Mediaboss Marketing

The president was at lunch today and he voiced his support for investigating the people who concocted this hoax, Paul told Breitbart News. He didnt use the word hoax, those are my words, but I think we should get to the bottom of this and he believes we should get to the bottom of this because this should never happen to another president. He feels that its damaging to the country, damaging to the ability to lead the country, that we basicallysomebody within the Obama administration, within the DOJ and the FBI, basically concocted an investigation, trumped it up to be something that it wasnt and then weve gone through two years of the country being stalled because of this fake investigation.

When asked specifically if former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, and former National Security Adviser Susan Rice should be called to testify about their role in the matterand be subpoenaed to force their testimony if they refuse to voluntarily complyPaul said: Absolutely.We have John Brennan, who lied to us, who spied on the Senate and tapped into Senate computers, Paul said. We have James Clapper who came before the Intelligence Committee and said they werent collecting all of our phone data. So both Brennan and Clapper have been known to lie in official testimony. They should be brought forward and asked what was their part? What was their role in ginning up this dossier? Amazingly, most media outlets wouldnt even print the dossier because they thought it was so unsubstantiated. And then all of a sudden, the FBI gives it credence. Theres one interesting story out today that says still no one would print it, so then Comey gives it to President Trump and thats when its been leaked and then we have a news story saying that this dossier had been given to the president and that became the hook or the story.

The Special Counsel completed his investigation last week, and submitted a final report to Attorney General Bill Barr. In a Sunday letter to Judiciary Committee leaders in both the House and Senate summarizing Muellers findings, Barr revealed that Mueller has cleared Trump on collusionfinding that Trump and his campaign did not conspire with the Russians to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that no other Americans did either. Mueller also revealed that he did not find enough evidence to charge Trump with obstruction of justice, and Barr confirmed that the president will not be charged in that regard.

I think its a terrible tragedy, Paul said of the investigation. It cost us $30 million, two years to go through all of this, the media has been so consumed by all of this that they have barely had time to report on any of the real news of the day. I think we shouldnt allow this to happen again to a Republican or a Democrat.

For now, the full Mueller report is not yet publicand Paul said he intends to object to its full release until such time as all the documents regarding the Obama administrations abuse of power to start this hoax investigation are also released.

My plan is to object to the release of the Mueller report and/or all of the Mueller information until they also release the complete information from the White House, DOJ, FBI, on why they chose to credit the dossier, Paul said. What were the discussions? And who was it who was promoting that the dossier was real? How did it come about? How were all these judgments made? So, the other side wants to read a million pages of Mueller report. Were going to want to read a million pages of how this whole Russian hoax got started.

This is the first part of a lengthy interview with Sen. Paul on Spygate in the wake of the Mueller probe clearing President Trump on all matters. More is forthcoming soon.

Read this article:
Rand Paul: Absolutely Subpoena Obama Officials on Spygate

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., speaks during an event at the University of Chicagos Ida Noyes Hall in Chicago on Tuesday, April 22, 2014. (AP Photo/Andrew A. Nelles)

Ill never be a major fan of Rand Paul but sometimes he performs a great public service in between the the long periods he spend as an annoying twit. This is one of those times.

Citing a high-level source, Republican Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul charged in a bombshell Twitter post late Wednesday that anti-Trump ex-CIA Director John Brennan insisted that the unverified and fake Steele dossier be included in a classified intelligence community report on Russian interference in the 2016 elections a decision that ultimately lent credibility to the dossier and may have played a key role in fomenting unfounded fears of Russia collusion for two years.

Paul called on Brennan to testify under oath immediately, as Republicans continue to aggressively seek out the origins of the collusion narrative. Fox News had not independently verified Pauls source, and Brennan has not replied to Fox News requests for comment.

Fox News is told Pauls tweet specifically accused Brennan of pushing to incorporate the dossier into the January 2017 official intelligence community assessment (ICA) from the FBI, CIA, and NSA that Russia worked to interfere in the 2016 election.

What is interesting is that the dossier is NOT referenced in the unclassified intelligence summary released in January 2017, but James Comey briefed President Trump on the more salacious parts at about the same time. Brennan has claimed in public forums that the dossier was not a big deal, but, when one examines the record one sees that Brennan was pushing the dossier at various times. He seems to have used disgraced former FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok as his cut-out to sell the dossier within the FBI. We know, for instance, that the dossier figured prominently in the FISA warrants obtained on the hapless Carter Page. It not being mentioned is not a big deal as it wasnt widely known until BuzzFeed published it.

What makes Pauls story more credible is a recent revelation by Foxs superstar national security reporter Catherine Herridge.

When one goes back to the genesis of the Russia hoax investigation one is struck by a salient point. This is from The Hill on December 11, 2016.

A secret CIA assessment uncovered by the Washington Post Friday concluded that Russia intervened in the U.S. presidential election to help Trump win the White House.

The CIA was direct and bald and unqualified about Russias intentions to help Trump, officials who attended a House briefing told the Post.

However, an FBI officials presentation to the House Intelligence Committee was fuzzy and ambiguous, the Post added.The CIA believes Russians hacked both Democratic and Republican organizations, though only documents from Democrats were leaked and published.

According to multiple reports, the FBI still hasnt confirmed whether the RNC or other Republican groups were hacked.

The Washington Post reports the FBI is not certain that Russias interference in the election was a purposeful effort to alter the results.

During a meeting of the House Intelligence Committee, the CIA said it was sure of Russias intentions in hacking Democratic party emails, but the FBI was less certain, The Post reported.

This is Reuters on December 11:

While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIAs analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.

The position of the ODNI, which oversees the 17 agency-strong U.S. intelligence community, could give Trump fresh ammunition to dispute the CIA assessment, which he rejected as ridiculous in weekend remarks, and press his assertion that no evidence implicates Russia in the cyber attacks.

However, by December 16, the FBI and DNI had joined the CIA assessment. We cant know why that was the casebut if we look at the antics of James Clapper and James Comey we have fertile ground for speculation. What could have caused everyone, literally everyone, to change from disagreeing with the assessment of John Brennans CIA to agreeing with in in the span of five days?

This is where Herridges reporting comes in:

In a Dec. 12, 2016, text reviewed by Fox News, Page wrote to McCabe: Btw, [Director of National Intelligence James] Clapper told Pete that he was meeting with [CIA Director John] Brennan and Cohen for dinner tonight. Just FYSA [for your situational awareness].

Within a minute, McCabe replied, OK.

Cohen is likely then-Deputy CIA Director David Cohen. Pete is a likely reference to Peter Strzok, who played a lead role in the original Russia investigation at the FBI (and with whom Page was having an affair).But two government sources told Fox News it was irregular for Clapper to be in direct contact with Strzok, who was at a much more junior level. It is not clear from the text if Strzok also attended the dinner. A lawyer for Strzok declined to comment, but did not dispute the text referred to Strzok.

So, basically the night after the CIA finds itself the odd-man out on the collusion narrative, Brennan and Clapper have dinner. Clapper tells Strzok, who is several layers beneath him in a different agency about the event. Within a couple of days the FBI and DNI are both on board with the CIAs assessment which seems to have relied upon the dossier.

Pauls call for an investigation of what the Obama administration knew about this is very much on target and President Trump should make sure it happens.

==================Like what you see? Then visit my story archive.

Im on Facebook. Drop by and join the fun there.==================

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Continued here:
Rand Paul Is Not Happy With the Russia Hoax and Names Who ...

U.S. Senator Rand Paul posts a text today that has caught attention. The issue surrounds the Clinton/Steele Dossier and the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) from January 2017.

(Tweet Link)

While the public statement from Rand Paul is new, the backstory is one we have discussed before. Yes, John Brennan put the Steele Dossier into the ICA, and he enlisted FBI Agent Peter Strzok as the author to facilitate the narrative.

In May 2018 there was some major reporting from Paul Sperry that included interesting details about how President Obamas intelligence community structured their Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) about Russian interference in the 2016 election SEE HERE

In essence by following-up with various people involved in the construct of the ICA, journalist Paul Sperry outlined how CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, subverted their own intelligence guidelines in assembling the intelligence report.

While much of the background paralleled our prior research, there are two very interesting aspects outlined by those with direct knowledge of the construct. First, Brennan positioned FBI Agent Peter Strzok as the contact between the CIA analysis and the information flow to FBI Director James Comey:

[] A source close to the House investigation said Brennan himself selected the CIA and FBI analysts who worked on the ICA, and that they included former FBI counterespionage chief Peter Strzok.

Strzok was the intermediary between Brennan and [former FBI Director James] Comey, and he was one of the authors of the ICA, according to the source. (link)

The structure of the information flow is interesting because it highlights the obvious intention of the group to control the content of intelligence. There are several instances which highlight the level of a strategic effort undertaken to keep James Comey out of the loop on details within the 2016 operation(s).

Their collaborative approach creates the I dont know and that was not my understanding defense as deployed heavily by James Comey during his book tour and media interviews. The plausible deniability approach also created an unusual set of contradictions.

Former FBI Director James Comey repeatedly said the work on the Clinton and Trump investigations was kept inside a very tight group of DOJ and FBI people; yet Comey repeatedly claims to have no knowledge of their activity when questioned about specific events.

Deputy Director Andrew McCabe keeping Director Comey in the dark on the Huma Abedin laptop issues for four weeks (Sept. 28th through October 26th, 2016) is a clear example of Comeys willful blindness.

There are also numerous examples in the Page/Strzok text messaging or working around Comey within the FBI small group (Andrew McCabe, James Baker, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok and Michael Kortan), as Andrew McCarthy finally realized when he sat down to read the content during Memorial Day 2018: I am bleary-eyed from a weekend of reading about half of them. Even in their heavily redacted form, they are a goldmine of insight he wrote.

A second interesting aspect revealed in Paul Sperrys prior reporting is something we discussed at great length surrounding the President Obama daily briefing material (PDB):

[] Brennan put some of the dossier material into the PDB [presidential daily briefing] for Obama and described it as coming from a credible source, which is how they viewed Steele, said the source familiar with the House investigation. But they never corroborated his sources. (read more)

So with another confirmation that Brennan was putting FBI Counterintelligence Investigation findings into President Obamas PDB, lets revisit the statements in April 2017 from President Obamas National Security Advisor, Susan Rice. As relayed in an interview with MSNBCs Andrew Mitchell:

Susan Rice @00:51 Let me explain how this works. I was a National Security Adviser, my job is to protect the American people and the security of our country. Thats the same as the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and CIA Director.; and every morning, to enable us to do that, we receive from the intelligence community a compilation of intelligence reports that the IC, the intelligence community, has selected for us on a daily basis to give us the best information as to whats going on around the world.

[Note, Susan Rice is describing the PDB]

I received those reports, as did other officials, and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which, uh, a U.S Person was referred to. Name, uh, not provided, just U.S. Person.

And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance in the report and assess its significance, it was necessary to find out or request, who that U.S. official was.

The interview goes much further. There was a lot of news in that interview. There is also a tremendous amount of double-speak and self-contradiction; in some cases between sentences that follow each other.

Notice how Susan Rice contradicts herself about what the intelligence community puts into the PDB. Remember, Rice considers the PDB intel community to be very specific: James Clapper (DNI), John Brennan (CIA) and Defense Department (which would be the Pentagon and NSA Mike Rogers). And she states they would never send the President innocuous things unworthy of review.

However, right there Susan Rice is confirming the unmasking request(s) which can be pinned upon her, are directly related to her need to understand -on behalf of President Obama- intelligence for the Presidents Daily Briefing (the PDB). This was a previous question now answered.

This is EXPLOSIVE, and heres why.

First, before becoming Obamas National Security Adviser, Susan Rice was U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Remember, shortly after the unmasking issue surfaced over 600 unmasking requests were outlined as coming from Rices replacement, Samantha Power.

Ambassador Power told congress in 2018 she did not do those unmasking requests; however, they were done under her name. In other words: someone used her office access to the State Department system to unmask names.

Question: Did Susan Rice do the unmasking via her knowledge of how to access the State Department portal? It looks very suspicious.

Secondly, the Presidents Daily Brief under President Obama went to almost everyone at top levels in his administration. Regarding the Obama PDB:

[] But while through most of its history the document has been marked For the Presidents Eyes Only, the PDB has never gone to the president alone. The most restricted dissemination was in the early 1970s, when the book went only to President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, who was dual-hatted as national security adviser and secretary of state.

In other administrations, the circle of readers has also included the vice president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with additional White House staffers.

By 2013, Obamas PDB was making its way to more than 30 recipients, including the presidents top strategic communications aide and speechwriter, and deputy secretaries of national security departments. (link)

Pay attention to that last part. According to the Washington Post outline Obamas PDBs were going to: Deputy Secretaries of national security departments, and his speechwriter, Ben Rhodes.

Susan Rice defined the Obama national security departments to include: State Defense (Pentagon includes NSA) and CIA.

So under Obamas watch Deputy Asst. Secretaries of Defense, via their connection to their immediate supervisor, likely had some daily access to the content within the PDB. And who was an Obama Deputy Asst. Secretary of Defense?

I was urging my former colleagues, and, and frankly speaking the people on the Hill [Democrat politicians], it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can get as much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration.

Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left; so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy, um, that the Trump folks if they found out HOW we knew what we knew about their, the Trump staff, dealing with Russians that they would try to compromise those sources and methods; meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.

So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia; so then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were also trying to help get information to the Hill. Thats why you had the leaking.

[Link to Farkas MSNBC Interview and Transcript]

Funny how that happens

Hindsight is 20/20, but many people were tracking close to the bulls-eye back in 2016 and early 2017 when this sordid affair initially became visible. The War Economy is one of those researchers along with CTH who was tracking in real time what was happening:

On December 9, 2016, President Obama ordered a review to be carried out by American intelligence agencies to research Russian interference in United States elections going back to 2008. The same day, Adam Entous, Ellen Nakashima and Greg Millerwith assistance from Julie Tatepublished the article Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House in The Washington Post, while David E. Sanger and Scott Shane published Russian Hackers Acted to Aid Trump in Election, U.S. Says in The New York Times.

As part of the development of the Intelligence Community Assessment, Director Brennan hand-picked a number of agents from both the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, one of whom was Special Agent Peter Strzok, whom worked as an intermediary between Director Comey and Director Brennan.

The next day, on December 10, 2016, Nakashima and Entousagain with Tates assistancepublished the article FBI and CIA give differing accounts to lawmakers on Russias motives in 2016 hacks in The Washington Post. A reporter, meanwhile, sent an inquiry to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, where they asked whether they agreed with the conclusion that Russia assisted President-elect Trump with his election victorr, which was responded to by Special Agent Strzok.

Three days later, on December 13, 2016, Eric Lipton, Sanger and Shane, with contributions from Kitty Bennett, published the article The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S. in The New York Times. On the same day, Mark Hosenball and Jonathan Lindsay published the article Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hackingsources in Reuters, which was about the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

This resulted in Director Clapper, Director Brennan, Director Comey and Director Vincent Stewart all collectively declining to brief the House Intelligence Committee on the issues surrounding their conflicting assessments on the Russian cyber attacks. At the same time, Strzok and Pages texts allegedly stopped being stored internally, as the initial batch of texts messages end on December 13.

Two days later, on December 15, Strzok and Page texted each other about a sister organisation leaking to the mainstream media. The next day, December 16, Strzok texted Page again, this time to discuss an article in The Washington Post: FBI in agreement with CIA that Russia aimed to help Trump win White House, where Strzok argued that the Central Intelligence Agency is more capable of manipulating the press and that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had the initial position, not the Central Intelligence Agency.

Two days later again, on December 18, 2016, Strzok and Page discussed his intelligence submissions to the Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian interference.

Strzok expressed concern that the White House would scapegoat the Federal Bureau of Investigation using the classified portion of the report. One day later, on December 19, Page texted Strzok about the number of mainstream media stories where they actively played a personal role in, as Strzok questioned whether he should have done anything differently to prevent the rise of Donald Trump. (source)

Yes, Senator Rand Paul, John Brennan most certainly put the Steele Dossier into the intelligence community assessment. The trail is transparent; it does not take a high level source to prove it.

Like Loading...

Related

Read the original post:
Rand Paul: it was Brennan who insisted the unverified and ...

When Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., supported President Trumps outreach efforts with Russia last summer, including a diplomatic trip to the country himself, Vanity Fairs Tina Nguyen wrote that Rand Paul is Trumps Perfect Russia Stooge.

New York Magazines Jonathan Chait said Paul was a Loyal Trump Stooge for not supporting the investigation into the presidents "opaque ties to Russia."

Not to be outdone, neoconservative Stephen Hayes, the former Weekly Standard editor who once concocted the outlandish conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with Osama Bin Laden, penned a column titled, Rand Paul, Russian Stooge.

As a libertarian-conservative writer who often chronicles the career of Americas most high profile libertarian Republican, almost every Rand Paul story I have shared since the summer of 2016 on virtually any subject has been met with social media commenters parroting the notion that the Kentucky senator is a Russian stooge or even Vladimir Putins puppet.

On Friday, and confirmed on Sunday we learned these people are a bunch of conspiracy nuts.

Now that the Mueller report has recommended no indictments and the Justice Department has officially declared there was no collusion between Trump and Russia during the presidential election, Democrats and leftists in the media are doing their best to scramble the egg that has landed flatly on all their faces: "You havent seen the report!" "We dont know the full story yet!" No doubt as you read these words, most are still scrambling.

I cant blame them. If I put my credibility on the line for such an elaborate fabrication for as long as they have, I would be trying to prove it somehow wasnt a lie too.

For years, every pundit and Democratic pol in Washington hyped every new Russia headline like the Watergate break-in, writes Rolling Stone contributing editor Matt Taibbi. We broke every written and unwritten rule in pursuit of this story, starting with the prohibition on reporting things we cant confirm.

Taibbi laments how many in the press became willing foot soldiers for the Democrats efforts to undermine the president. Worse, its led to most journalists accepting a radical change in mission, Taibbi says. Weve become sides-choosers, obliterating the concept of the press as an independent institution whose primary role is sorting fact and fiction ...

Perhaps even worse than the left-leaning medias Democrat shilling, what was it Rand Paul did specifically that earned him the Russian stooge insult? He thought trying to establish better diplomatic ties with nuclear-armed Russia was preferable to a new Cold War.

Who was the last president to advise against starting another Cold War? Barack Obama.

"Gov. Romney few months ago when you were asked what's the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not al Qaeda, Obama said to Republican Mitt Romney during a 2012 presidential debate. You said Russia the 1980s, they're now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War's been over for 20 years.

And yet, most of Obamas former supporters have been more interested in restarting it for purely partisan reasons.

These are the people who believe Rand Paul is somehow an unprincipled stooge.

While Paul was busy pursuing the same realist foreign policy he advocated for long before Trump even emerged on the political scene, Trump-deranged zealots gleefully chose instead to portray the senator as engaging in something sinister. Friday, that narrative blew up in their face. I hope the biased media learns their lesson, and Democrats are able to accept the undisputed facts and move on, Paul said Sunday.

From todays more illuminated vantage point, what was worse than the supposed unpardonable sin of Paul trying to help Trump neuter the hawks within his own party and dethaw relations with Russia? Answer: Liberals and neoconservatives trying to restart the Cold War based on a wild-eyed conspiracy theory that has now been disproven.

Rand Pauls Russia critics have all been outright stooges for the Democratic Party and its agenda for two long years, wittingly or not. If they were honest, they would admit it.

Jack Hunter (@jackhunter74) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is the former political editor of Rare.us and co-authored the 2011 book The Tea Party Goes to Washington with Sen. Rand Paul.

Read the rest here:
Pundits who called Rand Paul a 'Russian stooge' should admit they're ...

By ADAM B. LERNER

06/30/2015 07:40 AM EDT

Updated 06/30/2015 08:01 PM EDT

Rand Paul met privately with Cliven Bundy on Monday, the Nevada rancher and anti-government activist told POLITICO.

The encounter came after Bundy attended an event for the Kentucky senators presidential campaign at the Eureka Casino in Mesquite, Nevada. When the larger group dispersed, Bundy said, he was escorted by Pauls aides to a back room where he and the Republican 2016 contender spoke for approximately 45 minutes. (There were no scheduled meetings at Senator Pauls stop in Mesquite. He spoke to many people who came to this public event, none for 45 minutes and none planned, Paul spokesman Sergio Gor said.)

Story Continued Below

The Nevada rancher said that he had expected only to have an opportunity to shake hands with Paul and make small-talk. He was surprised when campaign aides found a private room and allowed Bundy, his wife and son to speak with the candidate for the better part of an hour.

According to Bundy, the two mainly discussed federal land oversight and states rights, in addition to education policy a theme Paul brought up in his speech.

I dont think he really understood how land rights really work in the western United States, Bundy said. I was happy to be able to sort of teach him.

According to the Associated Press, Paul told the audience during the main event, I think almost all land use issues and animal issues, endangered species issues, ought to be handled at the state level.

I think that the government shouldnt interfere with state decisions, so if a state decides to have medical marijuana or something like that, it should be respected as a state decision, Paul reportedly added.

Bundy said that in their private meeting, Paul brought up the work of the American Lands Council, which raises money from groups like the Koch brothers Americans for Prosperity to wrestle land from the federal government and return it to the states via negotiations, legislation and litigation.

I disagree with that philosophy, Bundy said of the ALCs legalistic approach. My stand is we are already a sovereign state. The federal government doesnt need to turn this land back to us. Its already state land.

I dont want to sell this land to private ownership, because I believe I already have stewardship. He added, I educated Rand on that point, and said that the candidate seemed sympathetic to his point of view.

I dont claim ownership, Bundy said. I claim rights.

Bundy first made national headlines in the spring of 2014, when the federal government temporarily closed a large swathe of U.S. government-owned land in Clarke County, Nevada, to capture and impound Bundys cattle as a penalty for more than $1 million in unpaid grazing fees. Bundy refused to federal authority on the land where his family had lived for more than 120 years, but federal courts repeatedly sided with the Bureau of Land Management.

Shortly after the BLM closed the land, hundreds of armed militia members including members of far-right groups like the Oath Keepers and the White Mountain Militia descended on the land outside of Mesquite, Nevada. After a weeklong fight and a twenty-minute standoff where federal agents and protesters pointed guns at one another, the BLM ultimately backed down and returned Bundys cattle.

Though the government agency has said that it will continue to work through the courts to exact money owed by Bundy, he told POLITICO that no federal vehicle has returned to the land for more than a year.

The federal government is off my ranch and off this area of Clark County and they shouldnt come back, Bundy said.

After Bundys standoff, he briefly became a hero to far-right conservatives, bolstered by coverage on Fox News and praise by prominent Tea Party politicians like Paul and Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.).

But his star quickly plummeted after he made inflammatory comments about African Americans being better off under slavery.

I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro, Bundy told supporters shortly after the standoff, according to video footage captured by an onlooker. He recounted a time he drove past public-housing in Las Vegas and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch they didnt have nothing to do.

And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do? They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And Ive often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didnt get no more freedom.

After those comments went public, Paul walked back his support and issued a statement saying Bundys remarks on race are offensive and I wholeheartedly disagree with him.

Bundy then apologized for the comments, saying at a press conference, Im probably one of the most non-racist people in America.

I hope I didnt offend anybody. If I did, I ask for your for your forgiveness, he added. But I meant what I said. It comes from the heart.

As for Bundy, he said he has not yet made up his mind about who he will support in 2016. He said that hes focused on which national politicians are most keen to return power to the states and local communities and said that, in their private meeting, Paul seemed keen to do so.

But Democrats, even before word of the private meeting surfaced, attacked Paul for what was first reported as a chance encounter. The Democratic National Committee sent an email tosupporters arguing that Paul isnt as sensitive to African-American issues as he says.

Michael Tyler, the groups director of African-American Media, wrote, Remember Rand Paul preaching of broadening the Republican Partys tent to include communities they typically ignore? Remember Rand Paul claiming he was the perfect candidate to spearhead this outreach? Go ahead and throw that idea out the window.

Rand Paul spent his day in Nevada kissing the ring of Cliven Bundy, Tyler added. The Cliven Bundy who is a self-avowed expert on the negro.

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

See the rest here:
Rand Paul meets with rogue rancher Cliven Bundy - POLITICO