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.