Republican Rand Paul Breaks With Trump Over Portland: 'Cannot Give Up Liberty for Security'

[libertybele]

Republican Rand Paul Breaks With Trump Over Portland: 'Cannot Give Up Liberty for Security'

Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky spoke out on Monday against the actions federal agents took against protesters in Portland last week after weeks of escalation in the city.

President Donald Trump said Monday the federal troops that went to Portland to help local law enforcement manage protesters did "a fantastic job" and arrested "a lot of people," seemingly confirming a video shared on social media over the weekend. But local legislators said the agents only made matters worse and repeatedly called on Trump to pull the agents out of the state.

Paul joined their calls to put an end to the federal agents' presence in the city in a tweet he posted Monday morning, which accompanied an article by the conservative political blog Hot Air that detailed unidentified agents' efforts to arrest protesters.

"We cannot give up liberty for security," Paul said. "Local law enforcement can and should be handling these situations in our cities but there is no place for federal troops or unidentified federal agents rounding people up at will.".............

https://www.newsweek.com/republican-rand-paul-breaks-trump-over-portland-cannot-give-liberty-security-1519204

[skeeter]

No one has a right to destroy property, Rand. That kind of 'liberty' was the farthest thing from the founders' minds.

[Absalom]

The notion that liberty was Man's highest aspiration came from French Revolutionaries;
Rousseau, Murat and Danton, and had nothing in common w/our Founders.
This is so because their legacy/heritage was English not French.

[DB]

"We cannot give up liberty for security," Paul said. "Local law enforcement can and should be handling these situations in our cities but there is no place for federal troops or unidentified federal agents rounding people up at will."

If they are destroying federal property there damn sure is a place for for federal troops to do that.

[libertybele]

No one has a right to destroy property, Rand. That kind of 'liberty' was the farthest thing from the founders' minds.

He states that local law enforcement can and should be handling the situation.  I think he missed the memo about Portland defunding the police. 

[Chosen Daughter]

He states that local law enforcement can and should be handling the situation.  I think he missed the memo about Portland defunding the police.

Those Federal troops are from several different agencies and they are protecting Federal Property and it was implemented on a EO.  Trump needs to enact the Insurrection Act.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/homeland-security-head-visits-portland-calls-demonstrators-e2-80-98violent-mob-e2-80-99-and-defends-federal-officers/ar-BB16RYGd

What are they protecting?
Federal officers are protecting federal property and personnel in downtown Portland including the Mark. O Hatfield federal courthouse, Pioneer Courthouse, the Edith Green-Wendell Wyatt Federal Building and Terry Schrunk Plaza. Local federal officers don’t have enough people to secure all federal buildings.

“We needed some assistance and got that assistance,” said Billy Williams, U.S. Attorney for Oregon.

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/investigations/who-are-these-federal-officers-sent-to-portland-to-deal-with-protesters/283-b2c3b375-cd6a-4e8a-b2c3-25cbbb911335

Trump claimed they had quelled it.  That isn't what they are doing.

[libertybele]

Those Federal troops are from several different agencies and they are protecting Federal Property and it was implemented on a EO.  Trump needs to enact the Insurrection Act.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/homeland-security-head-visits-portland-calls-demonstrators-e2-80-98violent-mob-e2-80-99-and-defends-federal-officers/ar-BB16RYGd

It doesn't help that we have a sitting Senator that is sending the wrong message; that freedom = a right to riot, harm innocent people and destroy property. 

[Chosen Daughter]

It doesn't help that we have a sitting Senator that is sending the wrong message; that freedom = a right to riot, harm innocent people and destroy property.

Maybe its a matter of how he thinks they are going about it.  Trump is full of it.  He is declaring that Feds have quelled the riots.  No, and perhaps Rand has said that because he believes what is being done is useless and only ignites more violence.

Well and I agree with him and disagree also.  I think what Trump is doing is making things worse.  But local police and government are not going to do anything.  We need the Insurrection Act.  A military presence not snatching people.

[libertybele]

Maybe its a matter of how he thinks they are going about it.  Trump is full of it.  He is declaring that Feds have quelled the riots.  No, and perhaps Rand has said that because he believes what is being done is useless and only ignites more violence.

He is right to a certain extent; that law enforcement can and should be handling the chaos.  This is true, only the chaos isn't being contained and Portland has a useless mayor and Oregon has a useless governor.

An attempt was made by the feds to calm things, the mayor told them to leave, the head of the DHS said that they had every right to be there, we'll see what happens.

[roamer_1]

He is right to a certain extent; that law enforcement can and should be handling the chaos.  This is true, only the chaos isn't being contained and Portland has a useless mayor and Oregon has a useless governor.

An attempt was made by the feds to calm things, the mayor told them to leave, the head of the DHS said that they had every right to be there, we'll see what happens.

It is my belief that the local sheriff has more authority than city admin, city cops, and even the governor and county admin, whose only real power against a sheriff is impeachment on grounds... So if the county sheriff has asked for federal assistance...

[Cyber Liberty]

It is my belief that the local sheriff has more authority than city admin, city cops, and even the governor and county admin, whose only real power against a sheriff is impeachment on grounds... So if the county sheriff has asked for federal assistance...

That's true, as a rule of thumb, but it varies a bit from state to state.  Here in AZ, the Sheriff is the top official for enforcement, answerable only to the voters unless Impeached, and that's an act of the Legislature.  I would not be surprised if the rule of thumb is different in the wacko Eastern Seaboard states.

[libertybele]

It is my belief that the local sheriff has more authority than city admin, city cops, and even the governor and county admin, whose only real power against a sheriff is impeachment on grounds... So if the county sheriff has asked for federal assistance...

@roamer_1  -- you are correct --I researched a bit as to the power of the sheriff but I'm not quite sure about having more power than the governor as both are elected officials.

ttps://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/sheriff-is-right-governor-doesnt-have-authority-hes-claimed/

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1  -- you are correct --I researched a bit as to the power of the sheriff but I'm not quite sure about having more power than the governor as both are elected officials.

ttps://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/sheriff-is-right-governor-doesnt-have-authority-hes-claimed/

That depends upon how you look at it... Generally neither can be removed but by impeachment (or election)... But I do believe the Sheriff trumps even the Governor within his jurisdiction. The Governor cannot displace the Sheriff unless he can show cause. So a good sheriff, standing on the law, pretty much has his way.

[roamer_1]

That's true, as a rule of thumb, but it varies a bit from state to state.  Here in AZ, the Sheriff is the top official for enforcement, answerable only to the voters unless Impeached, and that's an act of the Legislature.  I would not be surprised if the rule of thumb is different in the wacko Eastern Seaboard states.

I think that's why the (MT)Governor's illegal mask edict is going over like a lead balloon - Let's see him enforce it without the sheriff...

[Cyber Liberty]

That depends upon how you look at it... Generally neither can be removed but by impeachment (or election)... But I do believe the Sheriff trumps even the Governor within his jurisdiction. The Governor cannot displace the Sheriff unless he can show cause. So a good sheriff, standing on the law, pretty much has his way.

I wish more Sheriffs understood their power.  I am fortunate, we have a Sheriff who refuses to enforce stupid Executive Orders like forcing the proles to wear a mask.  Tucker Carlson had him on the show once to talk about that.  The fellow running against him in the Primary is just like that, and in my county winning the GOP Primary is tantamount to winning the General.  Half the time, there are no Democrats running at all and if they do, they get blown out at least 2:1 in the vote counts.

My old county, Maricopa, had Joe Arpaio for years, until O'Bastard hounded him out of office.  Now Maricopa has Penzone, an enfeebled, feminine Democrat. 

[Cyber Liberty]

I think that's why the (MT)Governor's illegal mask edict is going over like a lead balloon - Let's see him enforce it without the sheriff...

Are there any counties (outside the one with Bozeman in it) with Rat Sheriffs who would be happy to force compliance with orders forcing everybody to walk around on their hands instead of their feet.

[Right_in_Virginia]

No one has a right to destroy property, Rand. That kind of 'liberty' was the farthest thing from the founders' minds.

Exactly @skeeter  Not to mention no one has the freedom to harm another.

[libertybele]

That depends upon how you look at it... Generally neither can be removed but by impeachment (or election)... But I do believe the Sheriff trumps even the Governor within his jurisdiction. The Governor cannot displace the Sheriff unless he can show cause. So a good sheriff, standing on the law, pretty much has his way.

Thanks for the enlightenment.   

[Chosen Daughter]

@roamer_1  -- you are correct --I researched a bit as to the power of the sheriff but I'm not quite sure about having more power than the governor as both are elected officials.

ttps://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/sheriff-is-right-governor-doesnt-have-authority-hes-claimed/

Thanks for the link.  I voted for Fortney.  I said we have a new Sherriff in town.  One that will actually arrest criminals.  But look what they have done.  They didn't want him in the first place because they don't want to let law enforcement do their jobs.

They are railroading him:

Judge approves 2nd recall effort against Sheriff Fortney
Both recall efforts are gearing up to collect 45,000 signatures to get on the ballot in Snohomish County.

https://www.heraldnet.com/news/judge-approves-2nd-recall-effort-against-sheriff-fortney/

[roamer_1]

Are there any counties (outside the one with Bozeman in it) with Rat Sheriffs who would be happy to force compliance with orders forcing everybody to walk around on their hands instead of their feet.

It is the cities... Bozeman/Butte, Billings, Great Falls, Helena (capitol), and Missoula... And because of the weight of those populations, those counties will likely comply... Because the sheriff needs those city folks to get (re)elected.

We are probably next in line, but up in here, we are still more conservative than not... Here in the Flathead, liberal enclaves, Whitefish and Bigfork, are likely in compliance and enforcing through the city police to some extent, but the rest of us (Kalispell, Columbia Falls, Somers, Lakeside, Hungry Horse and etcetera, and all environs), it ain't gonna fly. The edict is against businesses allowing unmasked into their stores, with serious fines, but no one is getting fines, no stores (other than banks gvt fascilities, and the Costco) are imposing masks. And cops are not fining in the public space...

Which is a beautiful thing to me.

[Chosen Daughter]

It is the cities... Bozeman/Butte, Billings, Great Falls, Helena (capitol), and Missoula... And because of the weight of those populations, those counties will likely comply... Because the sheriff needs those city folks to get (re)elected.

We are probably next in line, but up in here, we are still more conservative than not... heHere in the Flathead, liberal enclaves, Whitefish and Bigfork, are likely in compliance and enforcing through the city police to some extent, but the rest of us (Kalispell, Columbia Falls, Somers, Lakeside, Hungry Horse and etcetera, and all environs), it ain't gonna fly. The edict is against businesses allowing unmasked into their stores, with serious fines, but no one is getting fines, no stores (other than banks gvt fascilities, and the Costco) are imposing masks. And cops are not fining in the public space...

Which is a beautiful thing to me.

We have conservative counties but the bulk of voters are in the liberal East Side.

[Smokin Joe]

Those Federal troops are from several different agencies and they are protecting Federal Property and it was implemented on a EO.  Trump needs to enact the Insurrection Act.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/homeland-security-head-visits-portland-calls-demonstrators-e2-80-98violent-mob-e2-80-99-and-defends-federal-officers/ar-BB16RYGd

What are they protecting?
Federal officers are protecting federal property and personnel in downtown Portland including the Mark. O Hatfield federal courthouse, Pioneer Courthouse, the Edith Green-Wendell Wyatt Federal Building and Terry Schrunk Plaza. Local federal officers don’t have enough people to secure all federal buildings.

“We needed some assistance and got that assistance,” said Billy Williams, U.S. Attorney for Oregon.

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/investigations/who-are-these-federal-officers-sent-to-portland-to-deal-with-protesters/283-b2c3b375-cd6a-4e8a-b2c3-25cbbb911335

Trump claimed they had quelled it.  That isn't what they are doing.

First off they are FLEOs from FLEAs, not troops.

The Federal Government doesn't need permission to send in Federal agents for crimes that fall under their jurisdiction.

Not advertising who is in town, where their headquarters is, keeping separate from local LEOs, and not using marked units all contribute to operational security, which keeps rioters off their doorstep and lets them do their jobs, unlike the local police who are under siege and hamstrung as a result.
While coordination with the local LEOs would be nice, in this case, OPSEC is more important.

I don't have any problem with this. The FBI doesn't have to come to arrest people in marked vehicles, ICE doesn't have to use marked vehicles, and whatever agencies, including the BATFE, don't either.

[roamer_1]

I don't have any problem with this. The FBI doesn't have to come to arrest people in marked vehicles, ICE doesn't have to use marked vehicles, and whatever agencies, including the BATFE, don't either.

Neither do the local LEOs for that matter... One of the latter times I was nearly arrested, I was busted by a sheriff in an old pickup... Looking like he belonged out there... Which he did, to be fair. I even knew him. Rode broncs with him... I just didn't know he went LEO (will wonders ever cease?)

[mountaineer]

"Local law enforcement can and should be handling these situations in our cities but there is no place for federal troops or unidentified federal agents rounding people up at will."

They're not rounding up people at will. They're arresting lawbreakers, because feckless Portland city officials have ordered the police to do nothing.

[FeelNoPain]

They're not rounding up people at will. They're arresting lawbreakers, because feckless Portland city officials have ordered the police to do nothing.

I'm worried about individuals impersonating these nameless, unidentified, fatigue-wearing Feds in unmarked vehicles kidnapping and disappearing a couple of these protesters.