Rand Paul Doubles Down On Demanding Name Of Whistleblower

Libertarian-conservative Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) reiterated his belief Tuesday that the so-called whistleblower that started the inquiry into impeachment should be outed publicly, saying the individual is also a material witness to Joe Biden’s, and his son Hunter’s, dealing with Ukraine.

At a fiery Trump rally in his home state Monday night, Paul took the stage and demanded the media do their jobs and make the name of the whistleblower — already an open secret in DC — known to the American public.

Questioned about his remarks Tuesday, Paul took issue with a reporter’s statement that outing the individual was illegal.

“You see you’ve got that wrong…the whistleblower statue 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,” Paul said from Capitol Hill.

Paul went on to say that the individual is a material witness “completely separate from being a whistleblower” because he was employed by Joe Biden while his son Hunter was receiving exorbitant pay for serving on the board of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian gas company that was ostensibly being investigated for corruption by a prosecutor Joe Biden would later brag about having fired.

“The investigation into the corruption of Hunter Biden involves this whistleblower because he was there at the time,” Paul said. “Did he bring up the conflict of interest?…What was his involvement in the relationship between Joe Biden and the [Ukrainian] prosecutor? There are a lot of questions this whistleblower needs to answer.”

Not all Republicans agree that the whistleblower should be outed by the press, with some suggesting a hope the individual comes forward on his own and willingly appears and answers questions before the Intelligence Committee.

Still others agree with Paul. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham (SC) said Tuesday that the whistleblower statute itself does not guarantee anonymity.

“The whistleblower statute was never meant to give you anonymity. It was meant for you to come forward without being fired. You can’t use anonymity in a criminal process, you can’t use anonymity in a civil process. You shouldn’t able to,” Graham said.