Rand Paul Roasts Hypocrisy Of Impeaching Trump, Doing Nothing About Chuck Schumer, Waters, And Omar

Spread the love

Loading


 
by JOHN HANSON

On Sunday, Republican Sen. Rand Paul said that if Democrats insist on claiming that former President Donald Trump’s rally speech incited the January 6th Capitol Hill attack as a basis for impeachment, then Senator Majority Leader Chuck Schumer along with Democratic Congresswomen Maxine Waters and Ilhan Omar should be held accountable for similar language.

Sen. Paul: Democrats Have Used Violent Language With No Consequences

The GOP senator referenced Schumer’s rhetoric before a protest at the U.S. Supreme Court in early March 2020.

“I opposed the notion of — which I think was a misguided notion, a voting to overturn the election either with Congress or with the vice president,” Paul told Fox News Chris Wallace.

Paul continued, “But I think if we are going to criminalize speech and somehow impeach everybody who says, oh, ‘go fight to hear your voices heard,’ really we ought to impeach Chuck Schumer then.”

“He went to the Supreme Court, stood in front of the Supreme Court, and said specifically, ‘hey Gorsuch, hey Kavanaugh, you’ve unleashed a whirlwind, and you’re going to pay the price,’” Paul reminded viewers.

“You won’t know what hit you if you continue with these awful decisions,” Paul recalled Schumer saying.

Sen. Paul wanted to know why this speech did not qualify for potentially inciting violence.

“This inflammatory wording, this violent rhetoric of Chuck Schumer was so bad that the chief justice, who rarely says anything publicly, immediately said this kind of language is dangerous as a mob tried to invade the Supreme Court,” Paul continued.

Paul added, “So if people want to hold President Trump accountable for language, there has to be a consistent standard, and to my mind, it’s a partisan farce because they’re not doing anything to Chuck Schumer, not doing anything to Representative Omar, not doing anything to Maxine Waters.”

“It’s just not fair,” Paul finished. “It’s just partisan politics under a different name.”

Chief Justice Roberts Chastised Schumer’s Violent Rhetoric

The senator has a point, and Schumer was even accused of trying to incite physical violence at the time he made his controversial remarks.

As the Supreme Court was weighing a case about abortion, Schumer said at a rally in March 2020, “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price.”

“You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,” Schumer said.

Chief Justice John Roberts publicly rebuked Schumer, saying:

“Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous.

All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.”

Some Senate Republicans called on Schumer to apologize or face possible censure.

Senate Republican Conference Chairman John Barrasso said, “To me, this sounds like he is talking about a physical price, violence.’

Waters Encouraged Physical Intimidation Against Trump Administration

Rep. Maxine Waters appeared to encourage physical violence and intimidation against members of the Trump administration at a political rally in June 2018.

“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up,” Waters told a crowd. “And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd.”

“And you push back on them,” Waters added. “And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”



Omar appeared to endorse further violence when she retweeted Hollywood actor Tom Arnold’s comments about an incident in which Rand Paul’s neighbor severely injured him in an attack in 2017

Paul told Fox News Sunday that Omar was “wishing and celebrating the violence that happened to me when I had six ribs broken and part of my lung removed.”

Video here

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

23 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up,” Waters told a crowd. “And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd.”

“And you push back on them,” Waters added. “And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”

The Nazis told the Jews they were not welcome in Germany. We know how that turned out. Waters, in her typical lying fashion, has been trying to sugar-coat her own words, but the implication is clear. They know the violent tendencies of those who follow them. They’ve been committing political violence all year; even before, during the 2016 campaign. Furthermore, they often accuse innocuous remarks, like the targets on a political map designating opponents to defeat, as inciting violence. If they actually believed that bullshit they would be far more careful about what they themselves say. But the truth is, they WANT some nut to take them literally and commit a violent act against Republicans, as in the case of Scalise.

Their problem here is that there isn’t even words to manipulate into a suggestively violent instruction. Nothing. It’s why, no matter how many times you ask, you never get an example in answer.

Democrats routinely promote violence and violence routinely happens. There was a riot in DC this weekend, BLM/ANTIFA marching and chanting “BURN IT DOWN!” and fighting with police. NO arrests. Free to commit MORE violence in the name of the Democrat party. Anyone that supports the Democrats supports the ongoing violence as well.

If you notice, commentators and politicians cannot find a specific quote by President Trump that “incited violence” on Jan 6th.
On the other hand, and this is important, Schumer, Omar and Waters all have quotes, even on video cameras, of them actively inciting violence.
So, there is no equivalence between Trump’s speech and those quotes by Schumer, Omar and Waters.
Rand Paul needs to make that point.
And he doesn’t.

Schumer, Omar and Waters all incited actions that came later.
Trump gave a speech that didn’t even end until others, not even at his speech, had breached the Capitol property.

@Nan G:

On the other hand, and this is important, Schumer, Omar and Waters all have quotes, even on video cameras, of them actively inciting violence.

Hillary committed perjury before Congress on camera. The idiot Biden bragged about his extortion on video. You can have all the rock-solid evidence of Democrats committing crimes or inciting violence you want; they can simply deny the reality stupid people, those they rely so heavily upon, will believe them.

Democrats for at least 90 years have had a 2nd set of standards for those not Dem! Chuck is following the tradition of FDR, JFK, LBJ ; and doing it well!

Rand Paul can shove his moronic meme. There is no equivalency.

The simple truth is this: Had Trump not given his “Save America” rally speech and not said the words that he said, his coalition of violent idiots would not have stormed the Capitol Building, and seven people would not have died as a result. He made this happen.

Another truth is that what happened could have easily been far worse. Trump deserved no credit whatsoever that it wasn’t. He didn’t back off on his bullshit even after he knew that violence had broken out.

@Greg:

The simple truth is this: Had Trump not given his “Save America” rally speech and not said the words that he said, his coalition of violent idiots would not have stormed the Capitol Building, and seven people would not have died as a result. He made this happen.

Um… there is PROOF the riot was planned ahead of time. Also, NOTHING Trump said would have incited anyone to violence, only caused whiny, crybaby, sore loser liberals to scream at the sky. So, once again, you are composed entirely of bullshit.

Oh… Trump had 10,000 National Guard troops ready to deploy. No one wanted them. If he intended to incite a riot at the capital, why would he want NG troops there? Apparently, he was the only one that read the threat assessments and, having witnessed the left wing riots and looting of the summer, took them seriously.

There are no truths in your statement.

There’s no truth in the manure that Trump’s defense lawyers are unloading this afternoon onto the floor of the Senate. Unfortunately there won’t likely be enough republican Senators with the spine to vote accordingly, despite the fact that they realize this, because they’re still afraid of Trump’s hold on the minds of his supporters.

They will not be allowed to forget this.

@Greg:

There’s no truth in the manure that Trump’s defense lawyers are unloading this afternoon onto the floor of the Senate.

What has President Trump’s defense lawyers said today that is untruthful? Be specific when you answer.

@Greg: Do you think the GOP should ignore 75 million enthusiastic voters or do their friggin jobs and represent us?
Trump was the winner or they wouldnt try to impeach him.
You silly bastids are to stupid and write up a full confession of election rigging in Time.
Why is Joe at war with women?
Why is he spreading disease all over the USA?

@Greg:

greg. There is no legal, Constitutional basis for this false-trial and for Democrats to go forward is illegal, authoritarian, and completely against the fabric of the USA and democracy anywhere is history.

It’s wrong. Only marxist murderers string up their opposition without cause, due process, or legal basis.

If Trump is impeached, the Democrats have committed treason.

@retire05, #9:

What has President Trump’s defense lawyers said today that is untruthful? Be specific when you answer.

First and foremost, they assert that only an official currently holding office is constitutionally subject to impeachment and trial. This is a load of horse manure. As was pointed out on the floor of the Senate today, the single case cited by the writers of our Constitution in support of the need for impeachment provisions was that of Warren Hastings, the British Governor-General of India, who was impeached for crimes and misdemeanors of office two years after that period of office had ended.

The reason why conviction can result in removal from office and restriction from holding office in the future is to provide congressional recourse even after the period of office in question has already ended.

As was also pointed out, without that second provision an official could simply resign at the last moment and escape any consequential judgement from Congress. A president could engage in all sorts of misconduct toward the end of his or her tenure without fear of consequence. That part of our checks and balances system would be effectively nullified. No reasonable person can believe such an enormous loophole was the intention of the Founding Fathers. It was not their intention to create a Constitutional safeguard that could be easily evaded.

If you read the Constitution as an originalist, which many conservatives are strongly inclined to do, such a loophole is simply not there. It is not implied or suggested. It has to be invented.

@Nathan Blue:

If Trump is impeached, the Democrats have committed treason.

Trump has already been impeached for the second time. That ship sailed a few weeks ago.

@Greg:

Democrats begin impeachment trial with stunning riot video

Guess what… everyone knows there was a riot. Also, everyone with a brain not indoctrinated with leftist propaganda knows there was no connection between that riot and Trump. No way, no how. Most also have heard the constant and endless flow of encouragement to violence coming from Democrat mouths. Hell, Cori Bush encouraged rioters in a St. Louis jail just this weekend and the Democrats’ Brownshirts marched in DC, threatened citizens, fought with police and chanted “BURN IT DOWN!” Not one word of discouragement from a single Democrat.

First and foremost, they assert that only an official currently holding office is constitutionally subject to impeachment and trial.

Well, that is absolutely true. The sole purpose of impeachment is to remove the offending officer from office. No matter what the crime, Congress has no authority to impose any sentence except for removal from office. Perhaps you’ve heard; Trump is not in office any more. So, the subject is moot and the point could not be any more pointless… or unconstitutional.

And that’s only on the first count. In addition, impeachment is for “high crimes and misdemeanors”, not to merely remove political opponents. It is a serious endeavor, not to settle vendettas. THAT’S unconstitutional.

The only criminals have been the Democrats. We see what our nation looks like when criminals grasp power through fraud.

Well, that is absolutely true. The sole purpose of impeachment is to remove the offending officer from office.

No, that is NOT the sole purpose. If it were, there would be no provision in the language allowing Congress to disqualify a person from holding any office of trust in the future. That second penalty which Congress has the power to impose is very explicitly stated.

@Greg: That has to be voted on. Impeachment is to remove the officer from office. Why do you crybabies fear Trump so much? He’s just one guy. Sure, he showed how successfully a leader that is not more concerned with making himself rich than serving the American people can be, so that exposes the decadence of the corrupt Democrats.

I guess maybe that’s it.

Regardless of how much Democrats fear a real leader and President, the Constitution STILL requires an actual impeachable crime and, twice, you haven’t had one.

Why do you crybabies fear Trump so much?

Get a clue. Because he has many followers who are as gullible and suggestible as the idiots who stormed the Capitol Building, and has clearly demonstrated what he is willing to do with them. That’s why.

Did you pick up on the fact that one of his defense team’s arguments for why there’s no need for impeachment once a term of office is over is because the people can decide who should or shouldn’t be reelected? That the proof of this power of the people is Joe Biden, who just replaced Trump in accordance with the will of the majority?

They just openly acknowledged on the floor of the Senate that Trump’s election fraud story was a lie. They’ve made that part of his defense.

Your “crybabies” are actually the adults who are sick of this bullshit.

@Greg: Yet no justice is sitting for the sham making the entire procedure moot, moot ,moot it doesnt count, it doesnt come close to meeting any standards of the Constitution.
it doesnt matter even if these fools find Trump Guilty We arent going anywhere we continue to uncover the illegality and fraud in the past election.
FB blocks the security footage taken showing 61 boxes of ballots dropped early in the morning of Nov 4th, the reason they used to block it…Sexually suggestive or partial nudity. Nah we dont see the desperation.
Why is Biden at war with women?

@Greg:

As was pointed out on the floor of the Senate today, the single case cited by the writers of our Constitution in support of the need for impeachment provisions was that of Warren Hastings, the British Governor-General of India, who was impeached for crimes and misdemeanors of office two years after that period of office had ended.

So you are saying that the Democrats think that the Founders wanted to use British law when constructing our Constitution in this one instance?

The reason why conviction can result in removal from office and restriction from holding office in the future is to provide congressional recourse even after the period of office in question has already ended.

The U.S. Constitution is clear;
“Art. II, Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Note, Comrade Greggie, the words “shall be removed from Office.” The U.S. Constitution does NOT say one word about holding office in the future.

I understand you accept the bastardized version of our Constitution put out by the left wing Democrats but they are simply doing what Hamilton warned us they could/would do:

Federalist 65
A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

If removal from the ability to seek office is part of the foundation of our Constitution, then why is Alcee Hastings still holding an elected office?

@Greg: Why does he have followers? Because he did great things for this country and its citizens. Democrats need fraud and propaganda to lure ignorant supporters. Trump used a great economy, benefits for citizens, border security, promoting peace and strengthening our energy independence to lure support. THAT is what failed Democrats fear.

Who do you think is going to protect citizens from BLM/ANTIFA violence? Someone like Trump or those who are encouraging them and utilizing their violence?

They just openly acknowledged on the floor of the Senate that Trump’s election fraud story was a lie. They’ve made that part of his defense.

More straw grasping. All they did was acknowledge, as Trump has done, that the idiot liar Biden is in the White House.

You have been asked numerous times to provide the evidence Trump incited any violence. You’ve fled from every request. Believe me, we all know why; you aren’t fooling anyone and neither are these despicable Democrats and a handful of Republicans who dodged a bullet when Trump threatened to expose their entire corrupt, anti-American enterprise.

Impeachment merely to achieve a political goal is unconstitutional. That’s why there’s no Supreme Court Justice as a chair for this farce but, instead, is someone that is actually GUILTY of doing what Trump was falsely accused of in the first unconstitutional impeachment.

@retire05, #18:

So you are saying that the Democrats think that the Founders wanted to use British law when constructing our Constitution in this one instance?

It was not a matter of one instance. Many of the concepts incorporated into our own system are based on those of English law. English law was the starting point.

The U.S. Constitution is clear…

Note, Comrade Greggie, the words “shall be removed from Office.” The U.S. Constitution does NOT say one word about holding office in the future.

Indeed, it is clear and specific; and it sure as hell does say something about holding office in the future:

Article I, Section 3, Clause 7:

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.

That should be clear enough for anybody.

I understand you accept the bastardized version of our Constitution put out by the left wing Democrats…

Uh, no. I just quoted Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 verbatim. It specifically states that disqualification from holding any office is one of the two penalties that Congress can impose.

If removal from the ability to seek office is part of the foundation of our Constitution, then why is Alcee Hastings still holding an elected office?

Because the Senate did not impose that penalty upon him. The Senate ordered him removed from office, but did not preclude him from holding office in the future. They imposed only one of the two possible penalties. They could have done, but didn’t.

@Deplorable Me, #19:

More straw grasping. All they did was acknowledge, as Trump has done, that the idiot liar Biden is in the White House.

You seem to have selective hearing. Bruce Castor asserted that Joe Biden is in the White House as a result of the will of the voters:

“The reason that I am having trouble with the argument is the American people just spoke, and they just changed administrations. So in the light most favorable to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle here, their system works. The people are smart enough in the light most favorable to them. They’re smart enough to pick a new administration if they don’t like the old one. And they just did, and he’s down there at Pennsylvania Avenue now probably wondering how come none of my stuff is happening up at the Capitol.”

Castor then goes on to lie by omission:

“But the section I read—judgement, in other words, the bad thing that can happen, the judgement, in cases of impeachment, i.e. what we are doing, shall not extend further than removal from office.”

Except there is no period after “office”. There is a comma. The statement he’s reading—Article I, Section 3, Clause 7—actually reads in full as follows:

“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.”

@Greg: No, he is merely citing the official position. You are desperately grasping at straws to try, desperately, to justify the most fraudulent election in this country and one that challenges the level of fraud in any election anywhere.

Once again you miss (dodge) a perfect opportunity to present some of Trump’s violence inciting language. Because, of course, there never was any. He didn’t tell Congress they would “reap the whirlwind” if they didn’t do his bidding. He didn’t call on anyone to find members of Congress, surround them with a crowd and show them they are not welcome anywhere. He told no one to get in anyone’s face. He didn’t encourage riots and continuing to riot. He has NEVER condoned violence and, by doing so, encourage MORE violence. That is all Democrat all the time. Trump doesn’t promote violence, YOU do.