Mediaboss Marketing

Monday on CNNs The Lead, host Jake Tapper asked Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) if it might be a mistake for Attorney General Jeff Sessions to invoke executive privilege in his testimony tomorrow before a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election.

Paul prefaced his response by saying it depended on the question asked, but dismissed the suggestion Sessions would have worked with the Russians given he was a hardliner on Russia.

I guess it depends on the questions, Paul replied. I dont really know what that will be about necessarily. I still think that, you know, weve got a special counsel. Lets let them do their job. The rest is all for show. This is political theater and really, those committees arent getting anywhere. If theres anything done wrong it will come out of the special counsel. And my suspicion is very little, if anything, will come out of there. There may be some people who didnt file their paperwork appropriately or didnt file to be registered as foreign agents but Ikind of doubt theres going to be anything that look, Jeff Sessions, who was kind of known as a hardliner on Russia, so its kind of crazy to sort of say, Oh, he must have been meeting with them in some secret deal with the Russians. You know, he was known as a hardliner, all right. And so I dont think any of that is going to go anywhere, but I think theres a political operation going on and Ithink dwelling so much on this stuff.

Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Read the original post:
Rand Paul: Sessions 'a Hardliner on Russia'; Hearings 'a Political Operation,' 'Aren't Getting Anywhere' - Breitbart News

US Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (C) speaks about Obamacare repeal and replacement while flanked by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)(R), and Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) (L) and members of the House Freedom Caucus, during a news conference on Capitol Hill, on March 7, 2017 in Washington, DC. (Photo by AFP)

US Senator Rand Paul has warned the administration of Donald Trump against imposing new economic sanctions on Iran, saying new sanctions are a fools errand, and they will not work.

Paul, a former Republican presidential candidate, made the remarks in article, titled Think twice before sanctioning Iran, published on Friday.

Last month, the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee voted in favor of legislation that would authorize Trump to impose new sanctions on Iran over its missile program, which Tehran has repeatedly said is defensive.

The bill needs the approval of the Senate, the House of Representatives and President Trump to become law.

According to reports published on Monday, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was pushing the Senate toward passing tougher sanctions against Iran.

Senator Paul urged the US government not to impose sanctions on Iran on the pretext of ballistic missile program, which Iran says is defensive.

He wrote that it is not fair to punish Iran when the Islamic Republics all hostile neighbors like Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Israel have advanced missile programs.

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, he wrote.

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, he added.

Senator Paul called on the United States to curb Saudi Arabias ballistic missile program and Israels nuclear weapons program in order control arms proliferation in the Middle East region, otherwise these sanctions [against Iran] will have [no] effect.

If the whole world invoked these sanctions, they might be effectiveBut I do not think these unilateral sanctions will have any effect, Paul wrote.

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 [Persian] Gulf sheikhdoms, who already have hundreds of missiles. They also see Israels nuclear weapons as a threat, he noted.

So, if you wanted to influence the behavior of Iran, you might consider sanctioning Saudi Arabia in equal fashion, he said.

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, he argued.

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 [Persian] Gulf kingdoms to do the same. And so I think new sanctions are a fools errand, and they will not work, the senator observed.

Last month, the United States and Saudi Arabia reached a massive weapons sale agreement.

The $110 billion arms deal signed by Saudi Arabian King Salman and US President Donald Trump was a component of $350 billion in economic and military investments between the two countries over the next 10 years, according to US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

The Trump administration has come under fire from human rights advocacy groups for striking the weapons deal with Saudi Arabia without considering the Riyadh regimes rights record.

Experts say Trumps selection of Saudi Arabia as his maiden overseas trip signals that he is willing to embrace a country responsible for widespread human rights violations and an escalating humanitarian crisis in Yemen.

The Saudi kingdom has been bombing Yemen for over two years and killing thousands of civilians there, while accusing Tehran of intervention in the impoverished country.

Read the original here:
New Iran sanctions are fool's errand, which won't work: Rand Paul - Press TV

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