President Donald Trump has ‘every right’ to withhold aid to Ukraine, or from any country, where he thinks corruption is taking place, Republican Senator Rand Paul said over the weekend.
“Every politician in Washington is trying to manipulate Ukraine to their purposes,” the grassroots right-wing Senator from Kentucky said.
“I think we’ve gotten lost in this whole idea of quid pro quo,” Paul argued during an interview with Chuck Todd on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press’ over the weekend.
Transcripts from the House Democrat-led impeachment inquiry against President Trump have revealed that some administration officials think Trump withheld US military aid for Ukraine until the country opened an investigation into Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, who was given a lucrative position on the board of a Ukrainian energy company.
Democrats allege this constitutes proof that there was quid pro quo involved in Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Zelensky.
“If you’re not allowed to give aid to people who are corrupt, there are always contingencies on aid,” the Kentucky senator argued.
“Well, if it’s corruption and he believes there to be corruption, he has every right to withhold aid,” Paul said.
“Presidents have withheld aid before for corruption. I think it’s a mistake to say, ‘Oh, he withheld aid until he got what he wanted.’”
Despite his arguments in support of the president, Senator Paul, who will act as a juror in the Senate trial if Trump is impeached by the House, argued that the Trump administration was making a “mistake” in arguing that the president didn’t engage in a quid pro quo.
“Every politician in Washington other than me, virtually, is trying to manipulate Ukraine to their purposes,” he said.
“Menendez tried it, Murphy tried it, Biden tried it, Trump’s tried it — they’re all doing it. They are all trying to manipulate Ukraine to get some kind of investigation, either end an investigation or start an investigation.” he declared.
Senator Paul mentioned that he opposes sending aid to Ukraine entirely.
“I wouldn’t give them the aid because we don’t have the money,” the senator said. “We have to actually borrow the money from China to send it to Ukraine, so I’m against the aid and I think it’s a mistake to do the aid so I wouldn’t have played any of these games.”
The amount of so-called ‘asylum seekers’ pouring into the United States is set to be slashed by at least 40 percent in 2020 compared this year, where 30,000 migrants were settled throughout the country.
President Trump has authorized a cap on the ‘refugee resettlement program’ for the Fiscal Year of 2020, the Associated Press reports. The cap would permit no more than 18,000 ‘refugees’ to be resettled in the interior of the country in 2020. Once realized, this would represent an 80 percent reduction in the inflow of refugees compared to what was seen under President Obama.
Furthermore, it is conceivable that the number of so-called refugees allowed to stay in the country in 2020 could be even less than 18,000.
In the Fiscal Year of 2019 (October 1st, 2018 to September 30th, 2019), 30,000 refugees were resettled across the interior of the United States.
Of the 30,000 that were resettled, over 12,900 came from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 4,900 arrived from Burma, more than 4,400 made their way from Ukraine, and close to 1,200 came from Afghanistan.
Although the majority of the resettled refugees are Christian (i.e. Catholic, Protestant, etc.), those who came from Afghanistan are Muslim.
Over fifty percent of the resettled refugees were distributed across 12 states. While Texas absorbed the most with 2,500 refugees, the states of California, New York, Washington, Arizona, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, North Carolina, Georgia, and Kentucky each took more than 1,000 refugees.
Official White House immigration numbers have revealed that from 2008 to 2018, the United States has permanently resettled over 1.7 million foreign nationals through its different humanitarian programs.
According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, refugee resettlement costs American taxpayers close to $9 billion every five years.
A top bureaucrat for the European Union says that the 28 member bloc needs a standing army of 60,000 that could be deployed around the world if need be.
During a European Parliament hearing into his candidacy as vice president for foreign affairs and security on Monday, Josep Borrell, the EU’s incoming security chief, said: “The European Union has to learn to use the language of power.”
Borrell, a 72-year-old Spanish socialist who is set to become EU’s foreign affairs chief next month, said that the union should go further than its current 35,000 men and women who are available to be deployed worldwide.
“That’s already impressive, but we have to do more,” Borrell said. He urged EU lawmakers to “reinforce the EU’s international role and further our military capacity to act”
“The EU has to be more operational on the ground. We have to be ready to deploy forces, starting with our neighborhood,” Borrell continued.
The Spanish Eurocrat called on lawmakers in Brussels to up the number of troops available to be deployed to at least 55,000 to 60,000.
“We should pull our national sovereignties together to multiply the power of individual member states. And I am convinced that if we don’t act together, Europe will become irrelevant in the new coming world,” he added.
Last November, French President Emmanuel Macron called for the creation of a “real European army” to deal with the Russian threat and to rid the EU of its dependence on the US. German Chancellor Angela Merkel was quick to back the idea and enthusiastically echo Macron’s sentiments.
Others in the bloc haven’t been so keen to accept the idea. The UK, Visegrád countries (V4), and Romania have all voiced that NATO should remain the institution that guarantees security on the continent.
On Tuesday, Former Secretary of State and failed 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton declared that she could beat President Trump ‘again’ in 2020 if she decided to make another run at the White House.
“Maybe there does need to be a rematch. I mean, obviously, I can beat him again,” Clinton told Judy Woodruff, the host of PBS News hour Judy, in an apparent reference to her winning the popular vote in 2016.
Clinton and her daughter Chelsea talked with Woodruff on topics ranging from the president, impeachment, and their new book, “Gutsy Women.”
“It truly is remarkable how obsessed he remains with me,” Clinton said, “But this latest tweet is so typical of him. Nothing has been more examined and looked at than my e-mails. We all know that. So he’s either lying or delusional or both … so maybe there does need to be a rematch. Obviously I can beat him again.”
Trump taunted “crooked Hillary” earlier in the day on Twitter, saying: “I think that crooked Hillary Clinton should try to enter the race to try and steal it away from uber-left Elizabeth Warren. Only one condition: The crooked one must explain all of her high crimes and misdemeanors, including how and why she deleted 33,000 e-mails AFTER getting ‘C’ subpoena.”
Clinton continued, saying, “But just seriously, I don’t understand. I don’t think anybody understands what motivates him other than personal grievance, other than seeking adulation. I said during the campaign, there was no other Donald Trump. What you saw was what you were going to get, and I think a lot of Americans understandably thought, oh, no, that can’t possibly be the case. Once he’s in office, he will certainly moderate his behavior. Well, we see, no, he hasn’t.”
Although Clinton has said several times that she wouldn’t run for president for the third time in 2020, she has fueled rumors by making a ton of public appearances recently because of her book.
In recent tweets, she further intensified the idea of her running in 2020 when she responded to Trump’s taunts in a tweet, saying: “Don’t tempt me. Do your job.”
A new Rasmussen poll released earlier this week revealed that Trump and Clinton would be neck and neck in a 2020 rematch, with each candidate receiving 45 percent of the vote. The rest of the potential voters were ‘undecided’.
However, in the same poll, only 18 percent of respondents said that Clinton should enter the race.
A new poll has revealed that Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party is the most trusted party in the country to represent the interests of the British people.
The poll, which was conducted by Ipsos MORI, surveyed 1,090 adults between the 27th and 30th of September and found that Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party had the highest level of trust among British parties, securing 31 percent of the vote.
The poll also discovered that Jeremy Corbyn’s attitude and proposals toward Brexit are not appealing to Britons, with 64 percent of respondents saying that they were dissatisfied with his proposals for leaving the European Union.
Giving respondents aged between 18 and 75 years-old the choice between 16 politicians and institutions, the Ipsos pollsters asked: “Who do you think is on the side of the British people?”
31 percent of respondents reported that they believed the Brexit Party was “more on the side of the British people” while 29 percent of respondents said the same about the party’s leader Nigel Farage.
Among the politicians or institutions which received the second-highest score, at 30 percent, were MPs who wished to leave the EU with a deal.
Less than a quarter of those who were surveyed said they were satisfied with Brexit proposals put forth by the Labor party.
Boris Johnson fared a little bit better, with 36 percent of respondents saying that they satisfied with his handling of Brexit. A whopping 54 percent reported that they were dissatisfied with Johnson’s approach toward Brexit.
The poll also asked voters: “Who do you think is on the side of the British Establishment?
To this question, 42 percent of survey respondents voted for the Conservatives while Boris Johnson came in second place. In third, were Remain MPs at 35 percent.
The survey also asked individuals how much they trusted the British Establishment to put the needs of the British people above their own interests.
Just 17 percent of respondents said they trusted the Establishment “almost always” or “most of the time” to put the needs of the nation first when it comes to Brexit.
42 percent said that they “almost never” trusted the Establishment when it comes to Brexit.
While commenting on the poll’s results, Keiran Pedley, the Research Director for Ipsos Mori, said: “In public opinion terms there is clearly political mileage in attacking the ‘British Establishment’.