Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Rand Paul Explains Rejected Impeachment Question on Senate Floor

    Rand Paul Explains Rejected Impeachment Question on Senate Floor

    If it was a concentrated effort then the so-called whistleblower isn’t a whistleblower and doesn’t deserve these protections.

    https://youtu.be/VWTaOrgcs24

    Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) received a lot of criticism about his question that Chief Justice John Roberts rejected during the impeachment trial. Roberts rejected the question because it supposedly names the whistleblower even though people insist no one knows the identity of said whistleblower.

    Paul used his allotted time on the Senate floor to explain his question and push back against those who called him a hypocrite.

    This is his question: “Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings.”

    Paul is a huge defender of whistleblowers. He called Edward Snowden the greatest whistleblower of this generation.

    So why name the supposed whistleblower? Because if it was an orchestrated effort to take down President Donald Trump then he (or she) does not deserve whistleblower protections. It means he (or she) is not a whistleblower.

    Paul said we need to know more about the whistleblower to understand how “they gamed the system in order to try to bring down the president.”

    Plus, unlike how people view Snowden, Paul isn’t calling for the whistleblower’s head, for him to lose his job, or go to jail. He also never accused either of them being the whistleblower.

    Everyone is so uptight about Eric Ciaramella even though everyone says no one knows the identity of the whistleblower.

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments



     
     0 
     
     1
    Aarradin | February 5, 2020 at 12:20 am

    Roberts doesn’t seem to have any legal basis for preventing Paul’s question.

    As Paul pointed out, the “whistleblower” statue only prohibits the IG from naming him. Everyone else is free to do so. Further, you have to follow the law to qualify as a whistleblower, which Ciaramella absolutely did not. He had no first hand information (a requirement), but merely hearsay. He did not report to the proper authorities but rather, apparently, contacted Schiff’s aides and worked with them on drumming up the impeachment charge.

    So, 1) He is not, legally, a “whistleblower” under the statute and 2) even if he were, Paul or anyone other than IG Horowitz is free to name him anytime and anywhere.

    Then, of course, as Paul points out also: Trump’s 6th Amendment Right to confront his accuser.

    Aside from the “whistleblowing” over the phone call, Ciaramella is a fact witness in this in multiple ways – including hosting a meeting at the WH between Biden and the Ukrainians of Burisma.

    Further, Schiff himself outed Ciaramella in a published transcript from the House’s investigation. Supposedly, this was an oversight – that he should have redacted the name. But, that’s just speculation: everyone has access to this published document, and there is Ciaramella’s name plain as day.

    Given that the House interviewed him as a witness, and published his name in a transcript, how is Robert’s justified in prohibiting any mention of his name in the trial?

    Then, of course, is the issue of how Roberts knew for an absolute fact that Ciaramella is the whistleblower. Did he get instruction on that from the House Managers? Officially, literally no one has admitted to knowing who the “whistleblower” actually is. Really though, everyone knows that Schiff and his aides worked with him in writing up his original complaint. So, again, how did Justice Roberts know to exclude this one individual’s name from being mentioned?

    Funny thing is, by doing so, Roberts himself outed him.


     
     0 
     
     0
    texasron | February 5, 2020 at 2:55 pm

    The Dems can’t allow the “Whistleblower” to testify because they know that the “Whistleblower” got his information from reading the NYT.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend