On March 1, a Senate resolution supporting possible military action over Libya passed the United States Senate unanimously. But Tea Party Republican Senator Rand Paul's office is telling callers he did not vote on that resolution. And we have it on tape. MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell explains in the Rewrite.
Rand Paul's lies on tape
-
Fri Apr 1, 2011 10:39 PM EDT
Leave a Comment:
This is really sad! You can only lie for so long. When will Rand Paul and his crew realize this.
Lying is a Party of No "family value."
What do you expect?
Sorry but O'Donnll's piece is a total SMEAR. Journalism at its worst. When I first saw it I had a feeling it was crap but it took me a few days to find the real story. Read this folks and decide for yourself.
try again
washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/04/how-senate-was-bait-and-switched-war
Rick, listen to the tape. Did you here some one in the background saying the exact words that were being said. That's good journalism y O'Donnell's crew. The little nerd got caught in another lie.
Read the article. Think about the timeline of events. It is obvious that the wording of the resolution was changed at the last minute. Why doesn't O'Donnell go after the others that "voted" for the res 85 but voted "NO" on tabling Paul's amendment? Sen. Snowe, among others, would chew up O'Donnell and spit him out.
O'Donnell has taken MSNBC to a new low. Good journalism is neutral, accurate and presents the informative in a non-personal way. Does Chris Wallace behave like this? Name one decent journalist who would go and on calling a US Senator a liar?
The sad thing about the Tea Baggers lying is that their followers/believers have been so drenched with obfuscation of reality by the Fox Fiction Channel, Rush, Beck, and the rest of the hate speech mongers that they are incapable of separating a lie from the truth. To them if it comes from the mouth of a Tea Bagger its reality no matter what the facts or logic may say to the contrary.
Mike,
How is life going for you with all that hate in your heart? It must really suck to be you. I am so sorry your life sucks so bad and that hate has colored your heart black, I will pray for better days ahead for you.
Mike,
You need to stop drinking the main stream media's coolaid. I have watched both Foxnews and the other media outlets, I feel that Foxnews is the only fair news outlet, they have both Dems and Reps debating issues. But CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC only debate with individuals that agree with their issues. Open your eyes.
Not objecting to a unanimous consent is almost close enough to be misconstrued as not voting, if you're ignorant about how things work. Having said that, not objecting to THIS one gives him no room whatsoever to start making a stink about it after the resolution passed.
not only that, the fact that it passed, gives no one any room to say that the president did this without the consent of congress.
PLEASE!! This resolution was directed to the United Nations. Not the President. Its sponsors used the method that Senators employ when they want something to slip through or to avoid debate.
This "journalism" by O'Donnell is just like the crap we get from FOX. Total crap. Misleading, inaccurate, personal, and unnecessary! This will come back on O'Donnell.
Perhaps you should go to the website of the US Senate and look at the senate rules, paying particular attention to the section on unanimous consent. I did that this morning.
Maybe Sen Paul was too busy doing something else to pay attention to what was going on, but that's his responsibility, no one else's. He still is not being truthful, no matter what his excuse.
Republicans like Rick can invent stories upon stories to try and obfuscate any inconvenient truth. And they are quite good at it too.
You think a Senate condemnation resolution, with no House involvement, "[s]trongly condemning the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya, including violent attacks on protesters demanding democratic reforms, and for other purposes," "urg[ing] the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory," and "welcom[ing] the outreach that has begun by the United States Government to Libyan opposition figures and supports an orderly, irreversible transition to a legitimate democratic government in Libya" is a congressional declaration of war? You call that the consent of Congress?
This is a sad situation, but is what I have come to expect from Rand Paul. Kentucky deserves a better senator than Paul. GOD help us IF he decides to run for President.
The secret service would all be outfitted with giant combat head stomping boots.
Fantastic piece. It's about time that progressives start fighting back against right wing hypocrisy, and also the agenda of using lies to try to transfer even more wealth to ultra rich at the expense of the other 99 percent of the population. Many patriotic Americans are now motivated to take action against attacks upon collective bargaining rights. I hope this O’Donnell piece and more similar ones to come will wake up many still moribund Americans and make them start to fight back.
The only problem with your logic is that when Lawrence goes on and on and whines and cries like he did, he loses all credibility! Him and this piece are nothing more than BS!
The only BS is from you and your right-wing liars!
Fantastic piece. It's about time that progressives start fighting back against right wing hypocrisy, and also the agenda of using lies to try to transfer even more wealth to ultra rich at the expense of the other 99 percent of the population. Many patriotic Americans are now motivated to take action against attacks against collective bargaining rights. I hope this O’Donnell piece and more similar ones to come will wake up many still moribund Americans and make them start to fight back.
Urging the UN to take steps necessary to protect civilians, POSSIBLY with a no fly zone, is not the same as giving the President the authority to bomb another nation. The bill did not say who would impose the no-fly zone or if the no-fly zone was the right decision to make in this case.
Read the whole text of the resolution. Everyone agrees that the regime should end and that a democracy or representative republic should reign. If Sen. Paul voted against this bill, he would be the guy who hates democracy and freedom. I am disappointed in Lawrence's assessment of Sen. Paul's vote.
It isn't possible to establish a no fly zone until the capacity of the countries military is taken out so the jets patrolling the no fly zone aren't shot down. This was stated directly by 3 generals who were interviewed.
When you say they urged the U.S. to takes steps, but didn't state who would impose it. We are a member of the U.S. Security Council. Are you truly saying that the UN would make a resolution, and then the U.S. would say "no we'll sit this one out"
If I am not mistaken you can even hear someone coaching Kathy about the 47 seconds. You can hear them coaching the whole time but that part is very clear.
If anyone would know how the Senate works it would be Lawrence O'Donnell. The years spent as a senior aide to Daniel Patrick Moynihan have taught him well. Thank you Lawrence for calling out Sen. Rand Paul. we need voices like yours to continue to point out the stupidity and inanity of the Republican party.
cdj I would agree with you about the Republicans, but I would also add the Democrats to the same group. Neither party nor individual politician seems to understand the bigger picture. I for one would like to figure out how to be socially liberal and at the same time be fiscally conservative. In other words how do we help everyone that needs help without going broke?
I would rather Lawrence O'Donnell bring up the budget issue than something about Mr. Paul. We have a 1.5 trillion deficit this year and the argument in Congress is about cutting that number by the 10 to 60 billion dollars. Not much of a spending cut by either party.
Also, I would like to mention that I highly suspect that if you took all of the assets of the wealthiest people in the United State you still wouldn’t erase the debt Congress has accumulated over the years.
Yes thank you Lawrence for doing this piece because it proves that your not a journalist at all. It proves your just spreading propaganda for the democratic party. What a joke this channel is! Well at least you have some people in the world who believe in this BS! Sorry, I'm too intelligent to have the wool pulled over my eyes by anyone who works for MSNBC.
Lawrence needs to be locked in a closet with Olbermann. Two look a likes
They are bad because they call out liars. Truth certainly hurts doesn't it?
I would rather Lawrence O'Donnell bring up the budget issue than something about Mr. Paul.
He did. Rand Paul say's 'yea' to 'no fly zone'. When that was carried out, it had to be paid for. Paul said he would cut, cut spending and then said 'yea' to spending. He tried to say he didn't when he did. He lied.
It has to do with the budget.
Rant Paul ... hee hee
Lawrence, You are da man....Go after these hypocritical SOB's like Rand Paul who distort our American values. I want to just to say how much I respected Daniel Patrick Moynihan as well. I lived in New York for many years where Senator Moynihan was my and would never do what Rand Paul did.
Gee does that mean he was for it before he was against it??????
"Last night, Kentucky elected Rand Paul (R-KY), the son of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), to the U.S. Senate. Speaking to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Paul announced his intention to do anything it takes to shield the privileged rich and corporate America."
He's not concerned about soldiers...juts rich people.
Disappointing to see Lawrence go on a rant about Rand Paul "lying" because a 22 year old junior staffer didn't get the details of unanimous consent right.
Actually, she came closer than Lawrence led his audience to believe. Unanimous consent is NOT actually a vote, according to Senate rules. In fact, it's often used to avoid a formal roll call vote. Paul could, however, have objected, which would have then forced a vote.
The resolution also does not commit the US to war, as O'Donnell implied.
I'm a regular viewer, but O'Donnell cheapens the show with this kind of rhetoric. It souncs like the kind of bullying I might hear from Limbaugh.
Isn't a Vote of unanimous consent still a vote???? I'm preaty sure the key vote is vote
The terms "unanimous consent" and "vote" as used in the Senate are very different. For example, a vote generally requires a quorum, whereas unanimous consent does not.
The Senate rules can be found on their website (cut and paste):
There's no such thing as a "vote of unanimous consent," or at least it's not defined in Senate rules. My question: doesn't O'Donnell know there's a difference?
If he does, then he misled his viewers...and Kathy was close to getting it right.
You are 100% wrong. (See my note to you below.)
I don't know if you're intentionally trying to mislead or if you seriously have no idea what you are talking about.
Lawrence explained it very well.
1. The Sponsor of a Bill/Resolution sends their Bill/Resolution to each Senator's office & requests Unanimous Consent.
2. If all senators vote "yea" on the request then no Roll Call is needed because a Roll Call vote on the floor would be "redundant" since all Senators had already cast their "yea" vote (get it?)
3. Quorums apply to "floor votes" and I will explain why:
IF: all Senators vote "yea" electronically from their office, as was the case w/ SRes 85,
THEN: mathematically, all 100% of the Senators voted "yea" hence quorum requirement of 51% is clearly met.
Seriously, get an education - I'm serious when I say, Beck U is not a real education
Seems like you're confusing a Bill and a Resolution. If this were a Joint Resolution, I could see how you might be confused. But this would have then been sent to the House.
But S. Res. 85 was a "Simple Resolution," defined as:
simple resolution - Designated "S. Res.," simple resolutions are used to express nonbinding positions of the Senate or to deal with the Senate's internal affairs, such as the creation of a special committee. They do not require action by the House of Representatives.
www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/simple_resolution.htm
Now ask yourself the question: why wasn't this crafted as a Joint Resolution so it would be sent to the House?
All S.R. 85 is only a condemnation of which the no-fly zone was only a small fraction of the entire resolution. It is not a formal declaration of any military action. It only recognizes that that may "possibly" be an action to take if the other stated measures fail to produce results.
Once the UN decided to take action, our participation was supposed to had come up in the House.
James
S.Res 85 specifically says, "Now, therefore, be itResolved, That the Senate-- (7) urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory;"
Now, James, clearly the US Senate is 'urging' the UN to 'impose a No-Fly Zone' if needed.
... and ... thus clearly the US Senate is giving their CONSENT for the United States to go to the UN & cast their (USA) vote as a "yes" if the UN decides a No-Fly Zone is necessary.
Therefore, any one with even half a working mind can clearly understand that RAND PAUL vote his "YEA" vote for the President to become part of the UN Coalition to impose a No-Fly Zone if the UN decides a No-Fly Zone is needed.
Recent history: 1991-2003 UN No-Fly Zone over Iraq proves to anyone who was living on this planet that imposing a No-Fly Zone requires Military Action - as the United States was engaged in Military Action between 1991-2003 whilst being a member of the UN Coalition No Fly Zone over Iraq.
You Teabaggies should get an education & focus on learning how to COMPREHEND facts.
Amen!
I loved the way you presented this piece. Having worked in the US Senate back in the early 70's I remember our "Kathy." Like many of the Senate receptionists, she was a sweet young kid. What the Senator's senior staff did to her was unconscionable. And their subsequent refusal to respond on the record doubled the insult to her. Thanks for keeping the focus where it belonged, on the Senator and his senior staff, not the poor young kid answering the phone.
TO: JasperJones, KR-3098035 & all Rand Paul supporters who -might need a real education? (psst ... Beck U is NOT a real education)
I can't begin to explain the facts as well as Lawrence O'Donnell - but let me try to educate you by breaking down the facts into simple form:
FACTS:
1. Unanimous Consent Requests on Bills & Resolutions are sent to each Senator's office (not the floor)
(keywords: 'sent to each Senator's office')
2. Once the Unanimous Consent Requests on Bills & Resolutions are sent to each Senator's office each Senator either votes "Yea" or they vote "no"
3. If any one Senator votes "no" on the Unanimous Consent Request THEN: the Bill or Resolution goes to the Floor for a "roll call vote" and unlimited debate.
4. IF: Every Senator votes "YES" on a Unanimous Consent Request
THEN: there is NO NEED for a "roll call vote" because every single senator voted "yea" ... "yea" means they voted yes
5. The reason Unanimous Consent Requests on Bills & Resolutions are sent to each Senator's office is because if all the Senators agree with the Bill and/or Resolution they vote "YEA" on that Bill/Resolution and thus they agree to that Bill/Resolution without the need for debate ... get it?
6. Here Rand Paul got the Unanimous Consent Request S. Res 85 in his office
7. Rand saw the Resolution was written by & co-sponsored by Democrats
8. Rand read the Resolution and AGREED with the Resolution and voted "YEA" on the Resolution
9. When Rand Paul read & agreed & voted "YEA" to S.Res 85 - Rand Paul was agreeing to these words:
"S. Res 85 -
The US Senate ... (7) urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory;"
Thus, Rand Paul DID, in fact, tell President Obama that Rand Paul wants the United States to cast their vote as: "YES" on the United Nation's No-Fly Zone Resolution.
Get it? Rand Paul knew the United States would have to VOTE in the United Nations for a United Nations No-Fly Zone Resolution
... and ... by Paul's "yea" vote on S. Res 85, Rand Paul told Pres Obama that the United States vote should be "YES" "YES - impose a No-Fly Zone if that is necessary." -- do you guys get it yet?
10. Rand Paul knew that ever member nation of the UN would have to Vote on a No-Fly Zone Resolution at the UN
Through Rand Paul's "yea" vote he gave President Obama "CONSENT" to vote YES on the UN No-Fly Zone Resolution
and ... Rand Paul also knew, that when Obama voted "YES" it would mean all UN members who voted "yes" to the UN No-Fly Zone would be using military action
.... because Sec. Gates had already told Congress (3/1/11) that imposing a No-Fly Zone requires Military Action.
Bottom Line: Rand Paul and every single US Senator gave CONSENT for the US to be involved in the No-Fly Zone over Libya & every US Senator knew, from Sec Gates, that for the UN to impose a No-Fly Zone meant military action.
Rand Paul is clearly coaching and insisting his receptionists to LIE to the Ky voters and I thank Lawrence O'Donnell for exposing Rand's lies.
It's really fairly simple: a unanimous consent resolution supporting action by the United Nations Security Council to consider possible imposition of a no-fly zone is NOT the same as a vote by the Senate for the United States to go to war.
The idea that Rand (or anyone else) knew that this would mean we would be engaged in a war, and is therefore it's Constitutional is absurd.
KR,
Again, you are 100% wrong.
1. When Rand Paul & all US Senators gave President Obama "consent" to vote "yes" at the United Nations & on the United Nations No-Fly Zone Resolution
Then: Rand Paul & all US Senators knew and pre-approved the United States joining in the United Nations Coalition to "impose" a "No-Fly Zone."
KEYWORDS: Coalition, pre-approved the United States joining the UN Coalition.
2. Feb 28, 2011 The Financial Times Reported, "American planes and warships are being deployed close to Libya as the U.S. and its allies consider establishing a no-fly zone"
Psst - you realize that our "allies" are the other UN member nations who voted "yes" at the UN on the UN No-Fly Zone Resolution, right?
2. Mar. 1, 2011 - at a Congressional Hearing Sec. Gates told the Senate:
"Let's just call a spade a spade. A no-fly zone begins with a military attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses ... and then you can fly planes around the country and not worry about our guys being shot down,"
3. Also Mar. 1, 2011: Rand Paul and every US Senator voted "yea" on S Res 85 which authorized and consented to the United States voting "yes" at the UN & on the United Nations No-Fly Zone Resolution.
4. Again, since Rand Paul and every US Senator knows that when the United States, or any member country, votes "YES" on a United Nations No-Fly Zone Resolution
Then: after that "yes" vote on the UN No-Fly Zone Resolution the United States becomes part of the UN Coalition that will "impose" that UN No-Fly Zone Resolution.
Do you get it yet? The US Senators KNEW, in advance of their "yea" vote on S Res 85 that:
i) the United States would become part of the Coalition helping the United Nations carry out the No-Fly Zone Resolution
ii) Being part of the No-Fly Zone Coalition meant Military Action as per Sec. Gates
iii) As of Feb 28, 2011, "American planes and warships are being deployed close to Libya as the U.S. and its allies consider establishing a no-fly zone"
Bottom Line: After reviewing the FACTS leading up to the S. Res 85 vote it is 100% obvious that Rand Paul & every single US Senator knew, in advance of their "yea" vote -- that consenting and authorizing a UN No-Fly Zone Military Action from the UN Coalition was a MUST and was absolutely required in order to impose the UN No-Fly Zone ... duh ...
Please, I urge you to get an education.
Please take the time to read the actual resolution S. 85, and become informed. You've included a number of quotes and assumptions about what everyone "knew," but the quotes are not from the resolution itself.
You might also consider using the correct dates. There was a lot of confusion in Congress about what was meant by a no-fly zone, which is what led Gates to make his "let's call a spade, a spade" remark.
Except the made the remark on Wednesday, March 2...the day AFTER unanimous consent on S. Res. 85.
In fact, lack of understanding of what a no-fly zone actually entails was probably what caused Gates to make such a statement.
If a US Senator doesn't know what a 'no-fly zone' means, then that person is in the wrong job and is very much in need of an education. KclarkUSA is correct. And the quotes are not from the resolution itself. There's a difference between the wording of the resolution and the senate rules.
All S.R. 85 is only a condemnation of which the no-fly zone was only a small fraction of the entire resolution. It is not a formal declaration of any military action. It only recognizes that that may "possibly" be an action to take if the other stated measures fail to produce results.
Once the UN decided to take action, our participation was supposed to had come up in the House.
To Lawrence & all at The Last Word
Thanks to all of you for holding Rand Paul accountable & more important, thank you all for being my voice, and the voice of all of us who are so tired of politicians getting away with blatant lies & deception.
White eyes speak with fork tongue.
Rand Paul is an idiot...and really confused (cuckoo clock sound)
Lawrence O'Donnell - the big drama queen. Now let's see all these dumb down zombies talk about the lies this incompetent pres. has told and the 'hope and change' excrement he dumped on the American public.
How about the biggest lie, "I did not have sex with that women", Billy Boy. Lawrence tries to make it sound like Republicans do all the lying, what planet is he from. All politicians lie to win votes, Dems and Repub. I agree what Willy163 says about our current leader, all the BS he dumped on us to win the votes. You won't here Larry, Rachel, Matthews, or any other idiot on MSNBC say anything about the "lies" from the liberals.
Nixon "I am not a crook". Regan threw a Marine under the bus while he lied about Iran Contra. G.W. "I am spending less than Bill Clinton".
It's not very smart to compare. Lawrence did not make it sound like Republican did all the lying. They do most, just not all. The current President has delivered on almost all the the promises he made, even though he has been blocked at every turn by opposition. I suppose they were trying to make it easier for you to say he lied.
Now you are lying. If it makes you feel better about yourself to call MSNBC news people idiots, go right ahead. If that helps you out fine. But to say they say nothing about liberals lies, you are lying. I will at least give you one. Stupak had to resign because of Rachael's piece about him lying about his stay at the house on fifth street.
When do you ever hear Fox call out a Republican/Tea Partier. They not only support their lies, they hire them. Beck has been lying for so long, they just got dutch courage to let him go.
So go ahead and whine and lie.
Lawrence O'Donnell - the drama queen. Now let's see all these dumb downed zombies talk about this incompetent pres. with all his 'hope and change' lies he fed the American people.
Not even a good try, willy. This thread is about Sen Paul's lies about not voting on Sen Resolution 85. Please try to keep up, okay?
AH, the Teabaggers have shown up! Where ya been willy163??? The coffee's cold. Better get Mr.Beck on speed dial so you can parrot the talking points in a more timely manner.
I don't know what willy will do, now that Beck is going. I suppose he has to settle for Hannity and Limpbaugh.
Obama is a fraud. you can't deny that.
Oh yes, I can deny it -- and I do. Our smart president will be re-elected!
I encourage you to take a look at actual vote on cspan: . The room seems to have been nearly completely devoid of Senators.
Now it is true that Rand didn't raise a ruckus about the resolution being sneaked onto the agenda. (I'm assuming that it wasn't published in the morning list of items to be brought up under unanimous consent.) And his staff member didn't explain things very well.
But you can see from the video that if you didn't happen to be in the room during that 30 seconds there was no way to object.
The CSPAN link above is missing... it should have been:
Hmm... the link is being stripped out. Here's another try:
www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SenateSessionPart243/start/15224/stop/15261
Bruce
You are wrong about your CSPAN conclusion. Let me explain to you how Unanimous Consent votes work.
1. Bill or Resolution sent to the Senator's OFFICE w/ request for Consent.
2. The Senator can vote "yea" or "no"
3. The Senators vote electronically. The Senators can take ALL THE TIME THEY WANT to decide on the vote all during the day/night etc.
4. Once the LAST vote is sent electronically, the Senate record keeper determines if all Senators voted "yea" electronically or not.
5. If one ... just one Senator votes "no" then a Roll Call vote is required with unlimited debate.
6. If ALL Senators vote "yea" then the votes are Recorded into the Senate Record which takes about 47 seconds to record those votes.
7. That's what you saw on CSPAN - you saw that once the Senate Clerk noticed that ALL Senators cast a "yea" vote for S Res 85 - he/she took the 47 seconds needed to "RECORD" those votes into the Senate Record.
The reason the "room is nearly completely devoid of Senators." is because the Senators who voted Electronically FROM THEIR OFFICE were not on the Floor and those senators on the floor had already submitted their 'yea" votes electronically from their office.
If that is the case it actually is possible that Rand didn't vote at all and thus implicitly abstained. There must be a record of which Senators sent in Yeas and which didn't vote. Clearly an absent or incapacitated Senator can't vote and thus can't be accused of voting yes on a unanamous consent resolution. Is the record of who cast yeas available somewhere?
Bruce
Hey, why don't you call the Senate Clerk, who received Rand Paul's "YEA" vote and all other Senator's "YEA" vote and quiz him with your silly questions?
Seators who object to an action object to unanimous consent. Choosing to stand aside while something happens makes it difficult to proclaim you did not approve. Hypocrtical action is what is expected from the Right Wing.
Even if Rand Paul and his supporters say that he didn't lie, it still opens him up to other questions.
*Is he incompetent?
*Is he in the habit of not reading legislation he gives his consent to?
*Does he automatically vote "yes" on everything that his party's leader sends to him?
The choices here are clear. Either Rand Paul is lying because in hindsight, he knows his constituents would not approve of him consenting to anything the democrats propose, or Rand Paul has a position that exceeds the abilities he should possess that are essential to performing adequately in the job.