Despite the seeming diverting of all the power of the federal government in order to remove any responsibility from Hillary Clinton for actions that were admittedly criminal, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is on a mission to fight that power.
As a part of his overall question to “Hold Hillary Accountable,” Senator Paul made a comment to reporters, calling on the presumptive Democratic Party presidential nominee to be subjected to the full range of legal ramifications for her actions, which threatened the national security of the United States.
In response to a question about FBI Director James Comey’s call for Clinton to be set scot free, unpunished for her use of personal e-mail servers to transmit classified documents — an act in violation of federal law — Paul said, “I think an indictment would be a good idea, followed by a prison sentence.”
As The New American reported on July 14, Senator Paul has launched a drive to gather signatures on a petition aimed at persuading officials at the Department of Justice to apply the laws of this country to Hillary Clinton, the way they would be to any other citizen.
“If you still believe that no American — even a Clinton — should be exempt from our justice system, sign the petition demanding that Hillary Clinton be held accountable for all her violations,” Paul writes, explaining the purpose of the petition.
“There should not be a different set of rules for Hillary and people like us,” he adds.
Predictably, lawyers for Clinton are seeking to have their boss placed permanently beyond the reach of congressmen or the courts. As reported by the Washington Post:
Lawyers for Hillary Clinton asked a federal judge Monday not to order her to testify about her private email server, saying that any “cluelessness or negligence” by State Department officials about how she managed work-related emails did not equate to evidence that she intended to thwart public records laws. [Emphasis added.]
As an attorney, I have a problem with my fellow lawyers’ language in defense of their client.
Negligence, as defined in the law, is simply the failure of a person to meet a standard of care that a reasonable person would meet in the same or similar circumstances.
By its very definition, negligence has nothing at all to do with intent.
Therefore, Clinton’s attorneys’ assertion that her lack of intent should justify placing her beyond accountability for any “negligence” regarding her handling of classified material using a personal e-mail account is, as we say in the law, irrelevant.
Look at it this way: If Driver A runs a stop sign and hits Driver B’s car, causing damages, then Driver A will be held accountable for the reparation of Driver B’s damages, provided Driver A is found to have acted without due care (negligently) in the running of the stop sign.
No attorney worth his commission would try to excuse Driver A’s negligence by pointing out that he didn’t intend to crash into the other car!
That is exactly the argument being made by Hillary Clinton’s white stocking legal team, however.
Intent is irrelevant in cases of negligence when it comes to driving in a way that could harm another person, and it should be equally irrelevant in cases of transmitting classified material in such a way that could harm the national security of the United States.
Rand Paul’s efforts, therefore, are on sound legal and moral footing. But will that fact make any difference in whether Hillary is held accountable? That’s another story.
RAND PAUL SLAMS “PARTISAN CRANKS AND HACKS” AT MSNBC FOLLOWING TERSE INTERVIEW
Senator: “Apologize for all the lousy lies you’ve been saying about me for four years”
by STEVE WATSON
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has hit out at MSNBC, pledging not to appear on the network again until it “apologizes” for pushing “lousy lies” about his policies.
The Senator made the comments Wednesday night during a speech to the libertarian group Young Americans for Liberty. Earlier in the day, Paul had appeared on an MSNBC show to talk about criminal justice reform proposals. Instead, the anchor dredged up comments about the Civil Rights Act that Paul made four years ago, comments that have consistently been taken out of context and used by the network to bash the Senator.
“So I was having a great day today, then I went to MSNBC,” Paul told the convention in Arlington, Virginia.
“I said, ‘Look I’ll come back and have a great philosophical discussion after you go on the air for 24 hours (and) apologize for all the lousy lies you’ve been saying about me for four years,’” he explained.
The Senator also told the gathering that MSNBC only has a “couple” of “honest progressives, adding that most of their presenters are nothing more than “partisan cranks and hacks.”
“We’re trying to make this not a partisan issue,” Paul said with regards to his criminal justice legislation, “but you go on a network that wants to make everything about partisanship.”
Paul’s speech can be viewed below:
During the interview with MSNBC host Ari Melber, Paul repeatedly urged that he has never said he is against the Civil Rights Act. “I’ve always been in favor of the Civil Rights Act. People need to get over themselves writing all this stuff that I’ve changed my mind on the Civil Rights Act.” the Senator said.
“Have I ever had a philosophical discussion about all aspects of it? Yeah, and I learned my lesson: To come on MSNBC and have a philosophical discussion, the liberals will come out of the woodwork and they will go crazy and say you’re against the Civil Rights Act, and you’re some terrible racist.” Paul said, lambasting the network.
“And I take great objection to that, because, in Congress, I think there is nobody else trying harder to get people back their voting rights, to get people back, and make the criminal justice system fair. So I take great offense to people who want to portray me as something that I’m not.” Paul added.
In a stunning display of Orwellian doublethink, Melber still attempted to push the same line that Paul is somehow against the Civil Rights Act, asking why he has “evolved” his position since 2010.
Paul shot back immediately that he has “never been opposed” the law in the first place.
“I’ve been attacked by half a dozen people on your network trying to say I’m opposed to the Civil Rights Act and somehow now I’ve changed,” Paul said. “I’m not willing to engage with people who are misrepresenting my viewpoint on this.”
“The honest discussion of it would be that I never was opposed to the Civil Rights Act and when your network does 24-hour news telling the truth, then maybe we can get somewhere with the discussion.” the Senator added.
Remarkably, moments before addressing Paul’s stance on the Civil Rights Act, Melber asked the Senator’s Democratic colleague Cory Booker (N.J.) about racial disparities in drug prosecutions, asking Booker whether he believed the so-called War on Drugs was “accidentally racist” or “explicitly so.”
Of course, it is no surprise that an MSNBC host would play the race card twice in as many minutes. Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow do it on a nightly basis, which is one of the reasons why the network’s viewership is in the toilet.
Steve Watson is a London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from Nottingham Trent University.
Rand Paul “concerned about who is truly in charge of our government”
Update: Paul’s full speech can be viewed below.
Warns of “dystopian nightmares” coming true
March 19, 2014
Libertarian Kentucky Senator Rand Paul warns in a speech today that he believes US spooks and shadow government agencies are ” drunk with power”, and that elected representatives are privately afraid of those operating behind the curtain.
In a scheduled appearance at the University of California-Berkeley, Paul will address the continuing domestic spying controversy.
In prepared comments Paul notes “I am honestly worried, concerned about who is truly in charge of our government. Most of you have read the dystopian nightmares and maybe, like me, you doubted that it could ever happen in America.”
“If the CIA is spying on Congress, who exactly can or will stop them?” the comments also state. “I look into the eyes of senators and I think I see real fear. Maybe it’s just my imagination, but I think I perceive FEAR of an intelligence community drunk with power, unrepentant, and uninclined to relinquish power.”
The Senator is set to continue on the track that saw him win CPAC’s GOP presidential nomination straw poll recently. During his CPAC speech, Paul slammed the NSA, urging “If you have a cell phone, you are under surveillance… I believe what you do on your cell phone is none of their damn business.”
The Berkeley speech, which takes place at 3:30 p.m. Pacific Time, comes in the wake of the latest revelation that the NSA recorded 100% of phone calls in an unnamed foreign country, using a program dubbed MYSTIC, and a tool called RETRO — for “retrospective retrieval”.
The Washington Post reported the findings yesterday, garnered from leaks by Edward Snowden. NSA documents state that the program is essentially a “time machine” that opens a door “into the past,” allowing a replay of the voices on any given call, without the need for prior identification of the person on the line.
The NSA continues to argue that it is within the law for it to operate such programs in foreign countries, however, MYSTIC did not exempt US citizens living there.
“Ubiquitous voice surveillance, even overseas, pulls in a great deal of content from Americans who telephone, visit, and work in the target country,” The Post reports. “Present and former U.S. officials … acknowledged that large numbers of conversations involving Americans would be gathered from the country where RETRO operates.”
The report also states that the NSA has previously considered expanding the program to other countries, and may already have done so.
Appearing remotely during a recent TED event, Edward Snowden declared that even bigger revelations regarding the NSA are on the way. Snowden acknowledged that every NSA spying program we are learning about now was planned before the 9/11 attacks, and that the event only served to provide justification to expand and implement more surveillance programs.
Snowden said that he is concerned with exposing “one of the dangerous legacies we’ve seen in the post 9/11 era,” adding “They’re making the Internet fundamentally less safe for Americans. Is it really terrorism we’re stopping? Do these programs have any value at all? I say no. Three branches of the American government say no.”
“The bottom line is terrorism has always been a cover for action—it provokes an emotional response,” he added. “The NSA asked for these authorities back in the 1990s. But Congress and the American people said no, said it’s not worth the risk to our economy. But in the post 9/11 era, they used secrecy and the justification of terrorism to start these programs in secret.”
Also appearing at the TED event was Tim Berners-Lee, one of the pioneers of the internet. Berners-Lee praised Snowden as a “hero”, while Snowden said that he supported Berners-Lee’s recent call for an Internet “Magna Carta.”
“I grew up in the Internet,” Snowden said. “I believe a Magna Carta for the Internet is exactly what we need. We need to encode our values in the structure of the Internet. I invite everyone in the audience to join and participate.”
Other activists seeking to battle the NSA’s domestic spying have recently targeted the new monolithic Utah data center, promoting a campaign to cut off the water supply to the facility. Because this is actually quite a good idea, and it has garneredinterest from lawmakers, it has not gone unnoticed by those who are “drunk on power”, as Rand Paul describes them.
The NSA is now actually arguing that its water bill should be declared top secret and that it should not need to declare how much water is being pumped into the Utah facility as a matter of national security.
“By computing the water usage rate, one could ultimately determine the computing power and capabilities of the Utah Data Center,” wrote the NSA’s associate director for policy and records, David Sherman in an undated letter written in response to a request for the information from The Salt Lake Tribune. “Armed with this information, one could then deduce how much intelligence NSA is collecting and maintaining.” Sherman argues.
Meanwhile, the Defense Department’s Inspector General, who is supposed to oversee the NSA’s activities and ensure they are within the law, admitted yesterdaythat he had no idea that the NSA was collecting bulk metadata on Americans’ communications.
“From my own personal knowledge, those programs, in and of themselves, I was not personally aware,” Anthony C. Thomas said.
Thomas also announced that the Pentagon has no intention to investigate the matter. Thomas said he was “waiting to see the information that the NSA IG (inspector General) brings forward with the investigations that are going on, and what we often do not want to do is conflict.”
That is some valuable oversight from the executive branch!
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from Nottingham Trent University.
Democrats are having a hissy fit over Rand Paul’s comments about former president Bill Clinton, and Ted Cruz’s insistence that the office of the president is becoming dictatorial. Paul said Democrats are hypocritical for saying Republicans are engaged in a “war on women” while at the same time praising the scurrilous Bill Clinton, who had a sordid affair with a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has also boldly been leveling counter-attacks against the Democratic establishment, highlighting how the president’s “pattern of lawlessness, his willingness to disregard the written law and instead enforce his own policies via executive fiat” proves an orchestrated effort to morph the executive branch into a dictatorship.
Though Paul went into specifics on the wanton abuses of former president Clinton, he only scratched the surface. Clinton stands accused of sexual misconduct with a large number of women, including Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Juanita Broaddrick, Ellen Wellstone, Carolyn Moffet, Paula Corbin, Sandra Allen James, Christy Zercher, and a dizzying array of others.
In addition, Newsmax reported in 1999, citing Star magazine’s Richard Gooding who had the scoop on confidential FBI files, Clinton employed his pervasive pattern of inappropriate hanky-panky with three female Secret Service agents, thus throwing caution to the wind as most sexual predators do.
Broaddrick and other women, according to Newsmax, said Clinton has a thing for holding down his victims and biting their lips.
Sordid details on Clinton’s sadistic behavior appears in Michael Isikoff’s book,Uncovering Clinton: A Reporter’s Story. “It was rough sex,” Isikoff writes about Clinton’s encounter with the former Miss America Elizabeth Ward Gracen. “Clinton got so carried away that he bit her lip, Gracen later told friends. But it was consensual.”
“Isikoff missed the lip-biting connection,” writes Jack Cashill for WorldNetDaily. “He also failed to acknowledge that at least one of Gracen’s friends, Judy Stokes, had told the Paula Jones legal team that the sex was not consensual at all.”
“The reason rapists bite is because, even with the full weight of her attacker on top of her, the woman is often able to resist the parting of her legs by locking her ankles. The rapist’s arms are busy keeping her pinned down. The only weapon the rapist has left is his teeth, which he uses to bite while demanding she open her legs,” explained a former rape investigator with the New Orleans Police Department. “Some women are stronger than others and I’ve seen their lips half-torn from their faces before they give up.”
Class and position apparently did not deter Clinton, according to another report:
“Before her death, Princess Diana claimed privately that a ‘very flirtatious’ Bill Clinton made a pass at her during one of several meetings; and that she considered accepting – according to close friends who recently shared Diana’s confidences with noted royal author Judy Wade. Wade conducted ‘scores’ of interviews with confidantes to the late Princess of Wales for her soon-to-be released biography, ‘Diana: The Truth,’ which is excerpted in next week’s National Enquirer. After one Clinton encounter Diana reportedly said, ‘We were a little naughty with each other,’ according to one confidante who talked to the tabloid directly,” Newsmax reported in 2000.
There was, as well, a reported dalliance with actress and singer Barbara Streisand. Rumors are rife, including Clinton coming on to actresses Markie Post and Sharon Stone, celebrity Martha Stewart, and beauty queen Lencola Sullivan. Liz Hurleyreportedly fell victim to Clinton’s wiles, but the actress has denied the claim.
Democrats, of course, ignore Bill Clinton’s predatory behavior. He is a revered icon in their pantheon of elder statesmen. After reading the long list of victims enumerated below (from the Alamo Girl website), they may want to find somebody else as their poster boy in the contrived and politically expedient “war on women” election season meme.
Clinton Misogyny – Sex
Juanita Broaddrick (AR)- rape
Eileen Wellstone (Oxford) – rape
Elizabeth Ward Gracen – rape – quid pro quo, post incident intimidation
Regina Hopper Blakely – “forced himself on her, biting, bruising her”
Kathleen Willey (WH) – sexual assault, intimidations, threats
Sandra Allen James (DC) – sexual assault
22 Year Old 1972 (Yale) – sexual assault
Kathy Bradshaw (AK) – sexual assault
Cristy Zercher – unwelcomed sexual advance, intimidations
Paula Jones (AR) – unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
Carolyn Moffet -unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
1974 student at University of Arkansas – unwelcomed physical contact
1978-1980 – seven complaints per Arkansas state troopers
Monica Lewinsky – quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Gennifer Flowers – quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Dolly Kyle Browning – post incident character assault
Sally Perdue – post incident threats
Betty Dalton – rebuffed his advances, married to one of his supporters
Denise Reeder – apologetic note scanned
Clinton Misogyny – Other
Linda Tripp – coerce, intimidate, deny – Bob Bennett calls her a liar, release her job application, transfer her.
Julia Hiatt-Steele – Willey’s friend and neighbor – used the machine to change her story.
Hillary Rodham Clinton – used as a cover humiliated
Chelsea Clinton – ignored
Betty Currie – used as cover and enabler
Donna Shalala – used as cover, used as whipping post in Cabinet meeting
Madeline Albright – used as cover
Secret Service – female agent complaints
Kathy Ferguson – unwelcome advances
Clinton as a Ladies’ Man?
Marsha Scott – claimed an affair
Connie Hamzy – claimed sex
Bobbie Ann Williams – claimed paid sex, paternity
Following are names of ladies rumored to have had sexual relations with Bill Clinton. We of course do not have information to support these rumors and do not intend the reader to think that we believe any of them to be true. Some could be true, some could be false and some could be intentionally spread rumors so absurd as to make the ones listed above and all other rumors look absurd as well. As always, please draw your own conclusions:
Clinton as a Ladies’ Man – Rumors
Marilyn Jo Jenkins – rumored
Susan Coleman – rumored (suicide 7.5 months pregnant)
Robyn Dickey -rumored, staffer
Lenora Steinkamp – rumored – mystery jogger on video tape entering the “infamous hallway” with Clinton
Kimba Wood – rumored, judge
Kelley Craighead – rumored, staffer to Bill and Hillary
Sharline Wilson – rumored, claimed drug association
Dee Dee Myers – rumored, staffer
Suzie Whitacre – rumored
Catherine Cornelius – rumored, “distant cousin”.
Cheryl Mills – rumored, WH attorney
Current Secret Paramour (per Tripp/King interview) – rumored
Clinton as a Ladies’ Man – Rumors with quid pro quo?
Beth Gladden Coulson – rumored – young judicial appointment
Eleanor Mondale – rumored – celebrity daughter, dated Ron Perelman (see Jordan)
Shelia Lawrence – rumored – Widow of Ambassador
Deborah Mathis – rumored – reporter/WH advancements
Debra Schiff – rumored – ex flight attendant, now staffer
Susan McDougal – rumored – business connections
Benazir Bhutto – rumored – current opposition leader in, and former prime minister of Pakistan
Clinton as a wanna be Ladies’ Man or intended disinformation? – Rumors High Profile
Barbara Streisand – rumored – celebrity
Markie Post – rumored – actress
Sharon Stone – rumored – actress
Lencola Sullivan – rumored – beauty queen
Martha Stewart – rumored – celebrity
Diana Wiley Pietsch – rumored – sex therapist – Oxford.
Princess Di – rumored – royalty, deceased
Tags: Rand Paul, Sexual Predator, Bill Clinton, Democrats, Scandals
Opinion: By personalliberty – Hugo Chavez just died, and many of us said “good riddance” to a tyrant who defrauded his own people, intimidated his political opposition and left his economy and country in disarray. Senator Rand Paul seemed to be reminding us: “Why would we want a tyrant in America, too?”
Tags: Rand Paul, Drone Killer Obama, Barack Obama, Hugo Chavez, tyrant, Big Brother, personalliberty
Despite receiving acclaim from both sides of the political spectrum over his stance against unconstitutional drone strikes, CNN host Erin Burnett and one of her guests suggested Senator Rand Paul was “wasting time” by staging his marathon filibuster yesterday.
Introducing the segment by remarking, “Senator Paul drones on….and on….and on,” Burnett asked former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor if a drone strike could ever take place within the United States.
Vietor, who personally worked alongside presumptive CIA director John Brennan, one of the key architects of the secret drone program, attempted to claim the issue was “pretty simple” and that Attorney General Holder and President Obama had clearly stated that drones would not be used against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, the opposite of what Holder and Obama have actually communicated by refusing to categorically deny that this would take place.
Indeed, in his letter to Rand Paul, Holder said that it was “possible” under extraordinary circumstances that drones could be used to kill Americans domestically. This refusal to rule out drone strikes on U.S. soil completely was the very thing that prompted Paul to launch his 12 hour filibuster.
Tags: Rand Paul, Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Big Brother, Drones