Connect with us

News

Rand Paul Speaks Out On GOP Rep. Calling for Trump’s Impeachment, & He Didn’t Hold Back

GIT SOME!

John Salvatore

Published

on

Senator Rand Paul (KY) is one of the vast majority of sitting Republicans who disagree with Rep. Justin Amash.

Amash, of course, came to the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses – yet hasn’t gone into further detail.

Paul’ thoughts

WASHINGTON ― Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) says Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) was wrong to suggest that President Donald Trump committed obstruction of justice and should be impeached for it.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

[…]

But Paul, a libertarian-leaning senator from Kentucky who has grown close with Trump, said Amash got it all wrong. He called the Mueller report the “antithesis of libertarianism.”

“I actually think the libertarian position on the investigation is ― you know, libertarians, we’ve been very, very critical of the intelligence community having too much power, including congressman Amash has said, you know, really you should have to get a warrant before you get an American’s records,” Paul told HuffPost in a brief interview on Wednesday.

WATCH:

His tweets:

Here are my principal conclusions:
1. Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller’s report.
2. President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct.
3. Partisanship has eroded our system of checks and balances.
4. Few members of Congress have read the report.

I offer these conclusions only after having read Mueller’s redacted report carefully and completely, having read or watched pertinent statements and testimony, and having discussed this matter with my staff, who thoroughly reviewed materials and provided me with further analysis.

In comparing Barr’s principal conclusions, congressional testimony, and other statements to Mueller’s report, it is clear that Barr intended to mislead the public about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s analysis and findings.

Barr’s misrepresentations are significant but often subtle, frequently taking the form of sleight-of-hand qualifications or logical fallacies, which he hopes people will not notice.

Under our Constitution, the president “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” While “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is not defined, the context implies conduct that violates the public trust.

Contrary to Barr’s portrayal, Mueller’s report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment.

In fact, Mueller’s report identifies multiple examples of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction of justice, and undoubtedly any person who is not the president of the United States would be indicted based on such evidence.

Impeachment, which is a special form of indictment, does not even require probable cause that a crime (e.g., obstruction of justice) has been committed; it simply requires a finding that an official has engaged in careless, abusive, corrupt, or otherwise dishonorable conduct.

While impeachment should be undertaken only in extraordinary circumstances, the risk we face in an environment of extreme partisanship is not that Congress will employ it as a remedy too often but rather that Congress will employ it so rarely that it cannot deter misconduct.

Our system of checks and balances relies on each branch’s jealously guarding its powers and upholding its duties under our Constitution. When loyalty to a political party or to an individual trumps loyalty to the Constitution, the Rule of Law—the foundation of liberty—crumbles.

We’ve witnessed members of Congress from both parties shift their views 180 degrees—on the importance of character, on the principles of obstruction of justice—depending on whether they’re discussing Bill Clinton or Donald Trump.

Few members of Congress even read Mueller’s report; their minds were made up based on partisan affiliation—and it showed, with representatives and senators from both parties issuing definitive statements on the 448-page report’s conclusions within just hours of its release.

America’s institutions depend on officials to uphold both the rules and spirit of our constitutional system even when to do so is personally inconvenient or yields a politically unfavorable outcome. Our Constitution is brilliant and awesome; it deserves a government to match it.

Let’s hear your thoughts in the comments section…

News

Putin Threatens to Station Russian Military 90 Miles from United States

The chess game continues.

Published

on

Cold War 2?  The first shadows of World War 3?  Whatever it is, this latest conflict between Russia and The United States could be getting a little close to home for that latter population.

The issue at hand is Ukraine.  Russia looks to be in the last calm moments before an imminent invasion, and the rest of the world is warning against it.  The United States, as per the usual, is the loudest voice in the crowd, forcefully and repeatedly telling Vladimir Putin that if he lays a finger on Ukraine, there will be Hell to pay.

But, not to be outdone of course, Vladimir Putin has now threatened to move Russian troops into position to act on US soil.

 Following recent threats of a potential military deployment to Cuba earlier this month, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin discussed the “strategic partnership” and further coordination of “actions in the international arena” with Cuban leader Miguel Díaz-Canel in a call disclosed Monday by the Kremlin.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

In a tweet, Díaz-Canel said the two leaders held a “cordial and fruitful telephone conversation” about “the current international situation” and the development of “future links in different spheres.”

News of the conversation comes amid rising fears of a Russian military action in Ukraine. NATO said Monday it was putting forces on standby and sending additional ships and fighter jets to Eastern Europe while President Joe Biden was reportedly considering sending troops to the region.

Cuba and Venezuela were dragged into the drama surrounding the conflict earlier this month after Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov, told a Russian television station that he could “neither confirm nor exclude” potential military deployments to the two Latin American nations.

The White House appeared resolute in their stance against the move.

“I’m not going to respond to bluster in the public commentary,” Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, told reporters at the time. “If Russia were to move in that direction, we would deal with it decisively.”

Putin has also threatened, through a well-known media mouthpiece, that those opposing his taking of Ukraine could find themselves turned to “radioactive dust”.

Cold War 2?  The first shadows of World War 3?  Whatever it is, this latest conflict between Russia and The United States could be getting a little close to home for that latter population. The issue at hand is Ukraine.  Russia looks to be in the last calm moments before an imminent invasion, and the rest of the world is warning against it.  The United States, as per the usual, is the loudest voice in the crowd, forcefully and repeatedly telling Vladimir Putin that if he lays a finger on Ukraine, there will be Hell to pay. But, not to be outdone of course, Vladimir Putin has now threatened to move Russian troops into position to act on US soil.  Following recent threats of a potential military deployment to Cuba earlier this month, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin discussed the “strategic partnership” and further coordination of “actions in the international arena” with Cuban leader Miguel Díaz-Canel in a call disclosed Monday by the Kremlin. In a tweet, Díaz-Canel said the two leaders held a “cordial and fruitful telephone conversation” about “the current international situation” and the development of “future links in different spheres.” News of the conversation comes amid rising fears of a Russian military action in Ukraine. NATO said Monday it was putting forces on standby and sending additional ships and fighter jets to Eastern Europe while President Joe Biden was reportedly considering sending troops to the region. Cuba and Venezuela were dragged into the drama surrounding the conflict earlier this month after Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov, told a Russian television station that he could “neither confirm nor exclude” potential military deployments to the two Latin American nations. The White House appeared resolute in their stance against the move. “I’m not going to respond to bluster in the…

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Canuck Folk Rocker Wants Spotify to Take Action Against Joe Rogan’s 1A Rights

“It’s Joe Rogan or me!”

Published

on

Americans sure do love to argue.  They always have. It started when we were back-talking the British about tea in Boston Harbor, and we installed a heavy amount of contention in our own Congress by design.

But the sort of pedantic and stunting arguments that have dominated the political landscape of late have been wildly underwhelming.

Take, for instance, the non-controversy over Joe Rogan’s COVID19 discussions.  The left has labeled his two-way talks “misinformation” on more than one occasion, often out of context.  Spotify has largely stood by Rogan and his 1st Amendment rights, however.

But now, one of Canada’s folk rock legends has an ultimatum for the platform:  It’s Joe Rogan or me.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Neil Young posted a since-deleted letter to his management team and record label demanding that they remove his music from Spotify. “I am doing this because Spotify is spreading fake information about vaccines – potentially causing death to those who believe the disinformation being spread by them,” he wrote. “Please act on this immediately today and keep me informed of the time schedule.”

“I want you to let Spotify know immediately TODAY that I want all my music off their platform,” he continued. “They can have [Joe] Rogan or Young. Not both.” Young is referencing the steady stream of misinformation about vaccines that Joe Rogan has peddled on The Joe Rogan Experience. Last month, 270 doctors, physicians, and science educators signed an open letter asking Spotify to stop spreading Rogan’s baseless claims.

And then, in an insulting bit of “here is what you should do” speculation:

“With an estimated 11 million listeners per episode, JRE, which is hosted exclusively on Spotify, is the world’s largest podcast and has tremendous influence,” the letter reads. “Spotify has a responsibility to mitigate the spread of misinformation on its platform, though the company presently has no misinformation policy.”

As of this writing, no official word on the removal of Young’s music from the service has been given.

Americans sure do love to argue.  They always have. It started when we were back-talking the British about tea in Boston Harbor, and we installed a heavy amount of contention in our own Congress by design. But the sort of pedantic and stunting arguments that have dominated the political landscape of late have been wildly underwhelming. Take, for instance, the non-controversy over Joe Rogan’s COVID19 discussions.  The left has labeled his two-way talks “misinformation” on more than one occasion, often out of context.  Spotify has largely stood by Rogan and his 1st Amendment rights, however. But now, one of Canada’s folk rock legends has an ultimatum for the platform:  It’s Joe Rogan or me. Neil Young posted a since-deleted letter to his management team and record label demanding that they remove his music from Spotify. “I am doing this because Spotify is spreading fake information about vaccines – potentially causing death to those who believe the disinformation being spread by them,” he wrote. “Please act on this immediately today and keep me informed of the time schedule.” “I want you to let Spotify know immediately TODAY that I want all my music off their platform,” he continued. “They can have [Joe] Rogan or Young. Not both.” Young is referencing the steady stream of misinformation about vaccines that Joe Rogan has peddled on The Joe Rogan Experience. Last month, 270 doctors, physicians, and science educators signed an open letter asking Spotify to stop spreading Rogan’s baseless claims. And then, in an insulting bit of “here is what you should do” speculation: “With an estimated 11 million listeners per episode, JRE, which is hosted exclusively on Spotify, is the world’s largest podcast and has tremendous influence,” the letter reads. “Spotify has a responsibility to mitigate the spread of misinformation on its platform,…

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week