“A bill of attainder… a dark plot in the history of our country”

RAND Paul’s demolition of the illegal ‘impeachment’ currently underway in occupied Washington is utterly excellent. My only criticism is his proud boast that Republicans will never impeach or censure the Democrats who incited last summer’s murder rampage throughout the United States. Why not?

This entry was posted in American politics, Rule of law. Bookmark the permalink.

52 Responses to “A bill of attainder… a dark plot in the history of our country”

  1. Mother Lode says:

    The reason nothing as hateful has happened before is because the Democrats have never felt as free to do as they wish.

    They are hate, through and through.

  2. Lysander says:

    DemoRATS never learn.

    As much as I despise the RINOs, I give them credit for holding onto a grudge from the 1980’s whereby the Dems destroyed SCOTUS candidate Bork (like him or loathe him); largely by Biden himself. The result of this unprecedented action by the RATS and the ensuing RINO grudge saw Kavanaugh and Barrett elected recently. Barrett’s non-answer answers in her public SCOTUS “interview” was an exact replica of the tactics used by Thomas after Bork.

    The RATS pulling a dumb trick like trying to impeach a private citizen is unheard of, dirty and the lowest of low ebbs for those pus-filled swampy parasites. But if it progresses, it also sets a future precedent that they, as always, never truly think through…

    IMHO.

  3. yackman says:

    Rather like the application of Attainder to Oliver Cromwell after the Restoration.

  4. Rex Anger says:

    My only criticism is his proud boast that Republicans will never impeach or censure the Democrats who incited last summer’s murder rampage throughout the United States. Why not?

    I would argue the point that criminal proceedings are far more effective for the Democrat Representatives, Senators and party wonks responsible for the carnage, CL…

    The Democrats have reduced impeachment to a grandstanding farce, rather than being a solemn and tightly legalised process for actual and demonstrated wrongdoing.

    I consider that for at least the next generation or 2, impeachment will not be popularly considered as anything other than a mere partisan cudgel. And as such, Rand Paul is probably right.

    Nothing to stop a good forensic investigation and subsequent charges being laid, anyway…

  5. candy says:

    I don’t know why Rand Paul thinks Repubs are too holy to impeach the violent incitement by Democrats including Kamala Harris.

    The Dems have gotten away with fraud to win the election and are trying to get Trump and his family jailed.
    Nothing is too low for them to stoop to now. As if they would listen to Rand Paul. They would be laughing at him.

  6. min says:

    Well if they can impeach ex presidents they can also impeach Clinton and Obama ‘

  7. Frank says:

    They could impeach Soros too if they felt like it.

  8. a happy little debunker says:

    Nothing says ‘unity and healing’ like pursuing your (now toothless) political foes for their imagined crimes.

    Their ‘commander in chief’ wants to ‘end the uncivil war that pits red against blue, rural versus urban, conservative versus liberal’ by dividing people into homogenous groupings of red/blue, rural/urban, conservative/liberal.

    A strategy that simply does not work…

  9. Struth says:

    My only criticism is his proud boast that Republicans will never impeach or censure the Democrats who incited last summer’s murder rampage throughout the United States. Why not?

    Exactly, and that’s why we find ourselves in this shit.

  10. jupes says:

    The result of this unprecedented action by the RATS and the ensuing RINO grudge saw Kavanaugh and Barrett elected recently.

    Yeah and a fat lot of good that did for the rule of law during the election steal.

    May as well have been RBG clones. At least then they would have shown some integrity.

  11. Zyconoclast says:

    Trump had his chance a blew it.
    Why weren’t any of the Clinton crime cartel arrested?

  12. Gilas says:

    .. and Brennan, Strozk, Comey.. etc…

    Agree 100%.

  13. Viva says:

    Who would try to reason with a Democrat?

  14. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV) says:

    Nothing is too low for them to stoop to now. As if they would listen to Rand Paul. They would be laughing at him.

    demonrats are wannabe tinpot dictators, the only thing they understand is power and violence. no shame, no guilt, no embarrassment, no compunction, no morals, no soul, no heart, fake everything

  15. Dave Blake says:

    Great speech by a first-class leader, one prepared to fight back, or should I say engage in ‘reciprocative contest’.

  16. Paul says:

    This acrimony has been ongoing since the 2016 election when Obama rallied the violent #resistance, for 4 years. It’s still ongoing because the demorats and Mitch need to punish Trump for bringing jobs back from Chyna. That has cost them millions in lost payouts from the CCP.

  17. Roger W says:

    Five GOP senators vote with Dems, rejecting Sen Paul’s argument that impeachment trial is unconstitutional: Collins, Murkowski, Romney, Sasse, Toomey.
    May their names live in infamy.

  18. Grip says:

    May their names live in infamy.

    What a wank.

    Here is what actually happened, incidentally:

    Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) raised a point of order on Tuesday afternoon to hold a vote on the constitutionality of the impeachment trial, now that Trump is out of office.
    Majority Leader Chuck Schumer then asked for a vote to “table” the motion, thus killing Paul’s point of order, and that measure passed 55-45.

    This would leave room for GOP Senators to actually vote to impeach and not be inconsistent with this prior vote.

    Currency Lad is just a rhetorical performance clown with zero credibility – actually wishing here on 7 January that we had something like the storming of Congress happen in Australia, and not just once, but again and again as part of a “long war”.

    Against what, he did not say. All grist to the culture war, this thing called “democracy”.

  19. Colonel Crispin Berka says:

    Update on coronavirus terminology, Big Biden is watching you!
    https://www.wnd.com/2021/01/4888070/

    In a clear rebuke of former President Trump, President Biden is preparing executive action directing federal agencies to examine whether or not any references such as “China virus” are in existing policies and directives, or on government websites.
    CBS News reported the expected order is part of Biden’s effort to combat racism against Asian-Americans in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Not only government documents?

    The new order is also expected to task HHS with developing language and cultural guidance training related to COVID-19

    Look for “china virus” and “kung flu” to be deemed as racist hate speech in due course, with a lot of predictable “soft power” impact in the broader society.
    What’s the initial extent of this horror?

    A CBS News review of COVID-19-related executive orders issued by the Trump administration did not find any specific reference to “China virus,” the term the former president often used to blame the Chinese government for the pandemic. But if the term is found in existing policies, the forthcoming executive action is expected to order its removal.

    So the term Trump never used in policy directives is going to be removed from the regulations generated from those directives. Well that should be a very quick find’n’replace. Zero occurrences, zero replacements.

  20. C.L. says:

    Currency Lad is just a rhetorical performance clown with zero credibility – actually wishing here on 7 January that we had something like the storming of Congress happen in Australia, and not just once, but again and again as part of a “long war”.

    I did?
    Can we see that link?

    I note that you failed to repudiate Rand Paul’s arguments – which cannot be repudiated.

  21. Rex Anger says:

    @ CL-

    I think Shanghai Grip is just hanging around until a Taiwan thread opens up, whereupon it cam unleash its entire arsenal of PLA-issued trollshits to further bemuse us and waste our time.

    I cannot recall you commenting about or proclaiming a ‘Long War,’ either…

  22. Grip says:

    Here is the CL comment, referencing the JC comment before it

    And, by the way, of course the Rand Paul argument can be repudiated. See the Congressional Research Service commentary on the matter.

    As for his argument that it’s divisive to run an impeachment now – that’s just political spin, and you know it.

    My only mistake in commenting here is that it might give the impression that I think you are sincerely interested in debate, rather than grandstanding with continual overblown pronouncements – a la Dinesh D’Souza or Steve Kates – which no one in their right mind should take seriously.

  23. 2dogs says:

    Trump should appeal to the supreme court before referral to the senate.

    And demand discovery.

    A lot of discovery.

  24. Rex Anger says:

    My only mistake in commenting here is that it might give the impression that I think…rather than grandstanding with continual overblown pronouncements – a la Dinesh D’Souza or Steve Kates – which no one in their right mind should take seriously.

    #Oops

    #IDidItAgain

    #IOutedMyself

    #IFeelNoShame

    #NotSorryBritney

  25. Rex Anger says:

    Shanghai Grip has trolled so hard, it has just trolled itself.

    That is taking meta to a whole new level.

    Let us not kick the troll just this once, but instead marvel as its whole ambit comes collapsing back on top of it.

    It’s like watching a suicide bomber’s vest fail to detonate, and the explosive filling immolate instead of deflagrate…

  26. Old School Conservative says:

    his proud boast that Republicans will never impeach or censure the Democrats who incited last summer’s murder rampage

    I kept waiting for Paul to say “yet”.
    Making fun of a previously well regarded method of impeaching a President by impeaching every Democrat who called for violence would be a brilliant way of minimising the “but Trump was impeached” mob.

  27. C.L. says:

    Thanks for the reminder.
    Yes, I endorsed JC’s comment about counteracting the Democrats’ 2020 murder rampage with preponderantly peaceful pressure – as the Capitol march preponderantly was.
    I still do.
    They should have rocked up the next day… and the next – to show that they weren’t going to tolerate or forget the previous several months of left-wing terrorism.

    And, by the way, of course the Rand Paul argument can be repudiated. See the Congressional Research Service commentary on the matter.

    I just read it and it provides no legal evidence whatsoever that an ex-President can be impeached.
    Nice try.

  28. Grip says:

    You’re a bullshit artist CL.

    A complete bullshit artist.

    You’re pretending the Capitol protest was about protesting the BLM matters protest? Yeah, sure.

    As I said, you’re not serious. I think at heart you know you’re not serious, as well.

    Either that, or you’ve built yourself a fantasy land to live in, and you’re not coming out.

  29. Rex Anger says:

    It’s like watching a suicide bomber’s vest fail to detonate, and the explosive filling immolate instead of deflagrate…

    Grippy my dear-

    You are not supposed to prove the accuracy of my statement. That is ineffective trolling.

    Ah well, come back and try again once you’ve burned yourself out…

  30. Professor Fred Lenin says:

    Love to se the democrim leaders , past and present , seated in rows with a number on each chest in a courtroom charged with treason . It would look like a geriatric Nuremberg ,same sort af accused evil scum .
    All we need is todays Albert Pierrepoint to humanely despatch them to hell, like he did with a lot of Hitlers socialist murderers .

  31. Grip says:

    By the way, just to show others who can’t be bothered following links that you are a bullshit artist, the research paper I linked to says this:

    “Though the text is open to debate, it appears that most scholars who have closely examined the question have concluded that Congress has authority to extend the impeachment process to officials who are no longer in office.As an initial matter, a number of scholars have argued that the delegates at the Constitutional Convention appeared to accept that former officials may be impeached for conduct that occurred while in office. ” And on it goes, explaining in explicit detail why the majority of scholarly opinion has gone that way.

    As I said, you’re only interested in being some the of beneficiary of a the secular equivalent of a Papal infallibility doctrine, bestowed upon yourself.

    “I declare that this is the position, and no one can repudiate it.”

  32. Grip says:

    Rex, you’re just a nitwit, making points not even worth responding to in any detail.

  33. Grip says:

    Correction:

    As I said, you’re only interested in being the beneficiary of a the secular equivalent of a Papal infallibility doctrine, bestowed upon yourself.

  34. Grip says:

    Damn, still have an error in there. Nevermind, it’s dinnertime and the point is understood.

  35. Rex Anger says:

    Rex, you’re just a nitwit, making points not even worth responding to in any detail.

    D’awwww…

    It’s so cute when it starts squeaking!

    Squeek moar!

  36. Rex Anger says:

    Damn, still have an error in there. Nevermind, it’s dinnertime and the point is understood.

    I believe J Jonah Jameson had an appropriate response for this:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lhckuhUxcgA

  37. Macspee says:

    Grip
    A poorly argued and rather obviously slanted opinion to curry favour.
    The charge is moot. Ther is nothing upon which to proceed.
    Of course the Senate can do what it likes but as its action is ultra vires is has no effect beyond the Senate chamber.
    The houses of congress can pretty well do what they like but if they try to push outside their jurisdiction then SCOTUS will stamp on them: make no mistake the Dems want a show trial not a result that may well bit them, Biden and Harris on the bum if they lose the House at the mid-terms.

  38. Z says:

    Biden
    commander-in-thief

  39. Dot says:

    The Congressional Research Service is not a superior Court of record, you malicious fuckwit.

  40. C.L. says:

    Grip, you seem like an intelligent bloke but you need to make an argument rather than constantly rely on ad hominems. I’ve heard the name Dinesh D’Souza but I don’t read him and have no idea what he espouses or believes.

    You also need to demonstrate a commitment to principle. You know damned well that Donald Trump didn’t incite anyone to physically invade the Capitol or hurt anyone. There is no evidence that he did. If there is, please post it.

    You also know damned well that impeaching a President who has now left office is an act of aggressive, vengeful idiocy – as well as a precedent that would be used as a stunt from here on out were it to succeed.

    You would garner more respect if you, for example, argued that ‘while I detest Trump and everything he stands for, I have to admit this is a foolish move by the Democrats.’

    But you can’t, can you? Because you have to toe the party line.

  41. C.L. says:

    Though the text is open to debate, it appears that most scholars who have closely examined the question have concluded that Congress has authority to extend the impeachment process to officials who are no longer in office. As an initial matter, a number of scholars have argued that the delegates at the Constitutional Convention appeared to accept that former officials may be impeached for conduct that occurred while in office.

    Like I said, there is no legal evidence whatsoever that an ex-President can be impeached.

  42. JC says:

    You’re a bullshit artist CL.

    A complete bullshit artist.

    You’re pretending the Capitol protest was about protesting the BLM matters protest? Yeah, sure.

    As I said, you’re not serious. I think at heart you know you’re not serious, as well.

    You putrid creature. Since March, the Demonrats military wings, Black Lies Matter and the Blackshirts have been trashing cities, looting and killing people.
    Kwanzaa Harris and other senior demons have offered support to their animals by paying out their bail.

    And you’re telling us Trump should be prosecuted. You disgusting fucking animal , Grip.

    Either that, or you’ve built yourself a fantasy land to live in, and you’re not coming out.

    Look who’s talking about fantasies.

  43. Dot says:

    The point of impeachment was to remove the legal protections of office (now a conviction can be rendered from the same Senate trial under Congressional rules and legislation proceeding after the US Constitution was written).

    If Pelosi couldn’t even make a brief of evidence against Trump, what is the point? Make him ineligible to run in 2024 on no evidence and no conviction? Impeachment existed from conventions originating in the later Stuart Parliaments.

    It never meant removing the privilege of office from a former President solely to deprive them of their political rights.

    Rand Paul is right, this is a bill of attainder.

  44. Dot says:

    Trump’s second impeachment was a joke.

    It would not have passed a committal hearing or grand jury.

    No indictment or true bill would be made or found.

    Pelosi is basically doing the equivalent of issuing ex officio indictments.

  45. C.L. says:

    At this point, I would love to see Paul run in 24.
    He is a really decent man.

    This is a bloke who was beaten up by a leftist and nearly killed by a Dem mob in public.

    And yet he stands there and makes his case with reason and calmness.

    Paul or Cruz/Paul.

  46. C.L. says:

    Rand Paul is right, this is a bill of attainder.

    Absolutely.

  47. Some History says:

    Grip
    #3739214, posted on January 27, 2021 at 7:21 pm

    My only mistake in commenting here…

    Agree. Please correct your mistake.

  48. mh says:

    Paul or Cruz/Paul.

    Trump/Paul?

  49. chrism says:

    Barnes (Barnes Law)
    has said much the same but that this is a political process
    and the Dems believe their own rhetoric

    there is case -law exploring impeachment and subsequent standing for office (cant recall case name)
    and in the case the (state) supreme court’s decision was that the guilty finding of impeachment does not actually prevent standing or being elected but prevents confirmation : which would mean we would (?will) have DJT being refused hand on the bible by Roberts – against the US peoples wishes – yeak right –

    as I recall unfair show trials have a way of being newsworthy for quite a while : inspirational in some quarters too : I think the 666th legion in Palestine’s leader had a divisive local dude – supporter of rednecks, many of them Joo ish, at trial said ‘what is truth’ – still applicable here in Senate hearings – go ahead crucify Trump – this after all is the greatest show on earth & the trumpmeister is a showman : let’s hope he’s resting up and his short game is getting a well deserved boost while the Dems & RINOs set themselves up for the 2022’s

  50. candy says:

    I don’t think Rand Paul was calm but more frightened.

    So scared to say anything to upset the Dems and RINOs. Even just talking about the Democrats including Maxine Waters’ incitement he seemed absolutely intimidated to say anything that might upset her.
    So scared to state his case about Trump. Literally timid.

    To me, his demeanour was one of being intimidated and scared to fully speak his mind.

  51. dover_beach says:

    Let me just say, if you’re defending the second impeachment of Trump, the first was a farce that nevertheless pales in comparison to the second, then you are making clear to all and sundry that any words you might utter about decency, norms, due process, rule of law, and the like are empty of all meaning.

Comments are closed.