So presumably Rand Paul supports impeachment and conviction, right? The Supreme Council has Decreed that the only possible check on this naked corruption is impeachment by Congress, so you either support impeachment or you're just grandstanding.

▲

nickff 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If the FCC chair was the one engaged in wrong-doing (as Paul seems to believe), they would be the prime candidate for impeachment. In any case, it seems like Paul thinks that the previous administration was also engaging in censorship, and there were no impeachments in that case either, so perhaps he does not believe that censorship is a 'high crime or misdemeanor'.

	▲	xp84 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think wherever you stand on the left vs. right spectrum, it's clear now that "High crimes and misdemeanors" is now de facto defined only as "stuff we don't like that the other party's guy did." Trump could openly commit treason and probably not even be impeached ny his party, let alone removed. But I don't for a second believe that the Democratic Party would cooperate with "their" person being impeached now either, except if it was politically advantageous for them (for instance, to remove an unpopular Democrat for an embarrassing misstep when there was a popular VP ready to go). No way would they impeach for crimes of overstepping presidential authority to do something the President from The West Wing would be proud of, for instance.

▲

mothballed 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The House has the sole power of bringing impeachment, Rand is in the Senate.

If he did the thing you ask, he would just be 'grandstanding' on something he has no vote to bring forward, which your statement would appear to damn him for.

▲

anonymars 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This splits hairs. He can still support it, or not. And the message says "supports impeachment and conviction"

	▲	mothballed 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I find it odd to blame the impeachment situation on Rand when the ball is in the court of the House. You can have an opinion on something that other people have the control over, but it's not particularly damning if you don't spend your time doing so, given many constituents would probably prefer their senators spend their time on issues they can actually tackle in the senate. >"supports impeachment and conviction" As it stands now, Rand has no vote on any impeachment conviction and no ability to bring one, so I don't see the point in asterisking on the "and conviction" as it doesn't change the situation beyond shoehorning a connived reason in to blame Rand for not making a public statement on the non-existent impeachment.

▲

mindslight 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's called building a consensus. Paul has a hell of a lot more input into the impeachment process than most everyone else in the country.