FILE – In this March 5, 2019, file photo, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., speaks during a Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File)
When Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) tried to get a question read by Chief Justice John Roberts pertaining to the whistleblower, Roberts refused to read the question because he apparently didn’t want to read the name of the whistleblower.
But Paul’s question was a very important one. It asked about news reports related to the conversations between the whistleblower, alleged to be NSC staffer Eric Ciaramella, and another NSC staffer, Sean Misko. The conversation shortly after President Donald Trump was inaugurated allegedly was about “taking out the president.” The day after the Ukraine call on July 25, Misko then went to work for the House Intelligence Committee under Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) the primary impeachment manager. Another member of the NSC also had joined Schiff’s staff in February, Abigail Grace. Before the whistleblower filed his complaint on August 12, he first spoke to a Schiff staff member. Schiff has made multiple false statements about his/his staff’s contact with the whistleblower and his own knowledge of who the whistleblower is.
But for people on the left and some in the media the crime wasn’t that or how we got to an impeachment because of an unnamed whistleblower reportedly connected to Joe Biden, the political opponent of the president, or why this was able to proceed without him being called and violating the basic Constitutional rights of the president’s team to cross-examine him. It was that Paul dared to tweet the whistleblower’s alleged name.
In a real example of how easily people are manipulated by media, people on the left began calling for his arrest on Twitter and he was confronted by media about his actions. None of these people appeared to understand that this wasn’t against the law and that nothing prevented Paul or anyone else in the proceeding from identifying Ciaramella.
Paul had to educate one reporter who claimed, ignorantly, that it was illegal. This is pretty sad this reporter is so uninformed.
— Robert Willington (@willington) January 31, 2020
“Actually,” the senator began, “you got that wrong, too. You should work on the facts. The whistleblower statute protects the whistleblower from having his name revealed by the inspector general. Even The New York Times admits that no one else is under any legal obligation. The other point, and you need to be very careful if you are really interested in the news, is the whistleblower is actually a material witness completely separate from being the whistleblower because he worked for Joe Biden … at the same time Hunter Biden was receiving $50,000 a month, so the investigation into the corruption of Hunter Biden involves this whistleblower because he was there at the time. Did he bring up the conflict of interest? Was there discussion of this? What was his involvement with the relationship between Joe Biden and the prosecutor? There’s a lot of questions the whistleblower needs to answer.”
Schiff has not told the truth about the contact he/his staff had with the whistleblower and reportedly the whistleblower did not reveal the contact he had with Schiff’s staff when he filed his complaint with the Inspector General Michael Atkinson. We would be able to confirm that, except that Schiff never produced the transcript/testimony of Atkinson about the whistleblower’s complaint to the public or to the Senate.
According to Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) that testimony shows that the whistleblower was not being forthcoming and he called out Schiff for not being forthcoming with it.