Arrest Senator Rand Paul Now

Politicians are NOT above the law, and I will show CLEARLY that Rand Paul committed a felony.

Update: He did it again! Only this time more people were watching. We can’t tolerate this. This is how a nation descends into lawlessness.

In case you didn’t know, Rand Paul attempted to have Judge Roberts read the names of a CIA employee right-wing media believes to be the whistleblower: Eric C. Judge Roberts refused to read the question in it’s entirety because it is a felony to do so. However, Paul, being a scumbag, turned around and read the question anyway directly to the media on live national television. That’s right. RAND PAUL COMMITTED A FELONY ON LIVE NATIONAL TELEVISION. Let that sink in. Right now, Rand Paul is one of 53 people separating you from a happy America without Donald Trump. Right now, Rand Paul is a free man actively damaging the future of America and the future of YOUR LIFE despite the fact that he IS LITERALLY A FELON.

So let’s break down why it’s a felony, shall we?

The Whistleblower complaint is covered under U.S. Code § 3033(k)(5) which specifically states, 

“…employee of an element of the intelligence community, an employee assigned or detailed to an element of the intelligence community, or an employee of a contractor to the intelligence community who intends to report to Congress a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern may report such complaint or information to the Inspector General.”

This means that public servants of the intelligence community CAN file a complaint though the Inspector General, which they DID as explained by the Inspector General directly!

Those who claim that “the Whistleblower protection act doesn’t cover protect the identity” are neglecting to mention that the Supreme Court specifically said IT ABSOLUTELY DOES in the Lane v. Franks case:

Here the Supreme Court specifically says, 

“The importance of public employee speech is especially evident in the context of this case: a public corruption scandal. The United States, for example, represents that because “[t]he more than 1000 prosecutions for federal corruption offenses that are brought in a typical year . . . often depend on evidence about activities that government officials undertook while in office,” those prosecutions often “require testimony from other government employees.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 20. It would be antithetical to our jurisprudence to conclude that the very kind of speech necessary to prosecute corruption by public officials-speech [*241] by public employees regarding information learned through their employment-may never form the basis for a First Amendment retaliation claim. Such a rule would place public employees who witness corruption in an impossible position, torn between the obligation to testify truthfully and the desire to avoid retaliation and keep their jobs.
Applying these principles, it is clear that Lane’s sworn testimony is speech as a citizen.”

What does this mean? It means that the whistleblower is protected by THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Since the whistleblower is now CLEARLY SHOWN to be a free citizen providing testimony to a crime, that makes whistleblowers WITNESSES. Ignoring that it is violating the spirit of the Whistleblower Protection Act, the whistleblower is clearly facing retaliation AS A WITNESS TO A CRIME. In other words, Rand Paul attempting to retaliate against the whisteblower is a form of witness intimidation!

Punishment for witness intimidation is 20 years in prison under US Code 18 section 1512.

Attempting to out the whistleblower is retaliation that violates the Whistleblower Protection Act, a violation of the whistleblower’s first amendment rights, and a form of witness intimidation.

What does this mean for Rand Paul?

The consequences are crystal clear: removal from office with 20 years in prison and a fine of 250,000 dollars.

That. Is. Literally. The. Law.

If Rand Paul doesn’t go to prison, and you aren’t screaming to the media, your social media, and your elected officials that he needs to be arrested RIGHT NOW, then you are complicit in allowing politicians to be above the law. Their behavior of acting above the law needs to stop RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW. Once one goes down the rest will shortly follow.

If you believe in America; If you believe in doing the right thing; If you believe in the law; if you believe in equality; if you believe in freedom:
Get ANGRY.  Get LOUD.  

Tell your State Representatives and Senators to serve justice to the American People!

Tell your Twitter feed to serve justice: #ArrestRandPaulNow

Tell anyone and everyone you can that right matters.  That serving justice matters.

Because if right doesn’t matter, then we are lost.

Being Rational about Impeachment

Yesterday, President Trump was impeached and became the third president in the history of the country to face this historic rebuke by Congress. The impeachment, however, passed through the house along party lines effectively creating further division between the parties and the people they represent. Personally, I’m not a Democrat. But, I’m definitely not a Republican either.

The Democrat Majority sees the case like this:

The whistle-blower brought awareness to a potential issue, everyone asked to explain that came forward testified that something very untoward was happening in Ukraine by the President, and the President is withholding any and ALL testimony and direct evidence that EXISTS IN ALL OF REALITY. The conclusion they reached based on this is that the withheld evidence must be damning, as it won’t be released. As such, they must assume the worst and the president is attempting to subvert Democracy to hold power. I understand why they take this position, and considering what they believe is at stake, I would argue it is the correct one.

The Republican Minority sees the case like this:

Some Never Trumper tarred Trump with their so-called ‘whistle-blower’ report. Something shady is going on between Schiff and the whistle-blower. This is a coup that the Democrats have been working on since 2016 and they finally have something they can make look like a smoking gun. What Trump did in Ukraine looks pretty greasy, but there’s no evidence. This is all hear-say and Ukraine isn’t saying anything and they’re corrupt or weak anyway (seriously Doug Collins you titanic piece of s— you’re the only one saying that and you KEEP SAYING IT STOP). The President is right to look at Hunter Biden because there’s corruption there and we hate corruption. This is all a big show to impeach the president, where’s the proof of a crime? The President doesn’t need to participate in this, it’s a witch hunt.

Cool. So for me, that’s hard to understand while staying rational. However there is one key point here that the Republicans are RATIONALLY using to their defense and the Democrats are RATIONALLY using for their attack that I think would really end all this tribal back and forth: the President won’t show us (Congress who is supposed to be able to see it, and us – The American people who have a right to it if not classified for National Security) the surrounding documentation and speak to the relevant fact witnesses. I.E. There’s no hard evidence to prove he is guilty, and therefore is innocent is their argument. Normally, I would agree. However, here I take issue. If in a normal criminal court the defendant is accused of murder but says, “You can do whatever you want but you can’t look in my gun safe or in the body-sized freezer because I have immunity”, you would laugh at the sheer ridiculous of it. That is what the President is doing to the Democratic Party. That didn’t fly in Die Hard and it definitely doesn’t fly with the Democrats. No one is above the law.

This is a bit like looking at a glass of water filled half-way. For the Democrats the glass is half-empty: the president is withholding evidence that is damning to hide from his crimes. For the Republicans the glass is half-full: the president is withholding evidence that is exculpatory because he believes this is all a sham. No matter how you see it, the glass is at 50%: the president is withholding evidence. (Although I would argue that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck… and the Republicans are putting party ahead of country) Both parties should be screaming for the evidence from every rooftop. Republicans should scream, “It’s a sham! Prove it so this will end!” Democrats should scream, “It’s tyranny! Disprove it so this will end!”. WE SHOULD ALL BE SCREAMING, “MR PRESIDENT GIVE US THE TRUTH”

So my challenge, then, is this:

WHEN the evidence the President is withholding is released, the truth (for once) will become clear. I don’t care if you’re Republican or Democrat or don’t care about politics. Ask yourself this: If the president DID try to get a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT to into interfere IN OUR FREE ELECTIONS, THE TINY THING KEEPING US A DEMOCRACY, into looking into his POLITICAL ENEMY via coercion, would you be okay with that? Essentially, will you still stand behind Trump if he is in fact betraying Democracy? This is how Democrats are perceiving the issue. Conversely: If the president DIDN’T try to COERCE meddling in our elections, will you back off? (At least until the election)

By controlling the information, the President, his AM pundits, and Fox News which support him have constructed an opposing world-view which is mutually exclusive from anyone who consumes news BY ANY OTHER OUTLET. They have transformed American politics into a zero-sum game. I FIND THIS COMPLETELY REPREHENSIBLE. THIS IS THE ROOT OF DIVISION IN OUR COUNTRY. I don’t know if he’s working for Putin (something about ducks), or if he thinks that creating this chaos to the detriment of our country is the best path to win re-election. (Either way Putin wins) What I do know, however, is that if we can pry the information out of the executive (much like pulling a bullet from a wound) we can find one truth and finally pull the country together under one FACTUAL AND TRUTH-BASED narrative and begin to heal all this hostile division.

So then, what is the only rational way to view impeachment?