Archive for the ‘Rand Paul’ Category

Sen. Rand Paul: Congress Has Abdicated Role In War

Fire Weather Warningissued June 9 at 9:00AM MDT expiring June 10 at 7:00PM MDT in effect for: Arapahoe, Clear Creek, Douglas, Elbert, Gilpin, Grand, Jackson, Jefferson, Lincoln, Park, Summit

Fire Weather Warningissued June 9 at 4:36AM MDT expiring June 9 at 8:45PM MDT in effect for: Alamosa, Conejos, Costilla, Rio Grande, Saguache

Fire Weather Warningissued June 9 at 4:36AM MDT expiring June 10 at 10:00PM MDT in effect for: Alamosa, Archuleta, Bent, Chaffee, Conejos, Costilla, Crowley, Custer, El Paso, Fremont, Hinsdale, Huerfano, Kiowa, Lake, Las Animas, Mineral, Otero, Prowers, Pueblo, Rio Grande, Saguache, Teller

Fire Weather Warningissued June 9 at 4:36AM MDT expiring June 10 at 10:00PM MDT in effect for: Alamosa, Conejos, Costilla, Rio Grande, Saguache

Fire Weather Warningissued June 9 at 11:22AM MDT expiring June 10 at 10:00PM MDT in effect for: Archuleta, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Montezuma, San Juan

Fire Weather Warningissued June 9 at 2:45PM MDT expiring June 10 at 10:00PM MDT in effect for: Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin

Fire Weather Warningissued June 9 at 2:45PM MDT expiring June 10 at 10:00PM MDT in effect for: Delta, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Montrose, Ouray, San Miguel

Fire Weather Warningissued June 9 at 11:22AM MDT expiring June 9 at 9:00PM MDT in effect for: Delta, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Montrose, Ouray, San Miguel

Fire Weather Warningissued June 9 at 11:22AM MDT expiring June 9 at 9:00PM MDT in effect for: Archuleta, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Montezuma, San Juan

Fire Weather Warningissued June 9 at 11:22AM MDT expiring June 9 at 9:00PM MDT in effect for: Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin

Dense Smoke Advisoryissued June 9 at 2:43PM MDT expiring June 10 at 10:00AM MDT in effect for: Archuleta, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Montezuma, San Juan, San Miguel

Fire Weather Warningissued June 9 at 3:42AM MDT expiring June 9 at 9:00PM MDT in effect for: Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin

Fire Weather Watchissued June 8 at 11:43PM MDT expiring June 10 at 10:00PM MDT in effect for: Alamosa, Archuleta, Bent, Chaffee, Conejos, Costilla, Crowley, Custer, El Paso, Fremont, Hinsdale, Huerfano, Kiowa, Lake, Las Animas, Mineral, Otero, Prowers, Pueblo, Rio Grande, Saguache, Teller

Fire Weather Watchissued June 8 at 9:32PM MDT expiring June 10 at 7:00PM MDT in effect for: Arapahoe, Clear Creek, Douglas, Elbert, Gilpin, Jefferson, Lincoln, Park

Fire Weather Watchissued June 8 at 9:32PM MDT expiring June 10 at 7:00PM MDT in effect for: Grand, Jackson, Summit

Fire Weather Watchissued June 8 at 4:34PM MDT expiring June 10 at 7:00PM MDT in effect for: Arapahoe, Clear Creek, Douglas, Elbert, Gilpin, Jefferson, Lincoln, Park

Fire Weather Watchissued June 8 at 4:20AM MDT expiring June 10 at 10:00PM MDT in effect for: Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin

Fire Weather Watchissued June 8 at 4:20AM MDT expiring June 10 at 10:00PM MDT in effect for: Archuleta, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Montezuma, San Juan

Fire Weather Watchissued June 7 at 11:26PM MDT expiring June 9 at 9:00PM MDT in effect for: Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin

Read more:
Sen. Rand Paul: Congress Has Abdicated Role In War

Rand Paul: Peter Strzok and Lisa Page still have Top …

The FBI didnt directly confirm that for him but it acknowledged in a letter that all agents retain Top Secret clearance. And since theres been no word that either Strzok or Page have been fired

This is canny packaging by Paul of one of his pet issues. Hes been pushing for months for reforms to FISAs Section 702 to require a new warrant whenever U.S. intelligence wants to search a database containing information on American citizens thats been incidentally collected in foreign surveillance. The politics of mass surveillance are rarely galvanizing to either the left or right, though. And despite his endless criticism of the FBI and the deep state, Trump isnt the sort to relinquish a law-enforcement tool that might be useful in sniffing out terrorist plots. Pauls dilemma, then, is how to tilt the average voter and the president towards the side of libertarianism.

The answer is to steer away from abstract arguments and give them a vivid, concrete example: Do you want Peter Strzok or Lisa Page running rogue database queries about Trump and his associates? If he frames this in terms of the Fourth Amendment or liberty, people will zone out. If he frames it in terms of Trump haters harassing the president, now hes cooking. The tweet above, in fact, seems phrased to appeal squarely to Trump himself. If you want get the Republican Party excited about civil liberties, you need to get the man who owns the party excited about it. And nothing gets through to him quite like warning him how he, personally, might be getting taken advantage of.

Other civil libertarians were unimpressed with Pauls nakedly partisan framing:

You cant style yourself a champion of the First Amendment & then demand federal employees be stripped of clearance unless theyre personally pro-Trump, Sanchez added. Maybe, but its a nifty way to try to get Trumps attention. Another nifty way is to go on Fox News and make your pitch to him through the TV screen. So thats what Rand did. Watch him below on Harris Faulkners show earlier this afternoon.

Two points, though. First, read the short letter above that he received from the FBI and youll see that it doesnt say what privileges, specifically, Strzok and Page currently have to search databases. Every agent has a Top Secret clearance but not every agent may be able to access the same information at will. After Bob Mueller found out about Strzoks anti-Trump texts with Page, he was reassigned from the Russiagate probe to human resources. What does he get to see there? Pauls broader point about warrantless surveillance still stands but its hard to know what data Strzok and Page specifically are able to view right now.

As for their employment, I *assume* the coming report from the DOJs Inspector General will address Strzok and Page just as it addresses the Andrew McCabe saga. It was the IG who referred McCabes lack of candor to the FBIs Office of Professional Responsibility, which recommended he be fired, so hes already proved that hes willing to usher bad actors towards the exit if the evidence suggests wrongdoing. It was also the IG who uncovered the now famous Strzok and Page texts, so theyre on his radar. If Strzok and Page committed firing offenses, presumably thatll be detailed in the report and Chris Wray and Jeff Sessions will act appropriately. They may be waiting for that report to issue before acting for legal reasons, in fact, so as not to be accused of having terminated Strzok and Page without cause. But theres also a chance that the IG wont recommend termination: Maybe theyll be reprimanded for shaking the publics faith in the FBI via their political texts about Trump but the evidence wont turn up any actual behavior on their part to try to sabotage Trumps campaign or presidency. Why not wait for the IG report? Its coming. In theory.

See the original post:
Rand Paul: Peter Strzok and Lisa Page still have Top ...

Rand Paul on budget: ‘A rotten, terrible’ way to govern …

With Congress teetering on the brink of its third government shutdown in three months, Sen. Rand Paul still hasn't seen the details of a new budget bill that's likely to be 1,000 pages long and he's not pleased.

That matters because it was Paul, R-Ky., who last month single-handedly prevented Congress from speedily moving ahead on a sweeping budget deal, triggering a short government shutdown as he protested his own Republican partys deficit spending.

This time, Paul hasn't yet decided on whether he'll seek to slow the measure, but he's clearly unhappy with the closed door talks, telling McClatchy in an interview this is a "rotten, terrible, no good way to run your government."

In two conversations with McClatchy, Paul said he'd make up his mind after he sees the $1.3 trillion spending plan, which Republican leaders had hoped to produce last week but were working round the clock with Democrats to finish Wednesday. Details are expected to be finalized later in the day.

"You have to know what's in it," Paul said. "Really, should we be looking at 1,000 page bills with 24 hours to decide what's in them? It's really not a good way to run your government."

Paul infuriated fellow Republicans last month when he took to the Senate floor to decry a spending bill. He told McClatchy this time he's still incensed by his party's willingness to bust spending caps.

"That's why I gave them a piece of my mind the last time around. I'm upset that we're spending like every Democrat that we criticized," Paul said. "I ran for office because I thought the Obama spending and trillion dollar annual deficits were a real problem for our country and now Republicans are doing the same thing.

So I'm giving them the same grief I gave Obama."

Republican lawmakers assailed Paul last month for his decision to push the vote into the early morning hours to protest what he said was excess spending, with Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, calling it grossly irresponsible. But Paul said this week that hes not faced any pressure so far this time.

Senate and House leadership said they remained optimistic about reaching a deal before government funding is due to expire Friday. The House could vote as soon as Thursday, and the Senate could follow Friday.

It only takes a single senator, though, to hold up Senate proceedings.

As for a potential blockade by Paul, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., shrugged his shoulders: Sen. Paul, well he's Sen. Paul.

Link:
Rand Paul on budget: 'A rotten, terrible' way to govern ...

Rand Paul, king of Senate drama, is at it again – politico.com

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell didnt go into detail but acknowledged the difficult path he took to getting the spending bill across the finish line. | J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo

The Senate majority leader secured passage of a massive omnibus spending package after convincing Sens. Rand Paul and Jim Risch to drop their procedural objections.

By BURGESS EVERETT

03/22/2018 03:56 PM EDT

Updated 03/23/2018 01:13 AM EDT

First there were Rand Pauls objections. Then Jim Rischs. But finally at 12:39 a.m. on Friday, the Senate passed a bill funding the government through September and went home after a chaotic 12 hours of drama.

The chamber voted 65-32 to pass the $1.3 trillion spending package and send it to President Donald Trump. But it was a tricky road to avoid a government shutdown, requiring Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to privately telephone Paul and let him vent about the Senate rules, then satisfy Rischs objections to a wilderness area being named after a dead Idaho governor.

Story Continued Below

This is ridiculous. This is juvenile, fumed Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who asked McConnell for an explanation of why the chamber was in at midnight. What has occurred over the last 11 hours that keeps us here voting on a bill that we all know is going to pass?

McConnell didnt go into detail but acknowledged the difficult path he took to getting the spending bill across the finish line.

My principal responsibility is begging, pleading and cajoling. I have been in continuous discussions, shall I say, with several of our members who were legitimately unhappy, McConnell said.

Thats putting it mildly.

Paul kept everyone in suspense that he might shut the government down again but he backed off late Thursday night after a private conversation with McConnell. The junior GOP senator from Kentucky spent the day refusing to rule out forcing another brief government shutdown in opposition to a return to Obama spending and trillion-dollar deficits.

But after a call with McConnell around 10 p.m., Paul said he would let the bill go through, a show of pragmatism that was not on display last month when Paul caused an hours-long lapse in government funding.

"It's never really been about how long we stay here. But it is to a certain extent, when you lose, trying to draw attention to your cause," Paul told reporters as the clock neared midnight. "We look for victories any way we can, knowing that we don't have the votes to win."

A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Paul said he pressed McConnell on allowing more amendments and debate in the Senate, as the spending bill was written by congressional leaders in private. Paul said he had got some sort of "commitment" to open things up but was vague on what McConnell had promised.

"There are never any amendments on anything, and it's very closed process. The bills are developed behind closed doors with very little input from rank and file. So I think I got that message across," Paul said. "I hope it will be better."

But once Paul was taken care of, the ornery Risch was next. The Idaho Republican protested moving forward on the bill because it renamed an Idaho park after Cecil D. Andrus, a former Democratic governor and sometime political foe, who died last year, according to sources familiar with the matter.

Risch was under the impression that the renaming would not be in the bill, according to a GOP senator. But Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) helped direct the renaming of the White Clouds Wilderness in the omnibus, and Risch was furious to read the bill and find it in there. McConnell and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) met with Risch privately about the matter to try to calm him.

The Senate approved a technical change to the bill striking the renaming, but Simpson is insisting the provision stay in the bill, senators said. Risch refused to speak about it.

I dont have any comment, he told reporters.

Still, Risch's complaints were overshadowed most of Thursday by Paul, whom fellow senators were trying desperately to persuade to not cause another shutdown.

Paul was noncommittal on Thursday as he walked into a Republican Caucus lunch. He said he had more than 2,000 pages of the 2,200-page bill left to get through before he would decide how to proceed. A few hours later, he tweeted that he was on page 207 of the monstrous bill and began singling out pieces of the bill for criticism, stopping at 600 pages before going on Fox News at 8:30 p.m., where he continued to trash the bill and play coy about his intentions.

Republicans had hoped that they could produce the spending deal much earlier this week to evade Paul's procedural protests and give the Senate time to pass the bill without the possibility of a shutdown.

But top congressional leaders released the bill at 8 p.m. on Wednesday, infuriating Paul and other conservatives who say that did not leave nearly enough time to review the legislation.

The will-he-or-wont-he cause a momentary shutdown was a familiar play from Paul. He loves using Senate rules to draw attention to his causes even if it means agitating the people he goes to work with everyday. He has filibustered nominees, briefly caused a surveillance program to lapse and, in February, refused to give GOP leaders consent to vote on a funding bill before the funding deadline, causing a brief shutdown.

There was no concerted effort at the Republican lunch Thursday to persuade Paul to back down, attendees said. But GOP leaders and individual senators tried to prevail on Paul to play nice.

Its fair to say that its fine to make a statement, said Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.), who dislikes the spending increases in the bill but was eager to vote on it. Theres no benefit to waiting at this point. We should go ahead and get it done.

And the massive bills late unveiling contributed to the impasse with Risch, who was surprised to find Andrus' name in the spending bill.

Senators werent even quite sure if Risch was satisfied or what had been done to accommodate him. A source familiar with the matter said the renaming of the wilderness area after Andrus is unlikely to become law unless the House approves a technical change.

Both Risch and Paul were empowered by Senate rules, which required all 100 senators to agree hold a vote before the Friday night shutdown deadline. The House cleared the massive spending measure on Thursday.

The must-pass nature of the spending bill also contributed to the late-night fights.

This is a ridiculous process that we go through where people extort us until we get so tired that were willing to do whatever it is they wish for us to do, Corker said.

Beyond simply annoying other senators, the protests threatened to disrupt trips some of them are planning to take overseas as part of congressional delegations. There were multiple so-called CODELs scheduled to leave on Thursday night, and they made contingency plans as it became clear Thursday would be a late night, according to a Republican senator.

But GOP leaders believed all along that the looming recess and the certainty that the bill will pass, just a matter of when would be enough to get Paul not to gum up the works again and keep the Senate from a third shutdown this year. It took a a few painful hours to get there, but they ended up being right.

There are some unhappy folks, understandably. And they should be, the way this stuff gets done, said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.). But in the end you realize weve got to fund the government and its kind of an inevitability.

Sarah Ferris contributed to this report.

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

See the original post here:
Rand Paul, king of Senate drama, is at it again - politico.com

Transcript: Sen. Rand Paul on "Face the Nation," Feb. 11 …

The two-year budget deal that brought a brief government shutdown to an end on Friday balloons the deficit by allowing large increases in defense spending and disaster relief programs. The deal was held up in the Senate by Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, who objected to the hikes in defense spending and its effects on the deficit. Paul delayed a vote in the Senate by holding forth on the floor until his time expired.

Paul joined us to discuss the budget deal, military spending and what he calls Republicans' "hypocrisy" on government spending.

The following is a transcript of the interview with Paul that aired Sunday, Feb. 11, 2018, on "Face the Nation."

MAJOR GARRETT: We go now to Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul whose objection to this week's funding agreement touched off an ever so brief government shutdown. Senator Paul joins us from Palm Beach Florida. Senator, what did you accomplish?

SENATOR RAND PAUL: Well you know I think we should draw attention to the fact that we're spending so much money. I ran for office in 2010 with what was called sort of the Tea Party tidal wave. At that point we were very, very critical of President Obama's deficits you know approaching a trillion dollars in a year. We talked endlessly about them we had 100,000 people rally on the Mall in Washington. And I'm still against deficit spending just because Republicans are doing it doesn't make it any better.

MAJOR GARRETT: And now we have deficits projected to be a trillion dollars again and yet they're growing non-recessionary economy or are you troubled by that?

SENATOR RAND PAUL: Yeah, I'm very worried and I think one of the questions the Republicans I think are not willing to ask themselves is can you be fiscally conservative and be for unlimited military spending. There's sort of this question, "Is the military budget too small or maybe is our mission too large around the world?" And because Republicans are unwilling to confront that they want more, more, more for military spending. And so to get that they have to give the Democrats what they want which is more and more and more for domestic spending and the compromise while some are happy with bipartisanship. Well if the bipartisanship is exploding the deficit I'm not so sure that's the kind of bipartisanship we need.

MAJOR GARRETT: From your point of view, Senator, on the defense side of the equation is the spending and the mission, are they reckless?

SENATOR RAND PAUL: I think the mission is- is beyond what we need to be we're actively in war in about seven countries. And yet the Congress hasn't voted on declaring or authorizing the use of military force in over 15 years now. So I've been one that's been bugging the Senate and Congress to say how can we be at war without ever voting on it don't the American people through their representatives get a chance to say when we go to war. I think the Afghan war is long past its mission. I think we killed and captured and disrupted the people who attacked us on 9/11 long ago. And I think now it's a nation building exercise. We're spending 50 billion dollars a year. And if the president really is serious about infrastructure, a lot of that money could be spent at home. Instead of building bridges and schools and roads in Afghanistan or in Pakistan. I think we could do that at home and the interesting thing is I think the president's instincts lean that way but --

(CROSSTALK)

MAJOR GARRETT: His policies, his policies, have not though.

SENATOR RAND PAUL: And that's sort of the problem and this is something that we've seen even going back to Reagan conservatives said, "Oh, we love Reagan." Then the people appointed around him were often big government types. That's a little bit of the problem I see here is that I think Donald Trump is probably the least interventionist minded president we've had in a long time. I mean he criticized George Bush for the intervention in the Iraq war. I think he's not that excited about continuing the Afghan war forever. But the generals who surrounded him with don't want to admit that there isn't a military solution. And so the war goes on and on and on. And really I think after 15 years and a trillion dollars that the Afghan it's time for them to take over their country.

MAJOR GARRETT: Senator Paul you and I have talked about this many times you know the instincts in Washington are to spend. You know that's what's going to happen and yet you voted for the tax cut which is contributing to these deficit and debt problems. How do you reconcile those two facts?

SENATOR RAND PAUL: I think if you're for tax cuts and for increasing spending that's hypocritical. But if you're for tax cuts and you're also for cutting spending a corresponding amount. See I would offset the tax cuts with spending cuts and there are a few of us that would actually do that. When we had the budget deal that lowered the taxes I also had an amendment to look at and try to control entitlement spending at the same time to pay for the tax cuts. But interestingly I could only interest three other Republicans. We had four votes total to try to control entitlement spending and that is where the money is.

MAJOR GARRETT: And that's sort of the way, Senator, because you know where the votes are. You know the votes are there for tax cuts. You know they're not there for spending cuts. So, isn't there any part of your voting pattern that is irresponsible?

SENATOR RAND PAUL: I don't think so because you know I can only control how I vote. So I voted for the tax cuts and I voted for spending cuts. The people who voted for tax cuts and spending increases. I think there is some hypocrisy there and it shows they're not serious about the debt. But all throughout my career I've always voted for spending cuts and I'm happy to offset cuts in taxes with cuts in spending. So no I think that I've had a consistent position in being very concerned about the debt and I want to shrink the size of government. So, the reason I'm for tax cuts is I to return more of the money to the people who own that who- who actually deserve to have their money returned to them. But it also shrinks the size of government by cutting taxes or should if you cut spending at the same time.

MAJOR GARRETT: Senator Paul I don't need to tell you this was a rough week in terms of White House personnel. Do you think the president was well served this past week by his chief of staff John Kelly?

SENATOR RAND PAUL: You know I don't know the ins and outs of who hires and fires and who goes through personnel files, but you know all I can say is from looking from the outside in and not really knowing all the facts that obviously domestic violence should be roundly condemned particularly in an advanced world like ours that just something that we shouldn't countenance.

MAJOR GARRETT: Is that a message you think this White House has communicated clearly?

SENATOR RAND PAUL: You know I don't know. I just don't know the ins and outs and I was kind of distracted for about you know 24 hours of that news cycle you know talking for long periods of time about the deficit. And so-- and it's hard for me and I know the media gets consumed with this, you know. But it is sort of a personnel thing that those of us on the outside don't know the ins and outs and I nobody wants to speculate on it.

MAJOR GARRETT: Sure.

SENATOR RAND PAUL: But I think really that we should all roundly condemn domestic violence and--

MAJOR GARRETT: Well, look--

(CROSSTALK)

SENATOR RAND PAUL: -- complicated matters that really they have to deal with because they know all the facts and we don't.

MAJOR GARRETT: Sure. But setting aside the ins and outs. The president said on Twitter due process, lives are being ruined. The vice president said no tolerance. Can you reconcile those two. And if somebody in Kentucky asked you, "Senator, what's their position on this?" Could you explain it to them?

SENATOR RAND PAUL: Right.You know it's difficult for me to get involved and there's other than to say that absolutely no place for domestic violence in our world. And then beyond that I will say that there is complicated things and somebody has to. I mean if you've ever been to family court with he said and she said and I'm not saying that I'm denying what these women are saying. I'm just saying that these things are very, very complicated. You go to family court and you're a family court judge you talk about a very, very difficult job. But that being said I don't want to think-- I don't want anybody to believe I'm making excuses. There is no excuse for domestic violence.

MAJOR GARRETT: Senator Paul, thank you so much for joining us this Sunday. And we'll be back in one minute with the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff. Please, stay with us.

Read more:
Transcript: Sen. Rand Paul on "Face the Nation," Feb. 11 ...