Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul has become the latest and biggest-name Republican to be appearing at next months Save America Summit hosted by the group that staged the Jan. 6 rally that fed into the attack on the Capitol.

Women for America First leader Amy Kremer announced Pauls appearance at the April 8-11 event she is hosting at former President Donald Trumps financially troubled property near the Miami airport. Hell be discussing his common sense #Electionintegrity plan to make sure Nov 2020 NEVER happens again, according to a post on the groups Twitter account.

Election integrity is the phrase many Republicans have been using to describe their efforts across dozens of states to impose new voting restrictions, typically based on the lie started by Trump that massive voter fraud had allowed Democrats to steal the election from him.

In fact, Trumps own attorney general at the time, William Barr, said there was no evidence of that, and Trumps own Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency declared the Nov. 3 election the most secure in American history.

Pauls office did not respond to HuffPost queries about the event.

Other expected speakers include Republican House members Byron Donalds and Kat Cammack, of Florida, and Marjorie Taylor Greene, of Georgia.

Cammacks and Greenes offices did not respond to HuffPost queries. A spokesman for Rep. Donalds said that he did not believe that Trump or anyone else at the Jan. 6 rally was responsible for inciting what happened at the Capitol shortly afterward.

Kremers Doral summit, which shares the same name as Trumps political committee and the Jan. 6 rally adjacent to the White House, coincides with a Republican National Committee donor retreat 75 miles to the north in Palm Beach. Trump is hosting his appearance at the RNC meeting at his own Mar-a-Lago country club. It is unclear whether he will be appearing at Kremers event at his golf resort in Doral.

Depending on how many people attend, Kremers event could put hundreds of thousands of dollars into the cash registers at the resort, which began suffering from the backlash to Trumps actions and words as president even before the arrival of the pandemic last year.

Chip Somodevilla via Getty ImagesSen. Rand Paul, right, gives a fist bump to then-President Donald Trump while praising the president during a campaign rally at Phoenix Goodyear Airport October 28, 2020, in Goodyear, Arizona.

Neither Kremer nor Women for America First responded to HuffPost questions about the upcoming summit.

She and her group were the main sponsor of the Save America rally where Trump urged attendees to march on the Capitol and intimidate then-Vice President Mike Pence and Congress into overturning the election he had lost by 7 million votes and nevertheless installing him for a second term.

Before Trump took the stage, Kremer was repeating the same lies that Trump had started spreading the night of the election, claiming that he had won and it had been stolen from him.

We know that there was voter fraud, we absolutely know it and thats why were here, to stop the steal, Kremer told the crowd gathered on the Ellipse. Were not going to let them steal an election. You guys, we cannot back down.

Not long afterward, thousands of Trump supporters broke through police barriers around the Capitol. Some 800 entered the building itself in an attempt to carry out Trumps demand that Congress stop the certification of Democrat Joe Biden as the winner. One police officer died in the aftermath, and 140 others were injured. Two officers died by suicide after the event.

How much, precisely, Kremers group spent on its various pro-Trump events or how much it will be spending at Trumps Doral golf course may not be known for years. Nor can it determined how much Kremer is paying herself. The group was registered as a nonprofit in Virginia on Feb. 6, 2019, but no annual tax returns are yet on file at the IRS website.

Kremer paid herself $306,268 from a handful of super PACs she helped run between 2010 and 2019, including the Tea Party Express and the pro-Trump Great America PAC, according to Federal Election Commission records. She paid her daughter, Kylie Kremer, who is also an officer in the Women for America First group and who also appeared at the Jan. 6 rally, an additional $11,250.

Kremer, however, stopped filing required reports for her latest super PAC, Women Vote Smart PAC, a year ago, according to FEC records. One former employee said on condition of anonymity that he and a handful of his colleagues were owed a total of about $16,000 by the committee but were never paid when she devoted her attention to her new nonprofit, Women for America First.

Calling all HuffPost superfans!

Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost's next chapter

Read more:
Rand Paul Latest Republican Attending Summit Hosted By ...

Free, fair, and secure elections are the bedrock of a democracy. In the wake of the 2020 election, it has never been more apparent that significant work needs to be done to ensure Americans, regardless of party affiliation, have trust and confidence in our electoral process. We witnessed significant voting irregularities, last-minute changes, and numerous instances of officials setting aside state election law, amongst a host of other troubling patterns. While state legislatures are beginning to take action to reform vulnerabilities that currently exist, the U.S. Congress is trying to make a power grab to federalize elections and unconstitutionally impose unnecessary, dangerous and unwise mandates on the states. Join us for a timely and important discussion with Senator Rand Paul on states efforts on election reform and an update on H.R. 1: The For the People Act of 2021, that just passed the House and has a looming vote in the Senate.

>>>The Facts About H.R. 1: The For the People Act of 2021

Sign up to receive invitations to all public events.

Terms and Conditions of Attendance

View post:
VIRTUAL EVENT: Safeguarding our Elections: A Conversation with Sen. Rand Paul - Heritage.org

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul sounded off Monday on "Fox News Primetime", saying that medical professionals liketop Biden adviser Dr. Anthony Fauciwant Americans to wear masks without questioning the State.

Cloth masks don't work. The N95 masks work. You won't see a doctor in a hospital going into a covid patient's room with a cloth mask because they don't want to get the disease.

Yet, half of the country is running around with Fauci wearing a bunch of cloth masks all over his face saying they work when in reality he knows they don't work -- it's about civility, submission, it's about having you do what you are told without thinking or questioning the state.

You know, as much as the left wants to completely different narrative, history is going to record that there was a miracle that occurred in getting this vaccine.

CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE FULL INTERVIEW

View post:
Rand Paul: Fauci, others preaching about masks isn't about ...

Dr. Anthony Fauci told "CBS This Morning" on Friday that Senator Rand Paul is "dead wrong" after the two had a fierce face-off about mask wearing in a Senate hearing. Fauci argues that Americans should continue to wear masks even after they are vaccinated against COVID-19 something Paul dismissed as "theater."

"Senator Paul has this message that we don't need masks, which goes against just about everything we know about how to prevent spread of the virus," Fauci, the nation's leading infectious disease expert, told "CBS This Morning."

"He was saying if you've been infected, or you've been vaccinated, don't wear a mask which is completely against all public health tenets," Fauci continued. "So he's dead wrong. I mean, I don't have anything personally against him. But he's just quite frankly incorrect."

Paul, who was an eye doctor before entering politics, is one of Fauci's loudest critics in Congress and regularly spars with him during COVID-related hearings. They went at it again Thursday when the Kentucky Republican rejected the guidance for vaccinated people to keep wearing masks in public places.

"You wan to get rid of vaccine hesitancy? Tell them you can quit wearing your mask after they get the vaccine," Paul said. "You want people to get the vaccine, give them a reward instead of telling them that the nanny state's going to be there for three more years and you got to wear a mask forever. People don't want to hear it."

"Well, let me just state for the record that masks are not theater," Fauci replied. "Masks are protective."

"If you have immunity, they're theater," Paul said. "If you already have immunity you're wearing a mask to give comfort to others."

"I totally disagree with you," Fauci told him.

Fauci explained that masks can help protect against coronavirus variants that are spreading rapidly in the U.S. and could potentially lead to reinfection for people who already had the virus. Researchers are still studying how well current vaccines will protect against the emerging variants.

Fauci has previously said it's "possible" Americans may need to keep wearing masks into 2022. Doctors have pointed out that vaccinated people could potentiallystill spread COVID, even if they are protected against the symptoms of it.

The CDC recommends that fully vaccinated Americans continue to wear masks in public, though it says they can have maskless indoor visits with other vaccinated people and with unvaccinated people from a single household who are at low risk for severe COVID disease.

Excerpt from:
Dr. Fauci clashes with Senator Rand Paul about wearing masks ...

On Day One of his new administration, President Joe BidenJoe BidenSupreme Court will hear Boston bomber's death case if the Biden administration lets it The Hill's Morning Report - Biden tasks Harris on border; news conference today Democrats face questions over agenda MORE fired Peter Robb, who had until then been serving as general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board. Robb, who was appointed by President Donald TrumpDonald TrumpThe Hill's Morning Report - Biden tasks Harris on border; news conference today Democrats face questions over agenda Democrats divided on gun control strategy MORE, still had ten months remaining in his statutory term of four years.

Robbs early firing was unprecedented. Although one general counsel resigned under presidential pressure in 1950, none had previously been fired before the end of their terms. Bidens choice to remove Robb early immediately raised hackles among Republicans, who argued it will set a disturbing precedent for politicizing the general counsels office.

But some Republicans have gone even further in their criticism. Sen. Rand PaulRandal (Rand) Howard PaulOvernight Energy: Senate confirms David Turk as deputy Energy secretary | 14 states sue Biden administration over leasing pause for public lands drilling | Regulator knocks Texas for failing to winterize power equipment Senate confirms David Turk as deputy Energy secretary Remembering Ted Kennedy highlights decline of the Senate MORE, joined by three other Republican senators, sent a letter to the Biden administration arguing that Robbs firing was not just unwise but illegal.

Setting aside the debate over the political wisdom of Bidens aggressive move, his administration has the better argumenton the law. The plain text of the NLRBs governing statute allows the president to fire the general counsel at any time, for any reason.

When Congress wants to protect an officer from being fired at will, it knows how to do so. The standard language is well-known; indeed, Congress used it elsewhere in the very same statute that created the modern NLRB general counsel. That statute, the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, drew a sharp line of distinction between the general counsel and the five members of the Board itself.

A Board member may be removed by the President, upon notice and hearing, for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office, but for no other cause. By contrast, the Act gives no similar tenure protection to the general counsel. It simply states that the GC shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, for a term of four years.

This variation is telling. The Supreme Court has explained that when Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.

Further, the four-year term of the GC does not itself imply tenure protection. Long-standing Supreme Court precedent, predating the drafting of Taft-Hartley, had already settled that merely providing a particular term length does not insulate an officer from removal before the end of that term. In the 1897 case Parsons v. United States, the Supreme Court interpreted a similar statute establishing that district attorneys shall be appointed for a term of four years The Court held that this language did not prevent the president from removing a district attorney early. Instead, it simply meant that district attorneys could not remain in office longer than that period without being reappointed.

Pauls letter nonetheless argues that a restriction on removing the GC is implied in the statute even though it is not stated explicitly. Paul points to the 1958 Supreme Court case Wiener v. United States, which found an implied protection from at-will removal in the statute establishing the post-World War II era War Claims Commission.

But as the court put it in Wiener, the most reliable factor for drawing an inference regarding the Presidents power of removal for a particular officer is the nature of the function that Congress vested in that officer. The Court noted that the War Claims Commission was established as an adjudicating body and that its decisions were intended to be based only on legal arguments, not political considerations. The quasi-judicial nature of the Commission persuaded the court that some form of tenure protection must have been intended. As the Office of Legal Counsel has explained, Wieners theory of implied removal protection is limited to officials whose primary duties involve the adjudication of disputes involving private persons.

Wiener is thus an inapt precedent because it dealt with officers much more analogous to the members of the Board itself, not the general counsel. The Board, not the GC, is the quasi-judicial arm of the NLRB. As the Supreme Court summed up in a 1987 case, the words, structure, and history of the [Taft-Hartley Act] clearly reveal that Congress intended to differentiate between the General Counsels and the Boards final authority along a prosecutorial versus adjudicatory line. The general counsels prosecutorial functions are far more akin to a district attorney than to a war claims adjudicator, and thus Parsons, not Wiener, is the more on-point precedent.

As the DC Circuit has recounted, it is a general and long-standing rule established by a several Supreme Court precedents that in the face of statutory silence, the power of removal presumptively is incident to the power of appointment. Nothing in the NLRBs governing statute overcomes that presumption. The president has the power to appoint the general counsel, and for that reason he also has the power to fire him.

Thomas Berry is a research fellow in the Cato Institutes Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies and managing editor of the Cato Supreme Court Review.

Here is the original post:
Rand Paul is wrong Biden can fire the NLRB's general counsel | TheHill - The Hill