Rand Paul Explains Why He Can Legally Out the Whistleblower, and Says He Just Might

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul knows who the whistleblower is and wants to shove him out in the light where everyone can see him. Right now, many people — media included — are doing a lot to make sure he never has to come out and citing statutes that protect whistleblowers, but Paul has continued to correct these assumptions left and right.


As my colleague Sarah Lee noted, a member of the media tried to remind Paul that outing a whistleblower was illegal, but he shut that down, noting that the whistleblower isn’t really a whistleblower because of his involvement in the Biden family controversy with Ukraine. Sen. Lindsey Graham agreed with Paul, saying that the statute doesn’t guarantee anonymity.

Paul went on to Fox News to tell Brett Baier that his desire to out the whistleblower — and he reassures him that he could — isn’t malicious in intent, but that there’s a little thing called the Constitution, and it would like a word about the process.

“You know, I don’t wish harm on anyone. I’ve been the victim of political violence not once, but twice. I was there at the ballfield when Steve Scalise was almost killed. A staff member was 10 feet from me, who was shot. I had six of my ribs broken by a hater of President Trump. So, I know what political violence is all about. I don’t want that, at all,” said Paul.

“But the report was — not correct, in the sense that the statute says the Inspector General can’t reveal the name,” he continued. “It says the president should enforce the law, but the person you quoted was disingenuous in what they were saying. The statute says the Inspector General can’t reveal the name. There’s nothing that prevents me from saying it now, other than that I wanted to be more about the process and less about the person. But there’s no law that prevents me from mentioning the name of who’s been said to be the whistleblower.


“It’s called the Constitution,” added Paul. “The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution says if you are going to accuse me of a crime, I get to stare you down in court. That is absolutely part of the Constitution. The statute might say one thing, but, I promise you, if there is a trial, you always get to confront your accuser. It’s in the Sixth Amendment. It’s in the Bill of Rights. There’s no way they can stop the defense from asking for that.”

Baier noted that Paul could do it on the Senate floor right now if he wanted to. Paul responded that Baier was right, and that he still might do that very thing. He went on to say that nothing is legally stopping him from revealing the name right now, but he is wanting to make it about the case, not the person.

“But I can do [reveal the identity of the whistleblower] right now, if I want. Nothing stops me. There is no law that stops me from doing it, other than that I don’t want to make it about the one individual,” Paul said. “But I would say this: I do think that this individual is a material witness to the potential Biden corruption. He was there under Joe Biden. He was there when Joe Biden was trying to fire the prosecutor that was in — that was investigating Hunter Biden. So, this person was a Ukrainian expert on the desk, at that time. I think he should be interviewed, not as the whistleblower, but as a material witness to the Biden corruption in Ukraine.”


The fact that Democrats like Adam Schiff and members of the media are working round the clock to keep the whistleblower away from any kind of congressional committee and well away from any media spotlight says a lot. The probability that there’s a conflict of interest thanks to the whistleblower’s employment isn’t something that should be overlooked, and he should be answering as many questions as possible.

It’s hard not to smell a rat.

(h/t: Daily Wire)


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos