Rand Paul Triggers John Brennan Into a Nasty Rant, Then Paul Just Lights Him Up

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)

Rand Paul

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)

You may have recalled the battle that Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) attempt to get in question pertaining to the whistleblower when he was denied by Chief Justice John Roberts.

He tried again during his closing remarks on how he would vote as the trial wrapped up, according to Politico.

“They made a big mistake not allowing my question. My question did not talk about anybody who is a whistleblower, my question did not accuse anybody of being whistleblower, it did not make a statement believing that someone was a whistleblower. I simply named two people’s names because I think it’s very important to know what happened,” Paul said on the floor.

The whistleblower, reportedly NSC staffer/CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella, who started this whole thing, was a material witness. It’s absolutely incredible that Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was able to start all this crazy while never naming him, preventing the defense from ever confronting the accuser. Talk about Constitutional problems. Plus they created this fiction about not being able to name the whistleblower which is not a part of the law. The law doesn’t prevent Paul or anyone else from naming him. It only prohibits retribution against him in his job.

Not naming him allowed Schiff to block people exploring the whistleblower’s alleged bias, reported conversation about wanting to “take out the president” and any prior contacts with Schiff/his staff.

Paul’s efforts triggered former CIA Director John Brennan. Now US Attorney John Durham who is looking into the origins of the Russia investigation under the Obama administration reportedly wanted to talk with Brennan and all his rants of late sound like he’s pretty nervous.

Imagine this vile person was supposed to be operating as a “non-partisan.”

But you have to hand it to Paul, he persisted. He’s not cowed by Brennan’s ugly rants at all. Not only not cowed, but he blasted him and laid a lot out there.

Oh, my. Light him up!

It was astonishing that Democrats lost it over the killing of IRGC terrorist Qasem Soleimani in a combat zone for attacking our Embassy and future threats. Barack Obama reportedly had a kill list and regularly drone killed alleged terrorists in foreign countries like Yemen for example.

One person who wasn’t a terrorist but was the son of one, 16 year old American, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, born in Denver, was drone killed while eating with friends during a visit in Yemen. The only explanation we the public got from the Obama administration was basically “he should have picked another father.” Noteworthy? His father had already been killed, so he wasn’t shot by accident going after the father. Objections to the killing of an American boy from Democrats? Strangely silent.

Hopefully, Durham will get to the “approving British spies to present a dossier of lies paid for by Hillary.”

But the last part, the “lying to Congress” was just incredible and Paul is right. If Brennan had any shame after that, he should have slunk away and never shown his face again.

That lying involves another Obama-era scandal that media and Democrats just conveniently forgot about and threw away down the memory hole.

The Senate Intelligence Committee was looking into CIA’s detention and interrogation program. The CIA penetrated their computers. John Brennan claimed they didn’t do it, “Nothing could be further from the truth,” he said. “We wouldn’t do that. That’s just beyond the scope of reason in terms of what we’d do.” Then it was confirmed that they did in fact do it.

Not only didn’t Brennan suffer any consequences, he kept his job. That’s the “scandal free” Obama administration. What it really meant was “consequence free.”