Archive for the ‘Rand Paul’ Category

Rand Paul Warns One Third of Republicans Will Leave Party if GOP Senators Back Impeachment – Yahoo News

The Week

President Trump is planning to exit the White House on the morning of Jan. 20, a few hours before President-elect Joe Biden is sworn in a short distance away, CNN reports. "Eager for a final taste of the pomp of being president, Trump has asked for a major send-off," and "as one of their final acts, Trump's team is working to organize a crowd to see him off on the morning of Biden's inauguration, when he plans to depart Washington while still president" for a flight to Palm Beach, Florida, where his term will officially end at noon.There are 20,000 National Guard troops currently deployed or en route to Washington, D.C., ahead of Biden's inauguration, because the last crowd Trump drew to the White House morphed into an insurrectionist mob that stormed the Capitol.Plans are still being ironed out, CNN says, but "Trump told people he did not like the idea of departing Washington for a final time as an ex-president, flying aboard an airplane no longer known as Air Force One. He also did not particularly like the thought of requesting the use of the plane from Biden." The Bidens will wake up on Inauguration Day at nearby Blair House, CNN reports, adding that "its use was offered to them by the State Department rather than the Trumps, who refuse to make contact with the incoming president and first lady.""Trump has expressed interest to some in a military-style sendoff and a crowd of supporters," CNN says, but it's unclear "whether that occurs at the White House, Joint Base Andrews, or his final destination, Palm Beach International Airport."Outgoing U.S. presidents almost always attend the swearing-in of their successors, Defense One notes, and "in recent decades, the outgoing president and first lady walk down the back steps of the Capitol to an awaiting helicopter, which then makes the short five-minute flight over to Joint Base Andrews in nearby Maryland. Upon arriving at Andrews, the former president and first lady are usually greeted by a military honor guard, former staffers, friends, and other well wishers." Two senior Pentagon officials confirmed to Defense One on Thursday that, in a break with recent tradition, no military farewell is being planned for Trump.More stories from theweek.com Trump reportedly began 'choreographing' premature victory speech weeks before election 5 more scathing cartoons about Trump's 2nd impeachment GOP officials are reportedly worried controversial pro-Trump House members could run for Senate, governor

See the article here:
Rand Paul Warns One Third of Republicans Will Leave Party if GOP Senators Back Impeachment - Yahoo News

Representatives, senators weigh in on impeachment – The Independent

U.S. House representatives in the area all Republican voted lock-step with their party against impeaching the President Donald Trump, despite last weeks insurrection at the nations Capitol.

Only 10 Republicans, including House Caucus Leader Liz Cheney, crossed party lines to vote in favor of impeaching a president who played a role in whipping a crowd into a frenzy before they laid siege to the U.S. Capitol building.

So far, five people have died as a direct result of the attack a Capitol police officer took his life in the aftermath of the attack.

None of the U.S. Representatives in the Tri-State voted in favor impeaching the president. Almost all described their reasons as wanting to move on and unify a country that has frankly been torn apart by vicious and partisan rhetoric and conspiracy theories propagated by the president.

With the exception of Ohios Bill Westrup and Kentuckys Thomas Massie, all the representatives voted in favor of objecting to the certifying the election, despite overwhelming evidence that no widespread voter fraud occurred.

Local U.S. senators, who are poised to try the president when they come back into session, were largely silent on the issue. Only Sen. Rand Paul has explicitly stated they would not vote to convict soon-to-be-former President Trump.

U.S. House statements

Kentucky

In a tweet sent at 7:44 a.m. on Wednesday, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-KY (4th District), wrote: I will vote Nay on impeachment today. I think pursuing impeachment will unnecessarily increase political division in our country and serves no real purpose.

In a statement sent to the press Wednesday, Kentucky 5th District Rep. Hal Rogers wrote: What we need in America today is hope for a united and peaceful nation, gaining strength at every corner, not another vote to divide our country from within. President Donald Trump is not our enemy and President-elect Joe Biden is not our enemy. Over the last four decades, I have served alongside six U.S. presidents, including four Republicans and two Democrats Biden will be the third. Through different administrations, I have always reached across the aisle and worked to find common ground for the good of the American people, and we need to get back to the peoples business. However, todays impeachment vote is not the way to bring Americans together.

West Virginia

Carol Miller, the Republican congresswoman of the Third District, wrote in a statement: America is in desperate need of healing and unity, not further division. President Trump will be leaving office in one week. That is why I voted today not to impeach President Trump. Many of my colleagues will join me in opposing impeachment, and many of my colleagues will support impeachment. While we may disagree on this issue and others, every single member of the House of Representatives wants the same thing for our constituents and our nation a safe, free and prosperous country. We might disagree on how we achieve those goals, but our shared values are stronger than our disagreements. Every member, regardless of their vote today or in the future, deserves the respect due to any individual to serve the public to the best of their ability.

Ohio

Ben Westrup, Republican from Ohios Second District wrote: Investigations into the tragic events of January 6th are still ongoing. The facts of the day have not been fully uncovered. However, it is already clear that many came to Washington, D.C., prepared for violence before any words were spoken at the morning rally. It would be prudent to wait for all of the facts to come to light if we are to properly evaluate the gravity of the situation. If Members of Congress want to build a serious and credible case against President Trump, they should wait until we have a complete, factual understanding of what transpired. Given these concerns and limitations, I cannot support this impeachment that is markedly short of due process.

Bill Johnson, R-Ohio 6th, released a statement on Tuesdays vote to pressure Vice President Mike Pence into invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office: Today, America needs a chance to begin healing. America needs a break from the riots, the violence and the vitriol political rhetoric that is encouraging this toxic environment.A 25th Amendment measure or impeachment will do nothing to help America heal, but will certainly widen the division. And, to intentionally further alienate tens of millions of Americans with raw nerves who already feel alienated economically and culturally by Americas political, corporate, academic and media elites is both reckless and potentially further destabilizing.

U.S. Senate statements

Kentucky

Sen. Mitch McConell did not indicate howd he vote when the articles of impeachment move to the U.S. Senate. However, as the Senate Majority leader, he did release a statement explaining why he has declined to call the Senate back early to take up the article:

Given the rules, procedures, and Senate precedents that govern presidential impeachment trials, there is simply no chance that a fair or serious trial could conclude before President-elect Biden is sworn in next week. The Senate has held three presidential impeachment trials. They have lasted 83 days, 37 days and 21 days, respectively.

Even if the Senate process were to begin this week and move promptly, no final verdict would be reached until after President Trump had left office. This is not a decision I am making; it is a fact. The President-elect himself stated last week that his inauguration on Jan. 20 is the quickest path for any change in the occupant of the presidency.

In light of this reality, I believe it will best serve our nation if Congress and the executive branch spend the next seven days completely focused on facilitating a safe inauguration and an orderly transfer of power to the incoming Biden Administration. I am grateful to the offices and institutions within the Capitol that are working around the clock, alongside federal and local law enforcement, to prepare for a safe and successful inauguration at the Capitol next Wednesday.

Sen. Rand Paul has not released a formal statement, but he did tell WDRB on Jan. 11, "Theres been a justified rebuke of what happened, and the whole electoral college debacle, and the mob and everything else," he said. "I dont think theres any escaping that. But I think its best for the country to try to move on."

West Virginia

Sen. Shelly Moore Capito, a Republican from West Virginia, has not released any statement regarding impeachment. However, she did lay blame at the Presidents feet for the Capitol insurrection in an interview with WV MetroNews Talkline:

I did support the president, and I did support the policies and I think the policies were good for West Virginia. But this is inexcusable.

Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democratic centrist and a frequent swing vote on close measures, had asked House Democrats to pump the brakes on impeaching the president, stating he didnt believe there were enough votes to convict in the Senate.

"I think this is so ill-advised forJoe Bidento be coming in, trying to heal the country, trying to be the president of all the people when we are going to be so divided and fighting again. Let the judicial system do its job. Manchin is quoted in The Hill.

Manchin has also told the press that he believes Trump committed impeachable conduct.

Ohio

U.S. Rob Portman, a noted centerist Republican, issued the following statement: As I said yesterday, the attack on the U.S. Capitol was an attack on democracy itself, and the president bears some responsibility for what occurred. It was important that the president clearly stated today that violence of any kind is unacceptable.

Today the House voted to impeach the president for his role in the events of Jan. 6. If the Senate proceeds with an impeachment trial, I will do my duty as a juror and listen to the cases presented by both sides.

President-elect Biden has rightly said he wants to set a new tone of greater unity as his administration begins. All of us should be concerned about the polarization in our country and work toward bringing people together. If the Senate conducts an impeachment trial, among my considerations will be what is best to help heal our country rather than deepen our divisions.

U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat, has not offered recent statements regarding impeachment. However, he did call on Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment: Domestic terrorists attacked our seat of government, at the behest of the President of the United States. This was his last, desperate attempt to overturn the will of the American voters, but he failed, and democracy won. We must hold the president accountable for inciting this attack on our country. The cabinet and vice president should immediately invoke the 25th Amendment to remove him from office, to prevent him from doing more damage between now and Inauguration Day.

(606) 326-2653 |

henry@dailyindependent.com

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

See more here:
Representatives, senators weigh in on impeachment - The Independent

Big tech mutes free speech: Is this who we want to become? – Williamsport Sun-Gazette

Our election was hijacked.

Thats a tweet.

From Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

In May 2017.

Imagine a world without Twitter, Facebook and Parler.

Oops, we dont have to imagine a world without Parler.

A consortium of Amazon, Twitter, Facebook and other non-elected editors of our discourse eliminated Parler when that version of electronic dialogue had the audacity to cut into their customer base.

Woke people usually call this bullying, but when the bully is on your team the bullied get canceled with glee. If Twitter, which allows ugly postings from Ayatollahs, can mute an outgoing president, millions who loathe him delight. Forfeiting the First Amendment, aborting antitrust laws, and inviting monopolies is fine if the correct victim is chosen. Whats next on the chopping block newspapers that dont fit a particular narrative, television networks that reflect an alternative agenda?

Every media entity should be expressing outrage at what this coalition is executing. In fact, world leaders who do not care for President Trump are expressing opposition to this behavior.

Still, imagine we were all silenced. We would have to talk to each other face to face, over the phone or at dinner. The veneer people use to judge each other on a small percentage of who they are would be removed.

My father told me when I feel myself about to express anger or over-the-top confrontation, I should pause and imagine it is visitation at my funeral. What would I want people to say about me? Our social media-fed world lacks such a moral governor on personal communications.

I have friends and family who do not share my political beliefs. I respect them all. They are among the finest people I know. We probably agree on about 90 percent of our perceptions of the world. I cant imagine canceling them. Millions of Americans share these circumstances. You see them in the grocery store and on a four-mile walk. There is no sense of anger or division.

But our social media world emphasizes the 10 percent. That skewed view creates an illusion of mass division that does not exist.

And when political expressions are woven inseparably with the Twitter world, the 10 percent becomes a dangerous firecracker. Extremist elements on the right and left set off those firecrackers last summer and last week.

President Trumps brusque tweets and personality pushed some very effective policies into the background. His policies were such that 56 percent of those polled before the election told Gallup they were better off than four years ago, a record for that poll. But overbearing tweets created a launching pad for an obsessed opposition threatened by a Washington outsider.

Rep. Maxine Waters megaphoned instructions to get in the faces of anyone associated with the president in restaurants or anywhere else. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi tore up the State of the Union address a year ago. Sen. Rand Paul and his wife were nearly assaulted while leaving a Republican National Convention speech by Trump.

That abhorrent behavior was judged acceptable by a coalition controlling our national conversation. But Trumps call to march peacefully in protest of an election full of questions never aired in court was judged as inciting a riot and grounds for impeachment. He should never have made the speech. But Trump has held hundreds of rallies like this with no violence. Apparently, if a small, extreme faction of 75 million backers acts horrifically it was historically dangerous behavior it is grounds for impeachment in a presidents final days and canceling of anyone daring to embrace his policies. There was no such transference of responsibility to mayors of Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, Chicago, Philadelphia and Atlanta for violent actions by extremists on the left the past several months.

Dangerously, corporations have joined the cancel culture alliance. Like moral peacocks, they have announced no one associated with the Trump administration thousands of people, many in apolitical positions should be hired when they leave.

Some have proudly announced aborting of political funding to any elected leader who attempted to block the Electoral College vote count, action identical to what Democrats did in 2001, 2005 and 2017. How does any of this unite the country, help the incoming president execute an agenda in the midst of a crippling pandemic or turn our political temperature down if the incoming leader wont do it?

I recently watched a very good movie that ends with the narrator whose true story was the focus of the film telling us, Where we come from is who we are, but we choose who we become.

We all need to internally cancel the impact of social media and big tech and take our own hard look at what we, as a country, want to become.

David F. Troisi is retired as editor of the Sun-Gazette.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Here is the original post:
Big tech mutes free speech: Is this who we want to become? - Williamsport Sun-Gazette

Rand Paul pledges to fight Biden on lockdowns ‘and forcing us to wear masks forever’ | TheHill – The Hill

Sen. Rand PaulRandal (Rand) Howard PaulRick Scott tests positive for coronavirus Overnight Defense: Formal negotiations inch forward on defense bill with Confederate base name language | Senators look to block B UAE arms sales | Trump administration imposes Iran sanctions over human rights abuses Senators move to block Trump's B UAE arms sale MORE (R-Ky.)says that he would oppose strict coronavirus mitigation efforts if they are put forth by President-elect Joe BidenJoe BidenOutside groups flood Georgia with advertising buys ahead of runoffs Biden will receive @POTUS Twitter account on Jan. 20 even if Trump doesn't concede, company says Trump to participate in virtual G-20 summit amid coronavirus surge MORE, pledging to do everything I can to try to prevent Biden from locking us up and locking us down and forcing us to wear masks forever.

During an interview on "The CATS Roundtable with John Catsimatidis" that aired this weekend, Paul claimed Biden is talking more about a lockdown and hes gonna be a terrible president.

The former vice president has not called for a national lockdown, though he has said he will follow the advice of his scientific advisers when it comes to efforts to combat COVID-19.

At multiple points on the campaign trail, Biden said, I'm not going to shut down the country. I'm going to shut down the virus.

His health advisers have publicly said that they have no current plans to recommend a lockdown.

We are not in support of a nationwide lockdown and believe ... there simply isnt a scenario because we can get this under control, Atul Gawande, a member of Biden's COVID-19 advisory board, said on Sunday.

Paulalso claimed in his interview that current coronavirus mitigation strategies, such as standing 6 feet apart, frequent hand-washing and wearing masks, don't work, contradicting the advice of most health experts.

The Hill has reached out to Paul's office for further comment.

Kentucky, like most other states, is experiencing a spike incoronavirus cases. According to government data, the Bluegrass State broke its record for most cases recorded in a single day on Saturdaywith 3,293.

The day before that, Kentucky broke its record for most COVID-19 deaths reported in a single daywith 25.

See the rest here:
Rand Paul pledges to fight Biden on lockdowns 'and forcing us to wear masks forever' | TheHill - The Hill

Paul Misleads on Natural Infection and COVID-19 Vaccines – FactCheck.org

In a tweet, Sen. Rand Paul misleadingly suggested that immunity from [n]aturally acquired COVID-19 was better than that from a vaccine. But its not known how immunity from the two sources compares and the entire point of a vaccine is to offer immunity without the risk of getting sick.

Paul made his claim in a Nov. 17 tweet in which he listed interim efficacy figures from two ongoing vaccine clinical trials and then provided his own calculation of the effectiveness of natural infection with the coronavirus.

In a follow-up tweet, the Kentucky Republican shared a link to a New York Times article about a new unpublished study that found evidence of some immunity to the coronavirus in most people for at least six months. He commented: Why does the left accept immune theory when it comes to vaccines, but not when discussing naturally acquired immunity?

Paul, who has previouslyspread misinformationabout childhood vaccines, hasinaccurately argued during the COVID-19 pandemic that parts of the U.S. have reached herd, or community, immunity because of preexisting immunity to other coronaviruses.Herd immunityis when enough people in a population are immune to prevent spread of the disease.

Public health experts, however, have said that threshold is still a ways off and that allowing the virus to spread uncontrolled would lead to many needless deaths. A better approach, they say, is to stave off the spread of the virus until a vaccine is widely available.

A Paul spokesperson told us that the senator was not suggesting that immunity through natural infection with COVID-19 is better than getting immunity from a vaccine, but rather, highlighting research that says immunity is real.

We were directed to subsequent tweets, including one in which Paul said he was not arguing against vaccines but that COVID-19 patients can celebrate immunity if lucky enough to survive, as well as Pauls support for alternative options to speed along access to COVID-19 vaccines.

Still, the efficacy figure Paul provides for natural COVID-19 infection isnt accurate. And the juxtaposition of the numbers implies a kind of superiority of natural infection over vaccination a dangerous notion, given that contracting the virus poses a serious risk.

As University of Florida biostatistician Natalie Dean pointed out in response to Pauls tweet, The key distinction is that vaccines are a SAFE way to achieve immunity. Getting sick with COVID-19 is inherently unsafe. We would never ever tolerate a vaccine that carried even a fraction of the risks of natural infection.

While Paul purports to offer a precise percentage for how effective natural infection is relative to vaccines, experts told us that the comparison is premature and faulty.

The efficacy figures for the vaccines come from interim results released in press releases by the two companies, Pfizer and Moderna, and refer to the ability of the vaccines to prevent symptomatic COVID-19 infection in phase 3 trials. (The day after Pauls tweet, Pfizer announced additional data reflective of the full trial, which showed 95% efficacy.) But the number for natural infection is a broad-strokes calculation Paul made based on reinfections.

We dont really know how many reinfections there have been, virologist Angela Rasmussen said in a phone interview, adding that many reinfections have not been confirmed and that efficacy of naturally-acquired immunity isnt a thing.

Its just really ridiculous to try to use the way that efficacy is calculated in clinical trials for vaccines and apply that to epi[demiologic] data across the entire population, she said.

Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia and a member of the Food and Drug Administrations Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, agreed.

Clearly, there are people who can be reinfected. As a general rule, its usually more mild reinfection, he told us. But, he added, most people arent tested, so you dont really know whos getting reinfected and who isnt.

Its true that reinfections so far appear to be rare, which bodes well both for a vaccine and for people who may have immunity as a result of infection. But no one knows yet how the immunity from each will compare.

Most vaccines do not offer quite as good protection from a pathogen as a natural infection will but of course, a person has to survive or suffer through the infection to get that future protection, sidestepping the entire function of a vaccine. Its therefore largely irrelevant whether or not vaccine immunity is superior to that from natural infection.

There are some instances in which a vaccine does elicit a better immune response. Thats the case for vaccines against human papillomavirus, or HPV; tetanus; Haemophilus influenzae type b; and pneumococcus.

Whether COVID-19 will be one of them remains to be seen. Rasmussen said it was possible, but still hypothetical at this point. We dont really know. We only know that these vaccines typically induce levels of neutralizing antibody that are comparable to the higher levels of neutralizing antibody thats been observed in convalescent patients, she said, referring to the type of antibody that can prevent cells from becoming infected with the virus.

Based on the performance of the shingles vaccine, Offit speculated that some of the later-arriving vaccine candidates that include powerful adjuvants, or chemicals that are added to vaccines to boost the immune response, such as those from Sanofi-GSK or Novavax, might be better than natural infection.

For both the vaccine and natural infection, important questions about COVID-19 immunity remain.

We do know that most people who get COVID-19 do develop some kind of measurable antibody response, but we dont know what that really means in terms of protection against either reinfection or whether you will mount protective immune responses upon a re-exposure, said Rasmussen.

As a result, public health officials have cautioned that for now, even if people have previously contracted COVID-19, individuals should still follow the standard recommendations.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, advises all people, including those who have recovered from COVID-19, to continue to physically distance, wear masks, wash their hands and avoid crowds.

Similarly, the CDC notes that it doesnt yet know if or when it will stop recommending masks or physical distancing after vaccination.

This is in contrast to Pauls assertion that people can celebrate immunity. In a Nov. 12 interview on Fox News, Paul used similar language and advocated that people drop these precautions.

We have 11 million people in our country whove already had COVID. We should tell them to celebrate, he said. We should tell them to throw away their masks, go to restaurants, live again, because these people are now immune.

A huge question is how durable immunity will be. Although the study Paul highlighted suggests that most people will be protected for at least six months and might mean they are protected against severe disease for many years its still not definitive, and doesnt mean that those timeframes will apply to everyone.

Shane Crotty, an immunologist at the La Jolla Institute for Immunology and one of the senior authors of the paper, noted on Twitter that the team observed a wide range of immune responses in people, including a lack of a measurable response in some people.

That led us to speculate, he said, quoting his manuscript, that it may be expected that at least a fraction of the SARS-CoV-2-infected population with particularly low immune memory would be susceptible to re-infection relatively quickly.

The CDC, notably, has said that people who have had COVID-19 may still benefit from a coronavirus vaccine. And some experts envision a future in which multiple vaccines are on the table for everyone.

It strikes me as not unlikely that we will learn what the duration of protection is and people will need whether naturally infected or vaccinated to have booster shots over some period of time, once a year, once every two years, once every five years, Barry Bloom, an immunologist and global health expert at Harvards T.H. Chan School of Public Health, said in a press call.

In his tweet about the new immunity study, Paul also suggested that Democrats were somehow denying realities about immunity from natural infection.

Why does the left accept immune theory when it comes to vaccines, but not when discussing naturally acquired immunity? he asked.

Scientists, however, objected to Pauls characterization.

I dont think anybodys dismissing [immunity following natural infection]. I think what people are saying is, its a bad idea as a strategy for dealing with infection, said Offit, who noted that 30% to 40% of the population could be considered at high risk for COVID-19.

Both Offit and Rasmussen also pointed out that historically, there isnt a lot of precedent for building herd immunity through natural infection.

People were getting smallpox for millennia, Rasmussen said, and the herd immunity threshold was never really reached.

The much safer way of getting to herd immunity is to use a vaccine instead, especially when multiple candidates are on the horizon.

Trying to achieve herd immunity [without a vaccine] would result in hundreds of thousands more if not millions of unnecessary deaths and debilitating illness for millions more, Rasmussen said. So I think its not really right to talk about vaccine-induced herd immunity versus naturally-acquired herd immunity without mentioning the fact that one of them has a very, very large price tag in human lives and quality of life attached to it.

Editors note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made throughour Donate page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104.

Visit link:
Paul Misleads on Natural Infection and COVID-19 Vaccines - FactCheck.org