Mediaboss Marketing

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and former CIA agent Phil Mudd (Photo: Screen captures)

Former CIA-agent-turn-CNN-commentator Phil Mudd railed against Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) after the senator claimed he didnt know whether or not he was personally being surveilled by U.S. intelligence.

You heard Rand Paul just say to me a while ago here in The Situation Room that hes not ruling out the possibility that the U.S. intelligence community is spying on him and the president, host Wolf Blitzer said.

Rand Paul doesnt know what hes talking about, Mudd said simply. What hes referencing is intercepts of foreign officials where they may talk to Rand Paul. Foreign official one, the Russian ambassador talked to a U.S. person. That U.S. person might be Rand Paul. Heres my question back, happy to debate him any day, number one: do you think we should intercept the Russian ambassador? Number two: if the Russian ambassador talks to a U.S. official, should that be disseminated if that U.S. persons name is obscured? If the answer is no, my question is, what does intelligence do? He doesnt know what hes talking about.

When it came to Trumps afternoon tweets, Mudd wondered what Trump was even talking about when he claimed he doesnt know if there are or are not tapes.

This is the residence he lives in! Mudd exclaimed. He doesnt know if there are tapes? Let me ask the question: who runs the Defense Department, the CIA, National Security Agency and the Homeland Security Department? These are people typically nominated by him. Heres the question: if you think that there is some sort of surveillance in the White House, who exactly is doing this surveillance? I dont appreciate that the presidents playing us for fools. Whos doing this?

Watch the full discussion below:

Former CIA Agent Phil Mudd says Rand Paul doesn by sarahburris

See the article here:
Ex-CIA agent calls BS on Rand Paul surveillance claim: 'He doesn't ... - Raw Story

MSNBCs Casey Hunt caught up with Senator Rand Paul in the halls of the Capitol Building this morning to ask his quick thoughts on the Senate version of the GOP Healthcare bill just released.

Paul was an initial and vocal critic of the House health care bill, and it appears that he is also frustrated with the version presented by his Senate colleagues, telling Hunt looks like were keeping Obamacare, not repealing it.

Why is this short and seemingly throw-away line so important? Well the GOP Senate has only the slightest of room to pass this bill as it will take only three Republican senators to vote against it to kill this version. Judging from Pauls comments, it appears that he will not be voting for this iteration of the bill.

The Libertarian leaning Kentucky Senator has promised a statement shortly.

Watch the clip above via MSNBC.

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Continue reading here:
Rand Paul on GOP Healthcare Bill: 'Looks Like We're Keeping Obamacare' - Mediaite

Ron Sachs/dpa/picture-alliance/NewscomHere's a novel idea. Members of Congress should have time to readfully read, from start to finishthe text of a bill before being asked to vote on it.

Frustrated by a secretive process for rewritting the House's health care bill, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Wednesday that he would reintroduce a resolution requiring the Senate to give its members sufficient time to read lengthy bills before they could be called upon to cast votes. His "Read the Bills" resolution would change Senate rules to require bills and amendments to be filed for one day per 20 pages before they could be considered, giving lawmakers time to digest legislation before giving their vote.

"Legislation is too often shoved through Congress without proper hearings, amendments, or debate, as the secrecy surrounding the Senate's health care bill and the pressure to vote for it with little time to fully evaluate the proposal once again remind us," Paul said in an emailed statement Wednesday.

The Senate version of the American Health Care Act (AHCA) is expected to be unveiled later today, after weeks of secretive work behind closed doors to draft changes to the bill. (UPDATE: The bill has been released. Read Peter Suderman's coverage of it here.)

As passed by the House, the AHCA is 131 pages long. Under Paul's proposed resolution, a 131-page bill would require a period of at least seven days between when it was filed and when it could be voted. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has promised there won't be a vote until next week, but the Senate version of the bill is likely to grow longer, perhaps much longer, than the House-passed version as amendments are added. For context, the final version of the Affordable Care Act was more than 900 pages long when it was passed in 2010.

"If we are to answer to the American people, it is imperative we pay close attention to the legislation we pass," Paul said.

Paul isn't the only member of the upper chamber to be rankled by the secretive, rushed legislating. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, and Mike Lee of Utah have expressed concerns about having enough time to read and understand the bill before an expected vote next week. "Even though we thought we were going to be in charge of writing a bill within this working group, it's not being written by us," Lee told Bloomberg News earlier this week. "So if you're frustrated by the lack of transparency in this process, I share your frustration. I share it wholeheartedly."

With 52 Republicans in the Senate, it would take three defectors to block the bill's passage.

Paul is the most likely to jump ship. In addition to his complaints about the process, Paul has been openly dissatisfied the substance of the AHCA since it was first introduced by House Republicans in March, criticizing the bill for not going far enough to repeal taxes and regulatory mandates created under Obamacare. The tax credits included in the billa replacement for Obamacare's subsidies to help low-income Americans afford insurancehave been specifically targeted by Paul as "a new entitlement program."

"My main concern is I promised voters that I would repealvote to repeal Obamacare. And everything I hear sounds like Obamacare-lite," Paul told The Washington Post on Wednesday.

Despite months of criticism of the bill, Paul has not taken an official position on whether he will support it. He told Bloomberg News earlier this week that he would make that decision after seeing the text of the bill.

He will likely get to see it on Thursday. Whether he has time to read the whole thing remains to be seen.

Visit link:
Frustrated with Secretive Health Care Bill, Rand Paul Proposes Giving Senators Time to Read It - Reason (blog)

US Senator Rand Paul has spoken out during the debate on war powers, saying that the current wars the US is leading are illegal, and that he isnt voting to go to war in 50 or 60 countries where terrorist powers are now based.

The hearing during which Rand Paul spoke out was the latest one in a yearlong string of debates over what to do with the open-ended 9/11 Proclamation on war authorization.

The divide between the members of Congress over the issue has been growing, with some using this debate for the singular purpose of imposing limitations on our president its just a fact, according to Republican Senator Bob Corker, while others may refuse to limit a president at war in any way.

Paul first of all argued about the role and specifics of Article II of the US Constitution, detailing the presidents duties as commander-in-chief.

He said that the founding fathers of the US George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin among them would disagree with you on saying that Article II gives the president power to commence in war, instead listing it as congressional duty, not presidents at all.

I want to know, are we going to limit the president's power? Are we going to take back our power? Are we going to limit the duration of the war? Are we going to identify our enemy? Paul asked during the statement.

Read more

To lead a war against terrorism at least the way the US might see it is becoming less and less acceptable, Paul said.

Well, just the Islamic State [IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL] is in 32 countries right now. I mean, you add in Taliban and you add in Al-Qaeda, we're probably [talking about] at least 50 or 60 countries. I'm not voting to go to war in 50 or 60 countries.

Thus, there should be a strict and specific limitation for war powers, Paul argued, saying that if they pass something for the sake of it, and not to limit the war powers, it wouldnt be acceptable.

Some people, Paul noted, say that you got all the Article II, and it would just be nice to have an AUMF [Authorization of Use of Military Force].

No, it wouldn't be nice. That's the Constitution. There's supposed to be no war without an AUMF. We have been illegally at war for a long time now. This is illegal war, at this point, he said.

Another key document related to the war powers that is mentioned by Paul is the 9/11 Proclamation, which was very specific to 9/11, and weve had people just saying, you can do anything you want now for 15 years.

Read more

However, there is a practical question related to this, Paul noted.

Is doing anything you want, killing every perceived enemy and every perceived leader or chieftain of five people in some misbegotten village, is it helping?

He gave an example of US forces killing four or five terrorists in a village, but also killing their wives and children: Is it better? Do we have less terrorists now or more?

For a hundred years they'll be talking about the time the Americans came and killed women and children. For a hundred years, they're going to be talking about the Saudis dropping bombs on a funeral procession. That does not go away. These people remember the battle of Karbala in 680AD. They have long memories, Paul said.

We're not going to defeat terrorism by having war in 60-some odd countries and dropping drones on everybody that we think in a village is of a radical ideology. And I just say now, I won't vote for something that doesn't limit the president's power, but simply gives a rubber stamp to what we're doing, the senator concluded.

Originally posted here:
America illegally at war for a long time now US Senator Rand Paul ... - RT

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) announced this afternoon that a "discussion draft" of the rushed, flawed, and secretive Senate version of the American Health Care Act will be unveiled Thursday, in advance of a hoped-for vote a week hence, on June 29. "Oh they'll have plenty of time" [to read the bill], McConnell said. "This will be about as transparent as it can be." Uh-huh.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), long considered the most likely Republican "no" vote, did not sound enthused about the legislation today. While stressing that he'll decide only after reading the bill, Paul reiterated in remarks recorded by Bloomberg News political reporter Sahil Kapur that he's "not interested in voting for anything that's a new entitlement program," and that it might be better to "start over." More from Paul:

The House bill has 90 percent of the subsidies of Obamacare.If this gets any more subsidies in it, it may well be equal to what we have in Obamacare. So it really wouldn't be repeal. []

I think they've forgotten all the rallies where they said they were going to repeal it. I mean, we had thousands of people standing up and cheering us on saying they were going to repeal it. And now they've gotten kind of weak-kneed and I think they want to keep it. But they're getting hit from both sides. Conservatives who are in the know are going to know that this isn't repeal. And no Democrat likes it because they think it's going to go too far. So I think you're going to wind up with what you had in the House billabout 20 percent of the public's going to think it's a good idea.

The other most likely "no" vote has always been Paul's pal Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who, while also keeping his vote open, said in a Facebook video today that:

Even though I've been a member of this working group among Senate Republicans assigned to help narrow some of the focus of this, I haven't seen the bill....And it has become increasingly apparent in the last few days that even though we thought we were going to be in charge of writing a bill within this working group, it's not being written by us, it's apparently being written by a small handful of staffers for members of the Republican leadership in the Senate....We should have been able to see it weeks ago if we were going to voting on it next week.

But even if Lee and Paul revolt, as many have been predicting, the unpopular bill still needs one more Republican hand on the steely knife to kill the beast. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), while mocking Democratic complaints about process, said Tuesday the legislation still has "got a long way to go." Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), a key moderate, said, "I would like a more open process, that's for sure," and: "I cannot say what I would vote for if I haven't seen it.That's where a real problem is, because nobody I shouldn't say that." And Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) quipped that, "I'm sure the Russians have been able to hack in and gotten most of it."

Peter Suderman earlier today floated various theories for Republicans' odd AHCA behavior.

View post:
Rand Paul, Mike Lee Rip into Health Care Bill, Which Is Now Expected Thursday - Reason (blog)