8 votes

CNN: Blitzer & Paul RE: Civil Action against RNC by Paul Supporters Full Transcript of Show

Comment: I am not going to go into body language, or read in between the lines, or attempt to analyze underlying thought or intent. I will leave that up to certified Psychologist/Psychiatrist as I did not complete my degree in Psychology (chum in the water for some). But here is a part of the transcript from the Blizter/Paul interview. [emphasis added] {my questions}

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1206/19/sitroom.01.html

BLITZER: Supporters of Ron Paul's presidential bid are suing the Republican National Committee. They're accusing the RNC of improperly helping Mitt Romney throughout the Republican nomination fight and they're challenging rules requiring many Republican delegates to vote for the winner of their state's primary or caucus at the convention.

In an internal memo obtained by CNN today, the RNC is calling the lawsuit, quote "frivolous." Ron Paul stopped actively campaigning but still hoping to influence the convention at the end of August in Tampa.

Congressman Ron Paul is joining us once again from Capitol Hill.

What's your reaction to this lawsuit, Congressman?

PAUL: Well, I've heard a little bit about it. But it's not part of our campaign. There certainly have been times when we felt like we came up short in the process, but not extremely so. It hasn't ever motivated me to file a lawsuit.

But, you know, at times when we've been pushed around, it's because the other side hasn't followed the rules, you know? And they closed down conventions for us. And they've done things to try to prevent us.

But that has not motivated me to file a lawsuit.

BLITZER: Are you OK just being associated with some of your supporters who have filed this lawsuit?

PAUL: Am I associated with them?

BLITZER: No. Are you okay being associated because these are all your supporters who actually filed the lawsuit?

PAUL: Well, if they have a legitimate argument that they can make and that's what they want to do, I'm not going to say don't do it. If they ask my advice, I'm going to say don't. I didn't motivate them to do it. {Do people have a legitimate argument? Did he say “don’t” sue or "don't" or ask for his advice?

But sometimes they do. I mean, sometimes they're in the states there's been times when I want people to act dignified and not try to cause a ruckus and break -- you know, and disrupt things. At the same time I tell them you don't have to tell them to get pushed around. If they're not following the rules, you have a right to stand up for the rules. {But sometimes they do what? Have a legitimate argument? Was there a ruckus in Louisiana, Maine, Iowa, Massachusetts, Alaska, Oklahoma? Did the people at these conventions get pushed around? Is Ron Paul indicating that “WE” supporters and delegates are ruckus rousers?}

I think for the most part these winning caucuses that we've been involved in we have followed the rules. And the other side has at times not followed the rules. {Who is the other side? If it is Willard Romney, should he be sued? If it is the RNC at the state level, should they be sued?}

BLITZER: But I assume you've reconciled yourself with the fact that Romney will be your party's nominee?

PAUL: Well, it looks like he has the delegates, yes. But he doesn't have the control of the hearts and minds of the people. And right now, a lot of people -- a lot of delegate who are pledged to vote for Romney are actually very strong supporters of ours and will be strongly supporting us when we want to put things into the platform to say, hey, we don't need another war. Yes, we do need to audit the Federal Reserve. Yes, we ought to really cut spending. { Is the assumption that “looks” are a matter of fact? If he doesn’t have control of the heart and minds, what does he have control of? Did Ron Paul admit (contrary to what some have posted and said) that the delegates are “PLEDGED to vote for Romney?}

So there's going to be a lot more support there than the delegate count indicates. They'll be support for our cause of liberty and for what we've been doing for a good many years. {Does “our cause of liberty” include the fact that all people have the right to make their own decisions, uninhibited, free of coercion and intimidation? Does “our cause of liberty” include the right to join a legal matter that might support our constitutional liberty?}

BLITZER: Your son, Senator Rand Paul, has endorsed Romney. I take it you're not yet ready yourself to endorse Romney, are you?

PAUL: No. Not ready.

BLITZER: You're not ready?

PAUL: No way.

BLITZER: When you say "no way," what's stopping you? You obviously appreciate the fact he's going to have 1,144 delegates that will put him over the top. {Did Wolf just put words into the Dr’s. mouth? The “fact” of what Wolf, that delegates are bound? Does Dr. Paul answer the question in his next comment?}

PAUL: What's he going to achieve? I think it's legitimate for us to continue to debate. I know they don't want the debate at the convention. Everything has to be smooth and proper.

{This next comment is VERY Important}

But you know, I helped pay for the convention because the taxpayers pay Republicans $18 million plus. And Obama gets $18 million plus to have these grand parties. I think we should be serious and discuss differences. {Taxpayer money is involved in conventions? If taxpayer money is involved in a “Private Organizational Function” that affects the National Political landscape, is that legal? If Taxpayer money is being used to promote an election process or outcome, does that function fall under any federal law?}

It used to be that we would go the last time I actually went and attended a convention. We didn't even know who the nominee would be. And that was in 1976 when Reagan was challenging Ford.

I mean, they used to mean something. Right now I would like to have these conventions mean something and continue to debate and decide what we as a party actually believe in. {Does the current suit aim to “have these conventions mean something”? Or, is taxpayer money being used for one big party?

BLITZER: Are you ready to say that Mitt Romney won this nomination fair and square?

PAUL: Won what?

BLITZER: Won the Republican presidential nomination? Has Mitt Romney won the Republican presidential nomination fair and square?

PAUL: I have no reason to say that he cheated. ,No. I don't have that. All I know is that various factions in the party, which is something that has been rather well-known throughout history, is that people will do certain things to make their party look better. But as far as saying that he's done something unfairly, no, I'm not saying that. {What doesn’t Dr. Paul have? Does Dr. Paul not have the legal facts of vote tampering. Collusion, racketeering? Is the law suit about acquiring the information that clearly indicates cheating or legal violations? What specifically will “people” do to make their party look better? Will certain people break laws, violate civil rights or tamper with voting?}

BLITZER: Have you been in touch with him or his folks about a role for you at the convention?

PAUL: Not me personally. Maybe staff have indirectly, but, no. I'm not expecting a whole lot to happen there because, you know, we had to have -- you know, we had to have more delegates to say that we had to have, you know, time for speeches and that sort of thing. { Does this mean that Ron is not going to speak at the convention? If Ron does not speak at the convention, but others do, is it acceptable that a National Convention that obtains Federal Tax money exclude a valid candidate for the office of the POTUS?}

No, it hasn't been resolved. They haven't turned us down. We haven't made any requests. And a little bit more time might solve all those questions.

BLITZER: Well, a lot of us will be watching to see, Congressman, if you get a primetime speaking venue at the Republican convention. That would be significant. I assume you agree.

PAUL: I think so. I think that I would probably take care of the opportunity if I could give my speech.

BLITZER: Congressman, as usual, thanks very much for coming in.

PAUL: Thank you.

BLITZER: Ron Paul joining us from Capitol Hill.

The complete transcript of Wolf Blitzer and his program can be found here:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1206/19/sitroom.01.html
Jack Cafferty had a few interesting emails I would say.

Additionally, listen to Dr. Paul as he appeared on the “Morning Joe” http://www.dailypaul.com/241204/ron-paul-to-appear-on-msnbcs...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I think RP

is holding back the accusations of fraud and letting the lawsuit take care of it. If Ron were to say that Mitt Romney cheated, the pundits would have a hayday with it and try to make it look like Ron is crazy. Of course the RNC and Romney are just going to deny any accusations anyway.

I have great respect for Dr

I have great respect for Dr Paul, and can't imagine the restraint this gentleman possesses to not say some of the things I'm sure he'd like to. I have a lot of work to do before I can come close to living up to his example in that area.

I agree with Ron Paul's

approach. He is saying (without saying) that this whole process is in the people's hands (as it should be)- he is a servant of the people - (and in his head I imagine him saying, Go guys, blow this corrupt system wide open!).

I can dream, can't I? :-)

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

I can dream, can't I?

Absolutly !!!! Love that word LOL !! :)

We can all

dream. Might I suggest to also take action, get elected to precinct seats and pray?

Tax Subsidies

{Taxpayer money is involved in conventions? If taxpayer money is involved in a “Private Organizational Function” that affects the National Political landscape, is that legal? If Taxpayer money is being used to promote an election process or outcome, does that function fall under any federal law?}

On your 1040 tax form, there's a box to check on whether to give $2 to the election fund. It comes from the tax you pay, so you pay no more or less, you just earmark it for campaigns. This is how they got around the ethical/legal questions. (I always check "no.")

There is a formula for how the money is handed out, based on crossing a threshold number of votes (I think), and the dominant parties qualify for it. I am not certain how this convention money is allocated, and whether it is part of this same fund.

Many in the Libertarian Party don't think this fund should exist, and there has been some discussion over whether to take money from it, if it became available to the LP.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

I cannot speak for the LP

but in my opinion, you capitalize on the legal aspects of "law" until you have the ability to reverse the law.

Example 1: If I pay for S.S., of course I should submit to get what i paid for.

Example 2: If I am paying taxes to the Fed's, my representative sure as heck better do what he/she can to earmark some back to my district.

Get rid of them both, then I cannot use the law to benefit from it.

Speech Patterns

Ron Paul's thoughts are faster than his speech, and often run in parallel. His speech can't keep up with his thoughts, and he tends to switch from one parallel to another, and then go back an finish something he almost said earlier. This is why people didn't take him seriously as a smooth-talker.

He's so much better when he's not being hurried, and the interviewer is face-to-face with him and can interject questions for clarification.

I totally get this pattern as it runs in my family of very bright people (if I do say so myself).

I don't have time to go through all your questions, but as to the first couple: He's trying to say that, no, Ron Paul is NOT suing the GOP, is not encouraging others to sue them, and would not recommend it generally, but having made that point, he admits that people have a right to defend themselves against abuses by the GOP. He advised his supporters not to be rowdy, and points out that the opposition (various) were the ones breaking the rules.

As discussed elsewhere, Ron Paul can't sue anyone: he is not the injured party. It is voters and delegates who are the injured parties. They are the ones who have to decide what action to take. For a campaign to sue its party would be taken as an offense (even if defensive), and a sign of being a sore loser seeking the government to step in and (gasp) use force.

So, he was trying to do two things at once, which is make it crystal clear that the "campaign" is not suing, or encouraging a suit, but that it is possible that the plaintiffs have a legitimate case (but he doesn't want to weigh in on that, because it would sound like he's taking sides). You know how the press loves to put words into his mouth, and try to make it seem like he's suing the GOP, when he's not.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

I agree

that his lips cannot match the speed at which he thinks.

SO HE'S NOT BACKING THE LAWSUIT HUH?

There's a word for that:CHICKEN SHIT!!!!! That's what he is.Ya know,he said if he got elected,he'd get rid of a lot of excutive orders.i wonder if he's planning on chickening out on that the way he's chickening out on everything now?

Some see things as they are and say why,but i dream things that never were and say why not. Robert F. Kennedy

Nope.

In fact, when asked, he did not say he supported it.

Nope.

In fact, when asked, he did not say he DIDN'T support it.

Indeed...

Let him read it above for himself. No one needs to play semantics.

Ron Paul Has No Right to Be Elected

Lawsuits are for defending rights, not priviledges. It would be his priviledge to be nominated, not his right.

It is the rights of the delegates and voters, under the GOP bylaws, and perhaps some state or federal laws, that are being violated by some in the GOP, and they are the ones who have to decide what action to take (I still think they should start with a complaint to the GOP Judicial Committee(s) before going to the government).

Ron Paul can't participate in that, legally or politically. It's not his fight; he's just the candidate.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

You bring a wealth of insight to the discussion.

I agree. Ron Paul has the right to run for the nomination/POTUS and if elected that privilege is confirmed by those whom voted for him and the Constitution, yes?

I am not sure how to put this so let me just spit it out.

By starting the action at the GOP Judicial Committee, aren’t we not fulfilling our legal duty to expose fraud, coercion, intimidation or other crime(s) in a voting system.?

He can't afford to back it right now

or they'd label him a "sore loser", or a "nutcase", or possibly worse.

Ron knows he needs to lay low on this one, and that the grassroots won't stop fighting for him no matter what he says.

Notice how he said that if the supporters filing suit believe they have a good argument, he's not going to tell them to not go through with it. We just gotta be patient with this. Trust Ron!

I think I saw

a previous post by you. If not, the poster said the same thing. I have to agree 100% with your comment.

Actually, sir

That is not exactly true. But you are entitled to that opinion.

(I did not down vote you)