Mediaboss Marketing

A whistleblower expert on Friday penned a letter to the Senate Select Committee on Ethics requesting the panel open an investigation into Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) for illegally and dangerously naming a government whistleblower during the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.

The letter, penned by author and journalist Tom Mueller,whose latest book Crisis of Conscience details the cultural history of whistleblowing, argues that Paulspolitical stunt defied the express ruling of Chief Justice John Roberts, applicable Senate rules and practices, and federal criminal law.

Senator Pauls actions constituted a retaliatory outing of a government witnesswhich is criminal conduct, Mueller wrote, citing to 18 U.S.C. 1513(e), which criminalizes any retaliatory actions taken against any persons who come forward to provide truthful information regarding the possible commission of a federal offense.

Whether or not the named individual was in fact the whistleblower, as Senator Paul claimed, is irrelevant to this concern. A senator charged with the safety and security of the nation should not be purposefully placing a citizen in harms way for no public purpose, the letter said.

Mueller also refuted the notion that Pauls comments were protected by the Speech and Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution, specifically noting that Paul also said the alleged whistleblowers name during an impromptu press conference and on Twitter.

Court decisions have clarified that such protections extend only to legislative activity, as the purpose of the clause is to protect the free and full expression of congresspeople during such activity, he wrote.There is no way to construe Senator Pauls public outing of the whistleblower as conducive to legislative debate. The naming of a private citizen, in public and not on the Senate floor, is not legislative activity.

Imploring the committee to open an investigation, Mueller said that Pauls actions not only flouted the design of the impeachment proceedings and demonstrated contempt for Roberts in his role as presiding officer, but also very likely chilled future whistleblowers from coming forward and reporting misdeeds in the executive branch.

In the past, the Senate Select Committee on Ethics has admonished members who fail to meet the higher standards expected of a U.S. Senator, Mueller wrote. Senator Pauls conduct reflects poorly on the Senate. His behavior violates the bipartisan consensus that whistleblowers deserve protection, which is explicated in numerous laws and regulations including those that specifically prohibit outing a whistleblower as illegal retaliation.

Read the full letter below:

Lankford Letter Re Ethics Complaint by Law&Crime on Scribd

[image via C-SPAN screengrab]

Continue reading here:
Whistleblower Expert: Rand Pauls Retaliatory Outing of Alleged Ukraine Whistleblower Was Criminal - Law & Crime

FRANKFORT, Ky. Senator Rand Paul, who often publicly defends President Donald Trump, is speaking out about the impeachment trial. In an interview with WHAS11s Political Editor Chris Williams, Sen. Paul said the trial never made sense.

The great irony of all of this is they accuse the president of abusing government to go after a political opponent. What have they done? They've simply abused government to go after their political opponent. One of them in their argument said, 'Well, we had to get this done because it's an election year. We were in a big hurry, Sen. Paul said.

According to the senator, people from Rep. Adam Schiffs team and the National Security Council reportedly discussed impeachment two years ago, suggesting conspiracy and abuse of the whistleblower role.

Last week, Sen. Paul was accused of naming the whistleblower to reporters, though he told WHAS11 does not know the whistleblowers name.

Following the Senate's acquittal of President Trump on both articles of impeachment, Sen. Paul posted a series of tweets. He said, in part, "I hope we wont go down such a partisan-driven path again."

Make it easy to keep up-to-date with more stories like this. Download the WHAS11 News app now. For Apple or Android users.

Have a news tip? Email assign@whas11.com, visit our Facebook page or Twitter feed.

Read the rest here:
Sen. Rand Paul on impeachment trial: 'None of it ever made sense' - WHAS11.com

Last week, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, said a lot without speaking a word. At the close of President Trumps State of the Union address, she calmly, deliberately and now famously tore her copy in two and tossed it down with a shrug, declaring her disdain for its contents with aplomb.

This simple gesture sent a strong message. Most speakers are expressionless during State of the Union addresses or they come close; Speaker John Boehner couldnt quite mask his micro-expressions of frustration during President Barack Obamas address in 2015.

Speaker Pelosi offered a cri de coeur in comparison, as she intended. The speech was a manifesto of mistruths, she said during a news conference two days later. It was necessary to get the attention of the American people to say, This is not true. And she succeeded, perhaps beyond her expectations. Violating congressional traditions to make a point is itself a longstanding tradition for good reason.

Republicans heard that message loud and clear, denouncing her incivility, accusing her of shredding decades of tradition and demanding her resignation. It was the most classless act ever conducted in Congress, Ian Miles Cheong, the managing editor of the conservative website Human Events, charged.

But was it? Not by a long shot; when it comes to misconduct, Congress has a long history. Congressmen have pulled guns on each other. Theyve shoved and punched each other, and smacked at foes with fireplace tongs. Theyve engaged in mass brawls, toppling desks, tossing spittoons and, in one case, yanking off a toupee. The most famous violence in congressional history is the caning of the abolitionist Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts by Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina on the Senate floor in 1856, but it was not an anomaly.

Nor is Ms. Pelosi alone in violating traditions for all to see; it was far from the first time that members of Congress met alleged lies with bold displays of open contempt. In 1790, Representative Aedanus Burke of South Carolina showed his feelings with a flourish after Alexander Hamilton, the Treasury secretary, slurred the Southern militia during an Independence Day speech. Hamilton had said that Southern troops were dispirited and in disarray before the arrival of Gen. Nathanael Greene. Burke outraged and hoping to impress folks back home used the theater of Congress to have his say. Turning toward the visitor gallery, he declared, In the face of this assembly and in the presence of this gallery I give the lie to Colonel Hamilton. Onlookers were stunned.

Representative Louie Gohmert of Texas did much the same when President Obama discussed his health care plan before the House in 2009, waving a handwritten sign that read, What Plan? The things he was saying were certainly not true of the only bill we had at the time, Mr. Gohmert later said. On that same night, Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina shouted You lie! at the president for a similar reason.

By far, the most skilled practitioners of this showy statecraft were Southern slaveholders in the decades leading up to the Civil War. Threatened by even the hint of opposition to slavery, they used bold public threats during debate to frighten their foes into compliance or silence, tossing off insults or dangling duel challenges to set an example. Faced with the choice of a fistfight or a duel or the humiliation of avoiding one most men backed down or held back. For Southerners, transgressing rules was part of the point; it was a show of power.

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky used the same form of showmanship when he exposed the alleged whistle-blowers name during impeachment proceedings last Tuesday. Days after Chief Justice John Roberts refused to read a question from Mr. Paul that revealed the name, Mr. Paul did the deed himself. During a period reserved for impeachment speeches, he read his question aloud while standing next to a large blue poster with the name in bold yellow, endangering the whistle-blower and violating the spirit of whistle-blower protection laws in the process; although those laws are meant to protect informants from retaliation, they dont explicitly stop members of Congress or the president from revealing names. Tradition and ethics alone keep them silent.

Although not strictly speaking illegal, Mr. Pauls actions were wrong, and some Republican colleagues said as much, privately admitting that they probably wouldnt have done it. But for Mr. Paul, violating norms was the point. By exposing the name and getting away with it he was warning off potential whistle-blowers-to-be.

Did he succeed? We dont yet know, though the bar of success is low; prevent one potential informant from stepping forward, or even give one pause, and Mr. Paul has scored a victory. President Trumps public name-calling and bullying have done much the same, frightening people into compliance for fear of vengeance in Washington or back home.

Mr. Pauls stunt shows us the real power of such transgressions. Incivility is one thing; bullying people into silence is quite another. The former scores points. The latter potentially warps the balance of power between Congress and the executive branch, and smothers the protections that make government go. These are the sins that should merit our outrage, get us out campaigning and march us to polling places. The defense of our system of government demands no less.

The rest is here:
Whos Really Shredding Standards on Capitol Hill? - The New York Times

Its hard not to get discouraged. Our government is so broken and the left is so behind the eight ball that it seems like any progress at all is permanently out of reach. Even the rare glimmer of hope mainly serves to reinforce this sense of powerlessness.

For example, Congress came together last year to use the War Powers Act for the first time since it was enacted in 1973. The goal was to prevent the president from continuing to support Saudi Arabia in the civil war in Yemen. While the resolution passed with bipartisan support, Trump simply vetoed the bill.

This week, Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia will bring a privileged resolution to the floor of the Senate. The goal is to limit President Donald Trumps authority to launch military operations against Iran by requiring the president to cease all hostilities targeting Iran within 30 days unless explicitly approved by Congress. The resolution appears to have the support of all 47 members of the Democratic caucus plus Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Todd Young of Indiana, Mike Lee of Utah, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Jerry Moran of Kansas. Thats more than enough to pass the resolution but far short of the two-thirds majority needed to override Trumps inevitable veto.

Its a rare example of congressional Republicans dealing Trump a defeat, as well as a rare instance of Congress trying to exert its powers against the Executive Branch. But its not going to have any legal effect.

That doesnt mean the effort is pointless, of course, but its hard to find it as a source of hope.

Its not surprising that good legislation doesnt become law in the Trump administration, but not much would be different with a Democratic president. If a bill could actually overcome a Republican filibuster, it would probably not be all that worthwhile. If the bill somehow circumvented the filibuster and it was in any way transformative, its likely that the conservative courts would rule it unconstitutional. This problem is so obvious that progressives are already demanding that the next Democratic president increase the size of the Supreme Court and demand that the Senate do away with the legislative filibuster. If either of those things are not done, then theres little chance that a President Sanders or a President Klobuchar or any Democratic president will be able to fulfill a single major campaign promise.

But its hard to see the Democratic Party as unified enough to accomplish this. At least initially, there will be no majority in the Senate for gutting the filibuster, and everyone remembers how badly FDR was hurt when he tried to stack the court. Maybe if the congressional Democrats see enough of their work product help up and stymied, they will come around. But, by that time, the critical first year of a new presidents term will have passed and everyone will be worried about the midterms.

And, note that I am here assuming that the Democrats will win the presidency in 2020 and take full control of Congress. If they dont accomplish both of those things, then no legislative progress is even conceivable at all.

Theres really nothing to do but keep fighting, but its sometimes hard to see any light at the end of the tunnel.

If you enjoyed this article, consider making a donation to help us produce more like it. The Washington Monthly was founded in 1969 to tell the stories of how government really worksand how to make it work better. Fifty years later, the need for incisive analysis and new, progressive policy ideas is clearer than ever. As a nonprofit, we rely on support from readers like you.

Yes, Ill make a donation

View original post here:
Is There Light at the End of the Tunnel? - Washington Monthly

One New Hampshire result is not in doubt: Donald Trump will win the Republican primary. His closest contender, Bill Weld, is polling in the single digits, even though he was once the governor of New Hampshires neighbor, Massachusetts. So it wasnt as much to campaign as to gloat that Trump held a rally in Manchester on Monday night, before about twelve thousand people. The arena was full; Trump congratulated his supporters in the front rows for waiting four days outside in the rain and snow to get in, and, while that was overstating it, the line had begun to form early Sunday morning and the weather was not good. (The Union Leader noted that some of the first arrivals were people from out of state, who follow Trump from rally to rally.) Trump is so sure of victory that, from the stage, he speculated about his supporters moseying over to the Democratic primary and engaging in a little bit of strategic votingjust to cause trouble.

You have crossovers in primaries, dont you? Trump said, referring to the option that allows voters in New Hampshire who are not registered as Democrats or Republicans to vote in either partys contest. So I hear a lot of Republicans tomorrow will vote for the weakest candidate possible of the Democrats. Does that make sense? You people wouldnt do that! He spread out his arms with a lopsided smile, like a salesman telling customers that people as discerning as they are dont need to hear about a special discount on the premium gold golf-vacation package, but hell mention it anyway. But there was a catch, Trump continued. My only problem is Im trying to figure who is their weakest candidateI think theyre all weak!

Strategic voting is always difficult to measure; the main point for Trump seemed to be the theatre of it all. Still, for another politician, it might have been an area to stay away from, given that Trump was just impeached and tried for actions in Ukraine that were aimed at undermining the campaign of Joe Biden, who, at the time, was the Democratic front-runner. But, then, earlier in the rally, Trump had denounced what he called the outrageous partisan impeachment hoax, and trumpeted his full, complete, and absolute total acquittal. (When he mentioned Mitt Romney, who voted in the Senate trial to convict him on one of the two articles of impeachment, the crowd jeered.) And, with regard to Biden, the math has changed, with his drop in the polls and his poor finish in Iowa. A recanvass has been requested in that state, where the results were delayed and now show a narrow lead for Pete Buttigieg in the delegate countthe traditional measure of an Iowa victorythough more people seem to have aligned with Bernie Sanders in the caucuses. But the mess couldnt conceal the fact that Biden appeared to have finished a distant fourth.

Trump rejoiced in that caucus chaos; he used the rally in Manchester to repeat what is becoming a standard Republican attack: The Democrat Party wants to run your health care, but they cant even run a caucus in Iowa! The caucuses became a punch line for Trump and an instrument for his interaction with the crowd, which is one of the elements of his rallies that draws people to them. Its now a week. Does anybody know who won Iowa? I dont knowhe scanned the audience, as if looking for a courier from Des Moinesbut maybe Rand or Lindsey knew. Senators Rand Paul, of Kentucky, and Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina, were both present and visible, and presumably standing by for Iowa-punditry duty, or any other task that Trump set before them. Rand! Does anybody know who won? Lindsey! Youre a total pro. Nobody knows! He said nobody. Flip a coin! Flip a coin!

The cameras caught a row of Republican elected officials standing, nodding, and laughing appreciatively. They included the House Minority Leader, Kevin McCarthy, and the congressmen Matt Gaetz, of Florida, and Mike Johnson, of Louisiana, who, as members of the House Judiciary Committee, had vehemently defended Trump in the impeachment hearings. (Last week, Trump, in his post-acquittal remarks, said that Gaetz had a great gene.) Graham and Paul, who were also prominent impeachment defenders, were Great guyswarriors! Theyre warriors! (Paul spent a lot of time trying to get the name of a person widely believed to be the Ukraine whistle-blower in front of the public, including by way of a poster that he set up on the Senate floor during his speech at the close of the trial.) And they and their Republican colleagues were my congressmen and senators. Another regular function of the rallies is to dole out favors and flattery and to establish Trumps dominance over the G.O.P.

But the President cannot resist trying to divide the Democrats and to sow uncertainty about the integrity of the elections more generally. And Iowa gave him an opening. Actually, I think theyre trying to take it away from Bernie again, Trump said, referring to lingering complaints among Sanders supporters about how delegates were apportioned in his narrow loss to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Iowa caucuses, and to their continuing resentment about what they view as the Democratic Partys institutional resistance to him. Theyre doing it to you again, Bernie! Theyre doing it to you again!

The speech also included a dose of Trumpian digressions, including one about the coronavirus: Rough stuff, I tell you. Rough, rough stuff. But I think its going to work out good! He also reprised a signature of his 2016 rallies, by reciting the poem The Snake, meant as a parable of the insidious destruction wrought by migrantsa reminder that, with regard to immigration, in particular, this relection campaign will only get uglier. And there was praise for the border wall, which Trump framed in oddly Luddite terms: With all the modern technology, all of the new computers, the new genius, the new everything, cyber this, cyber that, two things never change, right? A wheel, and a wall. And, he added, its a high wall.

But, throughout, he kept returning to the Democrats. As we keep on winning, Washington Democrats keep on losing their minds. Theyre crazy! Trump said. He had opened the rally with an attack on Nancy Pelosi, who, as Speaker of the House, sat behind him during last weeks State of the Union address, and tore up her copy of the speech when it had ended. Had the crowd watched the State of the Union, he asked? I had somebody behind me who was mumbling terribly. Mumbling. Mumbling! Hoowah, hoowah, ho hah! Some people in the crowd began chanting Lock her up! Lock her up! Trump, appearing to hear them, gave a thumbs-up, and more voices joined in. The chant has become an all-purpose response to women whom Trump doesnt like. As it died down, he added, Im speaking, and a woman is mumbling terribly behind me. Angry. There was a little anger back there. Were the ones who should be angry!

As the speech went on, he reminded his supporters of what should make them angry: immigrants, impeachment, socialism, and Washington. That swamp is a dirty swamp! Trump said, adding, You have some really evil, dirty, horrible people. In contrast, We will defend privacy, free speech, religious liberty, and the right to-o-o... he stretched the word out, prompting the crowd.

Bear arms! they answered.

Trump confirmed that this was the reply he was looking for, and warned the crowd, Theyre going to take away everything. Theyre going to take away your wealth. Theyre going to take away your guns. Theyre going to take away everything. His supporters booed loudly. It seemed that they didnt want the Democrats to take away this moment, or their President.

See the election results from the New Hampshire primary.

The New Hampshire results signal a long nationwide Democratic battle. The Partys candidates will almost certainly have to grind it out until early June, when the final primaries will take place.

This victory here is the beginning of the end for Donald Trump! Bernie Sanders said, at a primary-night party in New Hampshire.

Bernie Sanders won the New Hampshire primary, but his performance was not as impressive as it was in 2016.

In New Hampshire, Sanders and Warren promise bold, fundamental change. But they struggle to conjure a vision of America that aggressively counters Trumps.

After a disappointing fourth-place finish in Iowa, Joe Biden is struggling in New Hampshire.

Read the rest here:
Ahead of the New Hampshire Primary, Trump Tries to Make Trouble for the Democrats - The New Yorker