Mediaboss Marketing

Sen. Rand Paul criticized U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat who's the House of Representatives' lead impeachment manager, on Twitter Wednesday while the Senate was in the midst of former President Donald Trump's trial.

"So, its ok for Dem Jamie Raskin to try to 'overturn'Trump electors but its incitement to violence when Trump urged Congress to "overturn" Biden electors? Isnt that called hypocrisy?" Paul tweeted shortly before 1 p.m., as theHouse's team laid out their case against the ex-president, who has been accused of inciting an insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

Paul, R-Ky., was referring to Congress'certification of Trump's 2016 victory. Raskin was one of a small handful of House Democrats who objected in January 2017 to certain states' Electoral College votes. Raskin specifically objected to Florida's electoral votes, saying at the time that some of them had been cast by electors who weren't lawfully certified.

President Joe Biden, who was vice president at the time, deemed that debate out of order.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., listens to a reporter after speaking on the Senate floor, Tuesday, Jan. 26, 2021, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)(Photo: Jacquelyn Martin, AP)

The day before Raskin made his objectionin January 2017, he told The Baltimore Sun:"I would love to challenge the Electoral College vote because our election was badly tainted by everything from cyber-sabotage by Vladimir Putin, to deliberate voter suppression by Republicans in numerous swing states..."

"But it's a very hard thing to prove that an election would have turned out differently than it did," he said at the time.

Four years later,Raskin's role as the House's lead impeachment manager has put him in the national spotlight.

More: His son died. A week later he survived the Capitol riots. Now, he's leading the impeachment case against Trump.

Paul tweeted Wednesday:"Naming Raskin to lead impeachment of Trump for advocating for the same thing Raskin did in 2016. Isnt that called hubris?"

"Rep Raskin says Trump promoted the "big lie"that the election was stolen but didnt Raskin promote the "big lie"that Trump stole the election in 2016? Wasnt it Jamie Raskin who 'incited violence'by objecting to Trump electors?" continued Paul, who has made spurious claims of his own about the 2020 election results.

More: Twitter flags Sen. Rand Paul for baseless speculation on voter fraud

Paul, who has been avocal critic of both Trump's impeachments, falsely claimed in December that the presidential election "in many ways was stolen."

The House's impeachment case against Trump does focus heavily on the former president's decision to repeatedly and falsely claim the 2020 election was "stolen" from him, but that isn't the sole basis of their contention that he incited an insurrection on Jan. 6. For example, they also have cited variousstatements he made on the day of the riot, including during a speech he gave at a rally as well as ina video he releasedafter the Capitol was breached.

The violent riot Trump is accused of incitingforced Congress to evacuate and resulted in the deaths of U.S. Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick and four other people.

Later Wednesday afternoon, as the trial proceedings continued,Paul tweeted out a criticism of another member of the House's prosecution team: Rep. Eric Swalwell, a California Democrat.

"This afternoon we have been lectured to by Eric Swalwell, a guy accused of consorting with a Chinese spy. How appropriate!" Paul tweeted.

Kentucky's senator was referring to Swalwell's past connection to someone who allegedly acted asan intelligence operative for China when former President Barack Obama was still in office.

Swalwell's office addressed thematter in a statement it sent to the news outlet Axios in December: "Rep. Swalwell, long ago, provided information about this person whom he met more than eight years ago, and whom he hasnt seen in nearly six years to the FBI. To protect information that might be classified, he will not participate in your story."

The Senate's impeachment trial began in earnest Tuesday, during which Raskin got emotional as he describedhis experience during the rioton Jan. 6, as he and his family grieved overthe recent death of his son.

Raskin told senatorsabout how his daughter and son-in-law were at the Capitol that day and barricaded themselves in an office during the riot,hiding there under a table.

Afterward, he said his daughter told him: "Dad, I dont want to come back to the Capitol."

"Senators, this cannot be the future of America, Raskin said during his tearful speech Tuesday. We cannot have presidents inciting and mobilizing mob violence against our government and our institutions because they refuse to accept the will of the people under the Constitution of the United States.

Reach reporter Morgan Watkins: 502-582-4502; mwatkins@courierjournal.com; Twitter:@morganwatkins26.

Read or Share this story: https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2021/02/10/rand-paul-roasts-rep-jamie-raskin-eric-swalwell-twitter-during-impeachment-trial/6707611002/

See the original post here:
Rand Paul roasts Reps. Jamie Raskin, Eric Swalwell on Twitter during impeachment trial - Courier Journal

You can always count on the sun to rise in the east and set in the west.

You can always count on Tom Brady to come through in the big game.

And you can always count on Rand Paul to make an ass out of himself.

Boy, this dude is some nasty piece of work, isnt he?

You may have heard theres an impeachment trial going on in Washington, some jamoke named Trump (as Panama Smith said about Eddie Bartlett at the end of The Roaring Twenties, He used to be a big shot) incited a riot that led to several deaths and shook the republic to its very foundation.

All 100 senators are sitting in judgment of said jamoke, as House prosecutors present their case and a host of inept attorneys endeavor to defend the indefensible.

Of the 100 lawmakers sitting as a jury, 99 of them are wearing masks in deference to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been plaguing the nation and the globe for better than a year now.

They are wearing the masks not so much to protect themselves but to protect others, to diminish chances of spreading a virus that has led to almost a half million deaths in the U.S. alone. It is one of those things that folks realize, while inconvenient, is the right thing to do for your fellow man and woman.

Well, not everyone. Youll notice one person is missing from that list of mask wearers. Who could it possibly be? Lets check in with Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-OH, who took note of the laggard.

I would like to ask Sen. Paul in front of everybody to start wearing a mask on the Senate floor like the entire staff does all the time, Brown said on the Senate floor, adding, I wish Sen. Paul would show the respect to his colleagues to wear a mask while hes on the Senate floor walking around and speaking.

Now Paul, R-Bowling Green, didnt respond to Browns reasonable request, although in the past he has asserted that, since he tested positive for the virus last March and emerged from the distress with flying colors, he doesnt need to wear a mask. In fact, he has publicly stated that anyone who has already contracted the malady should throw away their masks, insisting they are immune from getting it again.

Paul is, as usual, talking out of his hat. Theres no conclusive evidence that COVID-19 patients are totally immune from a reoccurrence. Scientists working on SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, believe that most patients will maintain immunity for a period following recovery. But there are numerous reports circulating about individuals coming down with the virus a second time. At least four re-infection cases have been documented, apparently determining that it is possible to contract COVID-19 again.

And it should be noted that those who have already contracted COVID-19 likely arent immune from the new variants first discovered in Britain and South Africa, potentially rendering his inaction even more dangerous.Its certainly possible, then, that a reinfected individual can unknowingly spread the virus if they dont wear a mask.

But Rand Paul remains barefaced because, as we all understand, he knows better than everyone else, including trained diagnosticians, and really doesnt give a bleep on how his actions might have an effect on others. If Sherrod Brown thinks hes going to have success prodding Paul by asking that he act with decency and show respect, hes sadly mistaken.

Paul is, to put it politely, an oddball. He has this weird thing going about wearing masks to limit the spread of COVID-19, insisting they dont work despite the findings of the Centers for Disease Control and just about every other Tom, Dick and Harry involved in public health.

So hes still sitting like the Queen of Sheba during the trial, maskless, paying little heed to the devastating proceedings firmly establishing that former President Donald J. Trump was involved in creating a catastrophe that, evidence shows, could have been much, much worse.

Our boy Rand is on record asserting the proceedings are unconstitutional because Trump has, saints be praised, left office, the result of the Nov. 3 election which he lost by 7 million votes. Paul drew that conclusion basically out of thin air, making a phony baloney case dismissing it as unconstitutional, once again spitting in the faces of experts who maintain otherwise.

For you see, just as was the case with public health experts and epidemiologists who continue to urge mask wearing, Rand Paul knows more about the Constitution than legal scholars who studied and have a firm grasp of the founding document.Boy, that Rand, hes really, really smart, isnt he? Experts? We dont need no stinking experts. Weve got Rand Paul to guide us through every pitfall.

Of course hes smugly dismissive when its pointed out that impeachment will ensure that Trump, who carried the nation to the brink and created the greatest political divide the nation has experienced since the Civil War, never serves in office again. Falling in line behind Pauls theory means a president can pull off just about any stunt imaginable during his waning days in office, confident that no one can lay a hand on him. Why, the president can engage in sedition and fuel a riot that treated the Capitol like the Alamo and not worry about consequences.

As Chris Wallace pointed out during a give-and-take with Paul on his Sunday Fox News program, there is precedent for impeaching a federal official after he or she leaves office. Will Belknap, Secretary of War under President Ulysses S Grant, was caught up in what was called the Fort Sill Traderpost Scandal, accused of profiteering.

Belknap resigned but was impeached by the House nonetheless. Despite protests from Belknaps defense, the Senate ruled the trial could proceed. He was acquitted, even though a majority voted to convict, unable to meet the two-thirds requirement.

Paul argued that the precedent doesnt hold, that the Constitution has some very specific requirements for impeaching a president.

Impeachment managers argued before the Senate that those requirements had been met. In a bipartisan vote, the chamber agreed and elected to proceed.

But Rand Paul knows better and characterized the proceeding as a partisan farce, insisting the claims Trump incited the riot are a big lie. He has even resorted to the new last refuge of a scoundrel both siderism.

But I think that they should see video of all the Democrats and the inflammatory and temperate language that they use, Paul said recently on Hannity. Cory Booker saying, get up in the face of these Congress people. Maxine Waters saying swarm the restaurants. Kamala Harris even saying, lets bail out these people.

None of them, of course, used language approaching the slime that dripped from Trumps lips. And certainly, none of them dispatched marauders to ground zero for American democracy, looking for members of Congress to hang.

Trumps words were an atrocity. Pauls defense is just as bad.

Read the original here:
Bill Straub: Some things you can count on, and Rand Paul is proceeding in his true, maskless form - User-generated content

The Telegraph

A detained Saudi womens rights activist had electrodes fixed to her head during phone calls with her family to prevent her speaking of the torture she suffered in prison, her sister said on Thursday after her release. Loujain al-Hathoul was released to her familys home in Riyadh on Wednesday after 1,001 days in prison on charges related to her activism. Under her probation she is unable to travel, use social media or speak to the media. Her sisters, who live abroad, announced Thursday that Ms al-Hathoul will seek legal redress in Saudi Arabia for torture she said she suffered in detention. She was tortured and she cannot forget this, her sister Lina said, during an online press conference. The family have previously claimed Ms al-Hathoul was tortured which Saudi authorities deny but gave new details Thursday, including that the threat of electrocution stopped her speaking out. If I complained about anything they were ready to electrocute me, Lina said her sister told the family on Wednesday of her early months in detention. It was months later that we found out about the torture when Ms al-Hathoul was moved to another prison, Lina said. Ms al-Hathoul has identified one of her torturers as Saud Al Qahtani, a top adviser to the Saudi crown prince until he was sanctioned by the US over his role in the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Hes the only person that we know the name of who was present at the torture sessions, Lina said. Mr Qahtani is notorious in Saudi Arabia, sometimes called the lord of the flies for his army of Twitter trolls used for attacking dissidents. Loujain recognised him, hes a public figure, said her older sister Alia. Ms al-Hathoul now hopes to use the Saudi justice system to prove she was tortured and seek justice. The torturers must be sentenced, Lina said. In December, Ms al-Hathoul was sentenced to nearly six years imprisonment over her activism, which included demanding the right for women to drive and calling for the abolition of Saudi Arabias male guardianship system. The decades old driving ban was lifted weeks after her arrest, with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman eager to claim the credit for the reform. The 35-year-old prince muscled his way to become next in line to the throne in 2015, partly by projecting an image as a dynamic young reformer who could modernise the conservative kingdom. But the sisters believe that any reforms under Mohammed bin Salman are illusory. MBS is far from being a reformer, hes an oppressor, said Lina, referring to him by his initials. Womens empowerment is a lie in Saudi Arabia, there are no real reforms, she said. Lina said she was choosing her words carefully to avoid further negative repercussions for her family still in Saudi Arabia: Theres really an atmosphere of fear under MBS. The family believe Ms al-Hathouls early release was timed by the Saudi government to impress new US President Joe Biden, who has promised closer scrutiny of his close allys human rights record. Saudi Arabias situation is tightly connected with whats going on in the US, Alia said. The Biden administration made clear that they care about human rights.

See the rest here:
Sen. Rand Paul: Trump impeachment is a partisan farce - Yahoo News

Interesting, right? After all, there's no question that there's a decent-sized chunk of people who have voted for and supported Republicans in the past but were alienated by Trump's behavior in office.

As is often the case with talk of possible new political parties, however, there's less than meets the eye. Here's why:

1. The Republican Party already fought this fight in 2016. The anti-Trump crowd, which ultimately became every candidate in the GOP primary field other than Trump, lost. And lost badly. Just ask Marco Rubio. And Jeb Bush. And Lindsey Graham. And Rand Paul. And Ted Cruz. And Chris Christie. And Ben Carson.

2. There's no leader for this movement. Voters rally around candidates, not political parties. Barack Obama appealed to people, first and foremost, because he was Barack Obama. Not because he was a Democrat. Same for Trump, who, prior to running in 2016, was at best loosely affiliated with the Republican Party. Who is the face of this proposed new party or new faction? Ben Sasse? John Kasich? Liz Cheney? Larry Hogan? Adam Kinzinger? Mitt Romney? Lisa Murkowski? You get the idea. Way too many cooks.

The Point: The idea of a non-Trump Republican Party undoubtedly appeals to plenty of GOP establishment types. The problem? There just aren't enough of them in the party for such a move to succeed.

Go here to read the rest:
3 reasons why a 'center right' party will never work - CNN

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, of Kentucky, is re-introducing two anti-abortion bills, one aimed at taking away federal funding from Planned Parenthood and another that would define life as beginning at conception.Paul said in a statement Friday that he was re-introducing the legislation in honor of the annual March for Life, a rally and march that protests the legality of abortion around the same time the country marks the anniversary of Roe V. Wade.The Kentucky U.S. senator previously introduced the bills in 2019, but they went nowhere.One of Paul's bills seeks to bar federal dollars from going to organizations that perform abortions, including Planned Parenthood. The Defund Planned Parenthood Act is cosponsored by Sens. Marsha Blackburn, Mike Braun, John Kennedy, Roger Marshall, Mike Rounds and Thom Tillis.Paul's other bill, the Life at Conception Act, would extend 14th Amendment protections to the fetus' in all stages of development. The bill would do this by defining life as beginning at conception.The 14th Amendment states that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. will not be deprived of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."Some of the same U.S. senators who signed onto Paul's Defund Planned Parenthood Act also signed onto the Life at Conception Act."Our nation cannot expect to fully protect and maintain our other rights if we do not respect the fundamental right to life even starting in the womb," Paul said in a statement. Click here for more information on the two bills.

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, of Kentucky, is re-introducing two anti-abortion bills, one aimed at taking away federal funding from Planned Parenthood and another that would define life as beginning at conception.

Paul said in a statement Friday that he was re-introducing the legislation in honor of the annual March for Life, a rally and march that protests the legality of abortion around the same time the country marks the anniversary of Roe V. Wade.

The Kentucky U.S. senator previously introduced the bills in 2019, but they went nowhere.

One of Paul's bills seeks to bar federal dollars from going to organizations that perform abortions, including Planned Parenthood. The Defund Planned Parenthood Act is cosponsored by Sens. Marsha Blackburn, Mike Braun, John Kennedy, Roger Marshall, Mike Rounds and Thom Tillis.

Paul's other bill, the Life at Conception Act, would extend 14th Amendment protections to the fetus' in all stages of development. The bill would do this by defining life as beginning at conception.

The 14th Amendment states that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. will not be deprived of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Some of the same U.S. senators who signed onto Paul's Defund Planned Parenthood Act also signed onto the Life at Conception Act.

"Our nation cannot expect to fully protect and maintain our other rights if we do not respect the fundamental right to life even starting in the womb," Paul said in a statement.

Click here for more information on the two bills.

See the original post here:
Kentucky's US Sen. Rand Paul re-introduces 2 bills aimed at limiting abortions - WLKY Louisville