One could point out, as Schiff did, that the Obama administration first “made dozens of witnesses available to the Congress [and] provided numerous thousands of documents” before asserting “specific claims of privilege,” whereas the Trump White House has delivered a “blanket no.” One could also point out that the administration is asserting executive privilege over things from before his presidency — i.e., before he was even the executive — and you can’t assert a privilege that doesn’t exist. The Trump White House’s action is far broader in scope, so while some may disagree about where Schiff draws the line on appropriate use of executive power, that doesn’t make him a hypocrite.

But let’s set that aside for the moment and assume the senator is correct. By contrast, Paul is a man of principle. Don’t take it from me: As Paul himself wrote when voting against an emergency declaration to build Trump’s border wall, “the only way to be an honest officeholder is to stand up for the same principles no matter who is in power.”

AD

AD

But wait, asked “This Week” host George Stephanopoulos, if Schiff is a hypocrite, doesn’t that make Paul a hypocrite as well? He played several clips of Paul criticizing Barack Obama’s use of executive power.

“Someone who wants to bypass the Constitution, bypass Congress, that’s someone who wants to act like a monarch.” “The president acts like he’s a king.” “Not only is it an abuse of power, I think it’s almost leads us to a constitutional crisis of sorts. ... The president can’t just do what he wants, he’s not a king, he has to really get approval from Congress.”

Paul replied, “With regard to executive privilege, I never said one word about President Obama on — on — on whether or not he should have to divulge all the material within the administration, I said that he couldn’t create immigration law without Congress first creating the law.” It’s true — he didn’t say anything about executive privilege at the time. But he’s saying plenty now. You’d think a declared constitutional originalist such as Paul would abhor executive privilege, a concept whose roots go back only to Watergate, and support Congress’s oversight power, so crucial to the system of checks and balances.

In the same way that some words have silent vowels or consonants, Paul’s principles have silent caveats. “The president can’t just do what he wants,” except on the minor issue of whether he can stonewall congressional oversight. To “bypass Congress” is to “act like a monarch,” unless Congress, a political body, is motivated by politics. And then there’s the most important caveat: The president “has to really get approval from Congress” unless the president is more popular with Republicans than I am. Whether the fact that Paul now “considers the president a personal friend” is an additional “caveat,” one cannot say for certain.

AD

AD

So — with possible apologies to Groucho Marx — yes, Rand Paul has principles. And when GOP voters don’t like them, he has others.