Mediaboss Marketing

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

Days after President Joe Biden took office and the Democrats took control of the U.S. Senate, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., would not unequivocally say Sunday that the 2020 presidential election was not stolen and called for an investigation of fraud, without providing evidence.

"The debate over whether or not there was fraud should occur, we never had any presentation in court where we actually looked at the evidence. Most of the cases were thrown out for lack of standing, which is a procedural way of not actually hearing the question," Paul said on ABC's "This Week."

"Sen. Paul, I have to stop you there," ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos interjected.

"No election is perfect," Stephanopoulos continued. "After investigations, counts and recounts, the Department of Justice -- led by (Trump-appointed Attorney General) William Barr -- said there's no widespread evidence of fraud. Can't you just say the words: 'This election was not stolen?'"

The Kentucky senator responded, "What I would suggest is that if we want greater confidence in our elections -- and 75% of Republicans agree with me -- is that we do need to look at election integrity."

Paul also did notacknowledge former President Donald Trump's role in sowing doubts about the election.

The majority of the court cases filed by the Trump campaign were thrown out due to lack of evidence. Across the country, secretaries of state, both Republican and Democrat,andfederal officials-- includingBarr-- haveallsaidthat there was no evidence of widespread fraud or security concerns in November's election.

When challenged by Stephanopoulos on Barr's denial of widespread fraud, Paul retorted, "He said that, yes. That was a pronouncement.There's been no examination -- thorough examination -- of all the states to see what problems we had and see if they could fix them."

"There were lots of problems and there were secretaries of state, who illegally changed the law and that needs to be fixed, and I'm going to work harder to fix it and I will not be cowed by people saying 'oh, you're a liar,'" Paul told Stephanopoulos.

Stephanopoulos responded, "I'm standing by facts. There are not two sides to facts. I did not say this was a perfect election, I said the results were certified, I said it was not stolen. It is a lie."

Sen. Rand Paul listens during the confirmation hearing oF Anthony J. Blinken to be Secretary of State before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee at the Capitol, Jan. 19, 2021.

While Paul was one of the many Republican politicians who repeatedTrump'sunfoundedallegations of voter fraud, the Kentucky senator did not object to the certification of the Electoral College on Jan. 7and has said previously that he thinks Congress should not overturn results.

"Now, let me say to be clear, I voted to certify the state electors because I think it would be wrong for Congress to overturn that," he said.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., responded to Paul's remarks in a separate interview on "This Week."

"As I listened to Rand Paul, George, I just kept thinking, 'man, this is why Joe Biden won,'" she told Stephanopoulos.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar speaks during the inauguration of Joe Biden as the 46th President of the United States on the West Front of the Capitol, Jan. 20, 2021.

"American people right now are struggling. They need pandemic relief," Klobuchar continued. "I thoroughly believe that we can handle this impeachment trial and -- just as the American people are doing -- juggle what we need to get done.

With less than a week since Biden's swearing in, the article of impeachment against Trump is set to be delivered to the Senate Monday and the trial is expected to begin the week of Feb. 8. Senate Democrats are trying to balance the upcoming proceedings with getting more of Biden's Cabinet picks approved and pushing forward on the president's legislative agenda.

Despite earlier reports that McConnell was pleased with the House of Representatives' impeachment efforts, a growing number of conservative legal experts and Republicans in the Senate have challenged the constitutionality of holding a trial for Trump since he is no longer in office.

Some Republican senators, including Paul, have also argued that if Chief Justice John Roberts does not preside over the impeachment trial -- which remains unclear -- the hearings could be illegitimate.

Whenchallengedby Stephanopoulos aboutthose process arguments,Klobuchar said, "It is constitutional. We have precedent from way back when a secretary of war was tried after he had left office and, obviously, there's a remedy that would help in the future which would ban former President Trump from running again."

Stephanopoulos also pressed Klobuchar about whether there were enough GOP senators to vote to convict Trump.

"My colleagues have not yet committed about what they're going to do and the news we just got out of The New York Times yesterday that the president was actually actively trying to take out his own attorney general and put in an unknown bureaucrat conspiring with him. I think we're going to get more and more evidence over the next few weeks as if it's not enough that he's sent an angry mob down the Mall to invade the Capitol -- didn't try to stop it -- and a police officer was killed. I don't really know what else you need to know," the Minnesota senator added.

"Would you pursue, instead, either a censure or some kind of a resolution under the 14th Amendment to prevent President Trump from running for office again?" Stephanopoulos asked.

Klobuchar refused to rule anything out.

"We're focused on impeachment, but there are many options. Things can be looked at. But I think the thing that your viewers need to know right now, George, is that we must do many things at once," she said.

While the Senate debates the impending impeachment trial, also critical on the Democrats' agenda is passing a new coronavirus relief bill -- a key component of Biden's legislative priorities. The president is still pushing for a bipartisan arrangement, despite the fact that many in the GOP -- including moderates like Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine -- have said that the overall $1.9 trillion price tag is too expensive.

Klobuchar pushed back against arguments over the size of the bill, saying "the amount that Joe Biden has proposed, that's exactly the numbers we were talking about last summer. And at some point, the (Trump) administration was talking those numbers."

ABC News' Meg Cunningham and Kelly McCoy contributed to this report.

Read the original:
Sen. Rand Paul continues making false claims of 2020 election fraud - ABC News

The Week

President Trump is planning to exit the White House on the morning of Jan. 20, a few hours before President-elect Joe Biden is sworn in a short distance away, CNN reports. "Eager for a final taste of the pomp of being president, Trump has asked for a major send-off," and "as one of their final acts, Trump's team is working to organize a crowd to see him off on the morning of Biden's inauguration, when he plans to depart Washington while still president" for a flight to Palm Beach, Florida, where his term will officially end at noon.There are 20,000 National Guard troops currently deployed or en route to Washington, D.C., ahead of Biden's inauguration, because the last crowd Trump drew to the White House morphed into an insurrectionist mob that stormed the Capitol.Plans are still being ironed out, CNN says, but "Trump told people he did not like the idea of departing Washington for a final time as an ex-president, flying aboard an airplane no longer known as Air Force One. He also did not particularly like the thought of requesting the use of the plane from Biden." The Bidens will wake up on Inauguration Day at nearby Blair House, CNN reports, adding that "its use was offered to them by the State Department rather than the Trumps, who refuse to make contact with the incoming president and first lady.""Trump has expressed interest to some in a military-style sendoff and a crowd of supporters," CNN says, but it's unclear "whether that occurs at the White House, Joint Base Andrews, or his final destination, Palm Beach International Airport."Outgoing U.S. presidents almost always attend the swearing-in of their successors, Defense One notes, and "in recent decades, the outgoing president and first lady walk down the back steps of the Capitol to an awaiting helicopter, which then makes the short five-minute flight over to Joint Base Andrews in nearby Maryland. Upon arriving at Andrews, the former president and first lady are usually greeted by a military honor guard, former staffers, friends, and other well wishers." Two senior Pentagon officials confirmed to Defense One on Thursday that, in a break with recent tradition, no military farewell is being planned for Trump.More stories from theweek.com Trump reportedly began 'choreographing' premature victory speech weeks before election 5 more scathing cartoons about Trump's 2nd impeachment GOP officials are reportedly worried controversial pro-Trump House members could run for Senate, governor

See the article here:
Rand Paul Warns One Third of Republicans Will Leave Party if GOP Senators Back Impeachment - Yahoo News