception:" Had a lot of time to happen, from that pesky, "Day One."

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Matt 25: 14-30, in the backdrop of Matt 20: 1-16--has had a lot time to actually happen(?)!)

BULLSHIT. MORE FAKE NEWS and leftwing lies. I watched the whole interview and Wallace poked NOTHING through Paul's answers!

Chris Wallace now there's a traitor of the first order.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Really, Trump shouldn't even dignify the mock trial with his presence. No Trump, no defense team, no nothing.

Could you imagine the look on their faces? Heh heh.

I mean, it's dead on arrival anyway.

 

[Lastamender]

Because revenge is more important than our economy, health, children's education, unemployment, lock downs, bankruptcies, borders...
And we pay them to do it!

Revenge?

View attachment 454321

That smoke is not from burning limosines or police cars like Trumps's inauguration. This was a MOSTLY peaceful protest by anyone's standards. Your standards would rank Pearl Harbor as a mostly peaceful protest by the Japanese.

 

[rightwinger]

Because revenge is more important than our economy, health, children's education, unemployment, lock downs, bankruptcies, borders...
And we pay them to do it!

Revenge?

View attachment 454321

That smoke is not from burning limosines or police cars like Trumps's inauguration. This was a MOSTLY peaceful protest by anyone's standards. Your standards would rank Pearl Harbor as a mostly peaceful protest by the Japanese.

I can’t believe you creeps are still trying to sell it as a bunch of guys having fun

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Democrats must impeach Trump because to many Americans don't believe biden is legit. So to legitimize Biden, Trump must be impeached and found guilty.

Nah. If possible, they would just like to insure he cannot ever serve or even be appointed to a position in the federal government, as his is unfit.

Why do you need to make sure he can't serve again?

He was beaten by geriatric dementia patient by 10 fucking million votes (allegedly).

All of you piece of shit motherfuckers are acting as if Biden didn't really win.

You know what the fuck happened. That's why you all wanna make sure Trump can't run again.

Admit it you piece of shit motherfucker.

 

[Lastamender]

Because revenge is more important than our economy, health, children's education, unemployment, lock downs, bankruptcies, borders...
And we pay them to do it!

Revenge?

View attachment 454321

That smoke is not from burning limosines or police cars like Trumps's inauguration. This was a MOSTLY peaceful protest by anyone's standards. Your standards would rank Pearl Harbor as a mostly peaceful protest by the Japanese.

I can’t believe you creeps are still trying to sell it as a bunch of guys having fun

Calling it an insurrection is ridiculous. Saying Trump incited it is even more ridiculous. You are really that dumb?