Rand Paul confronts Mullin over calling him a 'freaking snake'

Recently, Senator Mullen, if you have time to listen, you were confronted by constituents that were angry because you voted against my amendment to stop all funding for refugee welfare programs. Instead of explaining your vote to continue these welfare programs for refugees, you decided to transfer the blame. You told the media that I was a freaking snake and that you completely understood why I had been assaulted. I was shocked that you would justify and celebrate this violent assault. That caused me so much pain and my family so much pain. I just wonder if someone who applauds violence against their

political opponents is the right person to lead an agency that has struggled to accept limits to the proper use of force. You have never had the courage to look me in the eye and tell me that the assault was justified. So, today, you'll have your chance.

Today, I'll give you that chance to clear the record. Tell it to my face. If that's what you believe, tell it to me today. Tell the world why you believe I deserve to be assaulted from behind, have six ribs broken and a damaged lung. Tell me to my face why you think I deserved it. And

while you're at it, explain to the American public why they should trust a

man with anger issues to set the proper example for ICE and Border Patrol agents. I think before I can start my opening statement I have to address the remarks the chairman made, calling me a liar. Sir, I think there's everybody in this room knows that I'm very blunt and direct to the point and if I have something to say I'll say it directly to your face. If you recall back in your back in my house days we actually did have this conversation because remarks that I've made. You were in a room I

simply addressed that I said I could understand because of the behavior you were having that I could understand why your neighbor by the neighbor did what he did. As far as my terms is a snake in the grass, sir, I work around this room to try to fix problems. I've worked with many people in this room. Seems like you fight Republicans more than you work with us. I did address those remarks. I did explain your gimmicks by the amendment you put forth. And as far as me saying that I invoke violence, I

don't. I don't think anybody should be hit by surprise. I don't like that. But if I do have something to say, everybody in this room knows I'll come straight to you. I'll say it publicly and I'll say it privately, but I'll never say it behind your back. So for you to say I'm a liar, sir, that's not accurate. And I got proof to say that because you have spent millions of dollars in my campaigns against me because we just don't get along.

However, sir, that doesn't keep me at all from doing my job. I can have different opinions with everybody in this room, but as Secretary of Homeland, I'll be protecting everybody, including Kentucky,

as much as I will my own back yard in Oklahoma. The record should show, and I think will show, a lack of contrition, no apology, and no regrets for your support. You completely understand the violence that was perpetrated on me. You're unrepentant. The only thing you quibble about is whether I met you somehow when you were in the house. I don't think we ever met when you were in the house.

And this idea that the only thing you're upset about is not that you were for violence. What you're upset about is that I called you a liar because you said it to my face. It's really more about this machismo that you have. When in Oklahoma the media asked you about the refugee welfare programs, the programs you voted to continue funding, it was this whole idea that you were going to transfer because you were uncomfortable, your anger,

low impulse control. It causes you to then go after and decide that you're going to go after me as well. And so you say you completely understood that I was assaulted from behind, had six ribs broken and part of my lung removed, and that was just fine. That's something that you, I guess, approve of as far as resolution of political problems. When I talked to you privately

on the phone, there was no apology. you just said, well, we can let our political difference go by, and you said a few minutes ago, we can just set it aside. Well, political differences we can, but when you say that you agree with a felon, a Trump-hating felon who attacked me,

somehow you think I'm just gonna set that aside? Oh, it's no big deal. You know, I lay in pain for two months, had six ribs broken, three of them separated, grinding upon bone on bone for months, had part of my lung removed. And you think that's great and to be extolled. I mean, the sheer lack of any kind of self-awareness that you're going to be leading thousands of men and women who will be have the use of force and

there's been great questions in our country about how that will be used, and you think a violent attack is just fine. So I guess my first question is, do you think that justifying that kind of violence sets a good example for the men and women of ICE

and Border Patrol?

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I didn't know the extent of your damage. When the phone call was made, I made it to you and I tried to talk to you. You didn't engage at all. In fact, you said, get your paperwork in. It's got to be three days in between.

You offered no apology.

Sir?

And you offer no apology today and no regrets. Haven't heard the word apologize, haven't heard the word regret, haven't heard I misspoke and it was heated and I made a mistake. I haven't heard any of those words.

Sir, actually it wasn't heated and I'm not apologizing for pointing out your character.

Good, good. So you're jolly well fine and you want the American public and the people up here to vote that may or may not vote for you to know that you supported the felonious violent attack on me from behind. I did not say I supported it. I said I understood it. There's a difference. By calling you... So that means you really didn't approve of it, just completely understand it. What do you think most people would interpret, completely understand to be support for or a condemnation of the violence? Sir, as

I said, we can have our differences. It's not going to keep me from doing my job as Secretary of Homeland Security. I'm going to secure Kentucky and take care of Kentucky as much as I am open to that.

If this were a one-off, it would be one thing. If you just disliked me so much that you approved of violence against me, people are going to just write it off or maybe they hate each other. But really, there's a pattern of this. Let's go ahead and roll the tape.

We can make your decision and ultimately finish it here.

OK, that's fine.

Perfect.

You want to do it now?

I'd love to do it right now.

Let's change your butt up.

You sit in your butt.

Hold it.

No, stop it.

Sit down.

You're a new senator.

Hold it. I'm not going to be called out. I'm not going to be called out. I'm not going to be called out. I'm not going to be called out. I'm not going to be called out.

I'm not going to be called out.

I'm not going to be called out. I'm not going to be called out.

I'm not going to have canines.

And doodles.

And there's a way that made a set of differences. I ignored him before time, part of that. And people say, yes, you're supposed to ignore it. Well, you know, I'm not a very good Christian. I try to be a good Christian. and I know people say you're supposed to turn the other cheek. I prefer the David method.

But we need to move from an almost-

By the way, I'm not afraid of biting.

I don't go biting.

Biting?

Oh, I'm not. I'm in a fight, I'm gonna bite. I'll do anything.

I'm not a dog.

And I don't care where I bite.

In hindsight, even after your anger had cooled, you were still bragging that if he'd only been brave enough to stand up, you'd have jumped over the dais and taught him a lesson, because that's how men should settle their differences. Do you think fighting as a resolution for political difference is a

good example for the men and women of ICE and Border Patrol? As you can notice over my shoulder here is my good friend Sean O'Brien. Both of us have had conversations, both of us have shaken hands, and both of us agreed we could have done things different. Sean is someone that has become a close friend. We talk all the time. I've been on his podcast. We've talked through this. That's how you handle your differences. Not like

this, Chairman. I'm glad you guys are friends now and that you've reconciled, but really it doesn't get to the real point whether or not you think violence is the way we settle things. The in the days after the fight you said and I quote sometimes people just need to be punched in the face. Is that still your opinion that political disputes can sometimes and often only be resolved by violence?

No, I don't always agree with that. I don't believe in political violence. I've made that very clear. But sometimes people do need... Since you're a perpetrator, you don't need me. Theoretically speaking, sir, I get it. It's about character assassination for you. That's the way this game is played. I understand it. And you are making this about you, which is fine, but that doesn't keep me as secretary of Homeland Security.

It's character assassination when you were the one lauding the assault. Who do you think started that character assassination? I'm just repeating what you have done in character assassination. I'm repeating your support for the assault. So that's somehow something I started?

No, sir. What I'm saying is you're adding a lot to it.

Yeah.

In the days after the fight, you did many interviews in which you justified the violence as historically justified by precedents, such as caning and dueling. Is it today your opinion that the caning of Charles Sumner was not only justified but argues still

for resolving our political differences

with violence. What I was simply pointing out is some of the rules that still apply to this body. For instance, dueling with two consenting adults is still

there. I was pointing out what is still... Illegal for a hundred and seventy years. There's no precedent for legal dueling. Even then they fled the country. Do you realize that the man that beat Charles Sumner with a cane, he beat him till he was unconscious. You know why no senators intervened? Because his friend held a gun on the other senators and he kept beating him and beating him until he crushed his skull. That's what you're insinuating as the president of the

Senate and that's what you live by and that is a very very dangerous sentiment. After a half a dozen victory lap interviews where you pointed out that the union guy was just lucky that fear kept him from standing up, Dana Bash asked you if you have any regrets about bringing violence to a Senate committee and you replied that you have no regrets. Today you said you have no regrets about being happy, being completely understanding why I was attacked from behind. You had no regrets about, you know, instigating a brawl in a Senate committee hearing. Are those still your opinions? Mr. Chairman, you're going to have your opinion, I'm going to have mine. As the Secretary of Homeland Security, I'm going to bring peace of mind and security

to this country, and I'm going to stay laser-focused on that.

CNN correspondent Priscilla Alvarez is here with us as well. Priscilla, there were some major fireworks right out of the gate in the exchange between Senator Mark Wayne Mullen and the chairman of the committee, Rand Paul. It got pretty ugly. Tell us a little bit about that.

Yeah, well, this was immediately an intense hearing at kickoff between the Republican chairman, Rand Paul and Senator Mark Wayne Mullen, dating back to some history the two of them have, specifically as it relates to an attack by Rand Paul's neighbor in 2017 and the comments made by Mark Wayne

Mullen at the time. And so Rand Paul and Senator Mark Wayne Mullen were going back and forth about that exchange and Rand Paul pressing him on whether he regretted anything that he said then. Not only that, but also the way that he confronted a witness during a separate hearing a couple years ago as well. Essentially, the argument being made was whether he felt that he had the temperament to be the Homeland Security secretary and whether this was the model that he intended to role

model rather for the federal agents within the Department of Homeland Security. Now, the senator didn't necessarily respond to that. He pointed back to Sean O'Brien, who he's had disputes with before, saying that now they are friends. He also did not apologize to Senator Paul over his comments at the time over that 2017 attack.

But all of this really manifested in this very intense start to this hearing again between two Republican senators, the chairman and Senator Mark Wayne Mullen, who is testifying for this role of Homeland Security Secretary. I will also say beyond that there have been some notable comparisons and contrasts being made between the senator and Secretary Nome. For example, he said that he would own his mistakes.

He also said, quote, my goal in six months is that we're not in the lead story every day. He also went on to say that he regretted his statements after the shootings of the two US citizens by federal agents in Minneapolis, saying that he, quote, went there too fast.

So as this hearing is going, you can already start to see how he's trying to differentiate himself from Secretary Nome, who of course was under immense scrutiny for the way that she managed the Department Homeland Security, not scrutiny for the way that she managed the Department Homeland Security, not only among senators but also within the department itself.