Rand Paul Stands His Ground With Neil Cavuto On Impeachment, Earns A ‘Clever’ On Last Response

(Fox News screengrab)

Font Size:

Fox News host Neil Cavuto interviewed Republican Kentucky Senator Rand Paul on Tuesday afternoon’s edition of “Your World With Neil Cavuto.”

During their discussion about the ongoing impeachment proceedings, Cavuto pressed Paul on various allegations against President Donald Trump that, while maybe not impeachable, might nevertheless look bad. The Kentucky senator held his ground at each point, eventually drawing a “that’s a clever way of playing that” from Cavuto at the end.

“Are you embarrassed by any of this or the president’s behavior, tone or any of that?” Cavuto asked.

“I guess I’m more embarrassed by the process of the Democrats are criminalizing the presidency, that the Democrats have chosen to try to overturn an election,” Paul responded, adding that “what really threatens democracy” is the precedent of impeaching “every president that comes along because we don’t like their tone we don’t like their demeanor or we think they are not courteous.”

When Cavuto asked if asking Ukraine’s president to conduct the investigations was “the proper thing to do,” even if not impeachable, Paul cited his opposition to foreign aid in principle, calling it “foolhardy.”

“Do you think the foreign aid wasn’t the issue as much as trying to get some dirt on an opponent, or someone who could challenge in the next election? Take away whether that’s a high crime or misdemeanor, to your point, it hurt the president’s image. It hurt our country’s image. What do you think?” asked the Fox News host.

After pointing out that Hillary Clinton did the exact same thing to “try to interfere in our election,” Paul noted the absurdity of making political figures immune from investigations. (RELATED: Dan Crenshaw Stands His Ground With Chris Cuomo On Question Of Trump Wrongdoing: ‘The Facts Don’t Back That Up’)

“Should [Clinton] have been put in jail for doing that?” he asked. “Is it illegal to hire foreigners? Actually, it is, and in this case, you could say he’s going after corruption, and the corruption just happens to be someone who also was a political opponent, but if we were to write the rules that say you can go after corruption unless they are involved in politics, that would be sort of weird laws. That would be like telling a local Republican sheriff you are allowed to go after crime unless it happens to be your opponent’s son who committed the crime. So it would be an absurdity to say we are going to exempt political people from investigations of corruption.”

“That’s a clever way of playing that,” Cavuto remarked.