Mediaboss Marketing

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., addressed the importance of finding out who is leaking information out of Washington.

"A lot of leaks are coming out of the intelligence community and not all are benign," Paul said Friday on Fox News' "America's Newsroom."

The senator noted that giving information to others so they can leak is still a crime. "That's still leaking and it is still a crime if it were private conversations of individuals. I'm not saying [fired FBI Director James]Comey did that, but we do need to get to the bottom of who is the leak and who are the leaks in the intelligence community."

Paul said he believed Comey's Thursday testimony vindicated President Donald Trump. "Comey confirmed the president was never under investigation. Three times he told the president that. I guess I think it's understandable to me why thepresident would be a little bit put out with Comey and say to Comey, 'good grief, if you're telling me I'm not under investigation, why don't you tell the American people?'

"This cloud of an investigation is really damaging," he said.

The president said that the issues are distracting from the president's work to bring back jobs. "We need not to be too distracted by crazy allegations that, in the end, turn out to be really without substance," Paul said.

2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read more:
Sen. Rand Paul: Finding Washington Leaker Is Vital - Newsmax

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., addressed the importance of finding out who is leaking information out of Washington.

"A lot of leaks are coming out of the intelligence community and not all are benign," Paul said Friday on Fox News' "America's Newsroom."

The senator noted that giving information to others so they can leak is still a crime. "That's still leaking and it is still a crime if it were private conversations of individuals. I'm not saying [fired FBI Director James]Comey did that, but we do need to get to the bottom of who is the leak and who are the leaks in the intelligence community."

Paul said he believed Comey's Thursday testimony vindicated President Donald Trump. "Comey confirmed the president was never under investigation. Three times he told the president that. I guess I think it's understandable to me why thepresident would be a little bit put out with Comey and say to Comey, 'good grief, if you're telling me I'm not under investigation, why don't you tell the American people?'

"This cloud of an investigation is really damaging," he said.

The president said that the issues are distracting from the president's work to bring back jobs. "We need not to be too distracted by crazy allegations that, in the end, turn out to be really without substance," Paul said.

2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read more here:
Sen. Rand Paul: Finding Washington Leaker Is Vital - Newsmax.com - Newsmax

LISTEN TO TLRS LATEST PODCAST:

By: Elias Atienza

Its hard to imagine a man who manages to stay true to his convictions on anything this day, especially in politics. Trump is the prime example today, just because hes President and in the most high-profile office in the world. But Obama, Clinton, and others before them have also modified or completely changed their positions. Sometimes its based on a genuine reflection or change of heart, but most of the time it is political maneuvering or to take advantage of the current political situation.

Rand Paul, despite Trumps election, has stayed true to most of his convictions. And on top of that, he has the ability to both support Trump when he does something good and to oppose him when he does something wrong. Its a hard concept for most people to grasp, that you dont have to oppose or support everything one person does because they have a D or R next to their name.

Hes currently battling the Trump administration on criminal justice, specifically Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Sessions has reversed many of the Obama-era criminal justice reform decisions and instructing prosecutors to look for the maximum sentencing under federal law, including non-violent drug charges. Sessions has also been vague on police militarization, when he said that he wanted to help police in their effectiveness.

We need, so far as we can, in my view, help police departments get better, not diminish their effectiveness, he said in his first speech as attorney general.

Paul has lead the charge to put these reforms into law, working across the aisle with Democrats such such Cory Booker in order to rehaul the criminal justice system such as the REDEEM Act. In addition to this, hes introduced legislation with Patrick Leahy to combat mandatory minimum sentencing. Hes been a man of his word on criminal justice reform and stuck up for former President Obama on the issue as well.

But one of his most pressing issues recently has been indefinite detention and he introduced legislation titled the Sixth Amendment Preservation Act. In a summary acquired byReason.com:

Section 1021 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act unconstitutionally declares that the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force allows our Armed Forces to indefinitely detain citizens, legal residents, and foreign nationals who are alleged to have engaged in hostilities against the United States. This means U.S. citizens apprehended withintheboundariesoftheU.S. could be held indefinitely without trial.

The Sixth Amendment Preservation Act repeals section 1021 making it clear that no military force resolution can legalize indefinite detention without a trial and seeks to restore our constitutional commitment to individual liberty.

You never know who could be in the White House, Paul said on Thursday in an interview with a handful of libertarian reporters from RareandReason. Could someone be there that would actually take away all of our rights and begin arresting us for who we are, what we are, what we think, what we read? And so I consider this to be one of the most important pieces of legislation that well put forward.

So another hurrah for the Senator. Though his vote for Sessions left a sour taste in several civil libertarian mouths, was there really a chance Trump would choose someone that wasnt Sessions? At least Paul has the ability to criticize Sessions and not tow the party line.

Theres very little that this Department of Justice is doing in favor of criminal justice or towards civil liberties, Paul said.

On another note, he has been remarkably consistent on foreign policy. While Trump has rocked back and forth, such as bombing Syrian forces back in April and making an arms deal with Saudi Arabia, hes at least been sort of consistent on NATO. While previous presidents have asked NATO countries raise their defense spending, Trump is the first to consistently make a theme. And Paul has also been in support of Trump on NATO except on one occasion, when it came to Montenegro.

Paul has also raised concerns about the Saudi arms deal and is planning to block it. Hes been consistent in his opposition to arming Saudi Arabia and other authoritarian states and extremist rebel groups. His primary resistance to arming Saudi Arabia is the fact that Saudi Arabia is currently undergoing a campaign against Yemen, where they have killed thousands of civilians. Arming Saudi Arabia gives them more weapons to wage war as Paul said in a statement.

I think, if you were to ask the general public, should we be at war in Yemen or supporting war in Yemen, I think most people would say, where? Paul said. I think there should be a valid debate on it.

In a world that is Washington D.C, Rand Paul has proved to be more flexible than his father. But in important issues such as criminal justice, the Constitution, and (most of the time) foreign policy, Paul has stuck to his guns. Lets just hope that he continues to do so and doesnt bend.

Principles must be made of steel. Flexible if needed, but unbreakable.

ClintonDonald TrumpJeff SessionslibertarianismObamarand paulSaudi Arabia

Originally posted here:
Rand Paul Stays True to His Principles on the Constitution and Foreign Policy - The Libertarian Republic

When Rand Paul dropped out of the presidential race in February 2016, the self-described "libertarianish" senator from Kentucky vowed: "I will continue to fight for criminal justice reform, for privacy, and your Fourth Amendment rights. I will continue to champion due process over indefinite detention." On Thursday, amid the hullaballoo of former FBI director James Comey's dramatic testimony on Capitol Hill, Paul brought a handful of libertarian reporters inside his Senate office to discuss his recent work on these projects.

Front and center is a new piece of legislation, introduced this week, to once and for all ban indefinite detention. With the working title of "The Sixth Amendment Preservation Act," Paul's bill "prevents any future military force authorization from being used to justify indefinite detention without trial," according to a summary prepared by his office. More from that:

Section 1021 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act unconstitutionally declares that the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force allows our Armed Forces to indefinitely detain citizens, legal residents, and foreign nationals who are alleged to have engaged in hostilities against the United States. This means U.S. citizens apprehended within the boundaries of the U.S. could be held indefinitely without trial.

The Sixth Amendment Preservation Act repeals section 1021 making it clear that no military force resolution can legalize indefinite detention without a trial and seeks to restore our constitutional commitment to individual liberty.

Emphasis in original. "You never know who could be in the White House," Paul explained Thursday. "Could someone be there that would actually take away all of our rights and begin arresting us for who we are, what we are, what we think, what we read? And so I consider this to be one of the most important pieces of legislation that we'll put forward."

Also covered in the discussion: the senator's efforts to vote down the recent blockbuster arms sale to Saudi Arabia ("winning a battle like this would send a huge message out there"), the Trump administration's tough-on-crime posture ("I think there's very little of this attorney general, this Department of Justice, doing anything favorable towards criminal justice or towards civil liberties"), criticism of Paul's vote to confirm Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and his reaction to the Comey hearing, which we teased out yesterday.

Produced and edited by Todd Krainin. Cameras by Krainin and Mark McDaniel.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

Read the original post:
Rand Paul on Blocking Indefinite Detention and Saudi Arms Sales ... - Reason

Sometimes it seems we take action in foreign policy without fully understanding the consequences. From the Iraq War, to arming Syrian rebels, this has been shown over and over again.

Recently, the U.S. Senate considered new sanctions against Iran regarding ballistic missiles and the funding of terrorism. These are important matters, and we should discuss them. Iran is certainly part of this problem. But we should also discuss the larger picture. We are currently in the middle of an agreement regarding nuclear power and proliferation with Iran that, so far, both sides say has been kept. The issues in the sanctions bill are not subject to that agreement. So unilateral action outside the current agreement, even for legitimate purposes, must be carefully weighed. What does this action do to the prospects of ensuring compliance with the agreement?

It has been said in the debate so far that we do not care what Tehran thinks, or if they think this is an abrogation of the nuclear agreement. Well, lets consider that statement. If we do not care what they think, why are we trying to influence their behavior? What are sanctions if not a hope to change their way of thinking?

If they react in one way by saying, We are going to get out of the nuclear agreement, that would be a pretty important and dramatic step. I am not saying they will. They might, though, and we ought to have at least thought through that scenario and understand that, while we will not condone or acquiesce to their opinion, we do care about it because that is what we are trying to change. We are trying to change their attitude toward continued expansion of their ballistic missile program.

As I read through these new Iran sanctions, there are several areas that strike me as curious. I find it intriguing that every one of these areas could equally apply to Saudi Arabia. As we look at the ballistic missile section, we recall that Saudi Arabia also has ballistic missiles, the Dong Feng-3s and -21s. Where are they pointed? Tel Aviv and Tehran.

Our CIA inspected the DF-21s and said they are not currently nuclear capable. But are they convertible? Are they nuclear capable? Yeah, they are nuclear capable, and they are pointed at Israel and Iran.

So, if we want to influence the behavior of Iran, we would have to understand that, while we do not have to agree with it, we do have to care about what they think, and we must consider if these sanctions will have an effect.

The sanctions unilateral nature renders them unlikely to succeed. Iran has already stated they will not stop their ballistic missile program. While we think the whole world sees everything through our lens, I think Iran sees what their neighbors, especially Saudi Arabia, think and do as much more important than what we do or what our sanctions say, frankly.

If the whole world invoked these sanctions, they might be effective, as worldwide sanctions did influence their behaviorthat and the carrot of giving them back some of their money. But I do not think these unilateral sanctions will have any effect.

If you really want to get rid of their ballistic-missile program, we should look at who else in the region they perceive as a threat. I do not think they really perceive us as a threat. We have thousands of ballistic missiles, yes, but I think they are primarily concerned with Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf sheikhdoms, who already have hundreds of missiles. They also see Israels nuclear weapons as a threat.

So, if you wanted to influence the behavior of Iran, you might consider sanctioning Saudi Arabia in equal fashion. Let us have sanctions on both countries regarding ballistic missiles, and let us say we will remove them when they come to the table to discuss reducing their armaments. Another way of doing it would be to withhold the $350 billion worth of new weapons and missiles to Saudi Arabia until both sides come together to discuss an arms control treaty. Perhaps you could say we are going to withhold that offer until Saudi Arabia agrees to negotiate with Iran.

It is my belief that Iran will never quit developing ballistic missiles unless there is an agreement with Saudi Arabia and/or the rest of the Gulf kingdoms to do the same. And so I think new sanctions are a fools errand, and they will not work.

New sanctions may even have a counterproductive effect if Iran decides they somehow abrogate the nuclear agreement. If Iran pulls out of the agreement, I think we will really regret hastily adding new sanctions.

The second area of the sanctions that struck me regards terrorism. It seems to me this section might equally apply to Saudi Arabia. In assessing Saudi Arabias connection to terrorism, I am reminded of two comments. First is the Hillary Clinton email to John Podesta, where she says, We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.

Visit link:
Rand Paul: Think Twice Before Sanctioning Iran - The National Interest Online