It's disingenuous at best, or misleading / an outright lie of omission to ignore why he has taken the position he's taken. I'm not saying I agree with him, because I don't. But it turns out he's trying to amend it, and you can't do that if you vote for it. He wants to apply a serious bodily injury standard.
Here's an informative article, that I'm pretty sure you could have found, if you had spent 17 seconds researching this issue, as I did.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/lynching-federal-crime-us-sen-rand-paul-stands/story?id=71056869
The House has already passed an anti-lynching legislation, which is awaiting approval in the Senate. But Paul has said he is concerned it could allow more minor altercations to be punishable as lynchings.
"Bruises could be considered lynching," Paul told reporters Wednesday. "That's a problem, to put someone in jail for 10 years for some kind of altercation," referring to the measure's penalty for conspiring or attempting to conspire to commit a lynching.
Paul agreed that lynching should be "universally condemned," but said conflating minor offenses with lynching does a "disservice to those who were lynched in our history."
ABC News reached out to Paul's office for clarification and was pointed to a statement about Paul's proposed amendment to the legislation.
"The bill as written would allow altercations resulting in a cut, abrasion, bruise, or any other injury, no matter how temporary, to be subject to a 10-year penalty," the statement read. "My amendment would simply apply a serious bodily injury standard, which would ensure crimes resulting in substantial risk of death and extreme physical pain be prosecuted as a lynching."
