Sen. Rand Paul R-KY Repeats Question Justice Roberts Refused To State

catkinZ8a



SaveComment22Like1
Comments (22)
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
paprikash

Good for Rand. His questions deserve an answer and an investigation

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
foodonastump

What was it? Or are we supposed to watch entire videos whenever someone posts them?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
queenmargo

Just fast forward to 5:40

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
paprikash

Food: I saw an interview with Rand and Martha McCallum. His suspicions sound more valid than what the House used to impeach Trump. I’m not proficient at posting links but the following is a copy and paste from real clear politics:


Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) explains why he thinks Chief Justice John Roberts refused to read aloud a question he submitted to the entire body of Senators in an interview with One America's John Hines.

"I didn't identify anybody or propose that anyone was the whistleblower," Paul said. "But I did identify two Obama partisans that have worked in the National Security Council. Sean Misko, who works for Adam Schiff, and then I also identified Eric Ciaramella. They're friends. They worked together on the National Security Council."

"There are allegations that they actually plotted together as much as a year or two ago to say that 'we've got to bring this president down,'" Paul revealed. "So it's kind of extraordinary all the people who actually came to the National Security Council. I count maybe 6 people who know each other really well. So you've got Sean Misko, two other people on Adam Schiff's team from the National Security Council, all activist Democrats who used to be in the National Security Council. You've got the Vindman, Lt. Col. [Alexander] Vindman and his brother. So there's two Vindmans. They're over at the National Security Council and this fellow Eric Ciaramella. So you've got 6 people who know each other and the question is: Wouldn't we want to know if they've been discussing for maybe months a plan to bring the president down once they got a chance?"

"I wonder if it was coordinated," Paul mused. "I have no proof that it was coordinated but I certainly think somebody ought to ask. And you shouldn't just get a free pass to 'I'm going to attack the president and we're going to plot to bring down the president and get him impeached but I don't have to testify and nobody gets to scrutinize my background. I don't think that's fair to the president."

Paul said no one has acknowledged who the whistleblower is, including Adam Schiff, so how would Chief Justice Roberts know to block the question with a person's name.

"I don't know who the whistleblower is," Paul said. "I've never seen any government documents of who it is. I don't think the president's defense knows who it is. And Adam Schiff has gone off all the time saying he doesn't know who it is, which I personally don't believe... Everybody is saying they don't know who it is. How does the Chief Justice know who it is? So how does everybody say they don't know who the whistleblower is and yet they do know who it is and yet when I ask to have a partisan Obama person who worked with Sean Misko who actually was overheard talking about bringing down the president is? How come we can't discuss it? I think it was a big mistake. Judges should be more open to dialogue and not limiting dialogue so I think the Chief Justice made a big mistake."

"In no way did I propose that anybody was the whistleblower. In no way did I insinuate anybody was. I just said that two Obama partisans that worked in the National Security Council, who knew each other for years, have been reported that they were plotting years ago. Shouldn't that come up? Shouldn't we have a discussion of that?" Paul asked.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

What was it? Or are we supposed to watch entire videos whenever someone posts them?

Food, I'm pretty sure I was the last person in the world who didn't know this, but when I figured out I could change the play speed of YouTube videos by selecting that little gear symbol, it changed my life. Much easier to zip through some things at double speed, to figure out what I want to go back to listen to more carefully.

(You probably already knew that, but I'm just trying to be a helpful sort, in case there are others out there like me.)

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chipotle


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Good for Rand Paul. This needs to be in the Senate records; we all have a right to understand more about the people involved in the origination of the report, their relationships with each other, and their possible motivations. Schiff intends to keep all of this hidden for as long as possible, by using the excuse he's protecting the whistleblower's life, or by saying it's secret, or irrelevant. Nonsense.

Also, Paul is being honest when he says he's been critical of FISA court issues for a long time. His concerns about that process have been proven to be valid, and that's another issue that needs serious scrutiny.

I don't always agree with Paul on everything, but I sure agreed with his comments today.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jerzeegirl (FL zone 9B)(9b)

He should be arrested. He broke the law.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

He should be commended for continuing to push for giving Americans information that dishonest people hope to hide from them.

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

No, he didn't break the law. There's no guarantee of anonymity in the act, and he didn't specify who the whistleblower was anyway. There's only protection against workplace repercussions, and he supports that protection (I do too.)

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

Why do you ignore Obama's horrific record with whistle blowers? Where was your love and sense of righteousness for wb's then?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dirtygert(5-NY)

"He should be commended for continuing to push for giving Americans information that dishonest people hope to hide from them." Couldn't help but snort over that. Too bad all information couldn't and wouldn't come freely from all parties.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jerzeegirl (FL zone 9B)(9b)

I am not talking about Obama. I am talking about Rand Paul. Who knows what danger RP put the WB in? This might as well be Russia the way this country is being run.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

Yes, the whistleblower should be highly commended for giving Americans information that dishonest people hope to hide from them.

Otherwise Ukraine would be waiting forever for their weapons.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
paprikash

They never would have gotten them from Obama

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
war garden

mudhouse is incorrect senator paul named the whistleblower.

Whistleblower protection only prevent the guy from being fired.

If Whistleblower broke laws getting the information; they can be prosecuted.

And senators can not be prosecuted for anything they say on senate

floor.



3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
zmith

Well they should’ve voted to allow witnesses then!

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

War garden, Rand Paul didn't specify who the whistleblower was (I listened again just now, to be sure.) He even said, "I have no independent confirmation from anyone in government as to who the whistleblower is."

He did use the name Eric Ciaramella in his question and his comment, as people who were known to have worked together at the National Security Council, and who were allegedly overheard having conversations about impeaching the president before there were formal impeachment hearings. And that he wants to understand more about their motivations.

But as I said above, he didn't specify that Ciaramella was the whistleblower. Paul knows there's an important difference between including Ciaramella's name in a question or comment, and identifying him specifically as the whistleblower.

I agree with you that the whistleblower protection applies to work-related ramifications.

And you're also right about the parliamentary immunity granted to members of Congress; they can't be prosecuted for anything they say on the floor of the House or Senate.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

I think the reason war garden thought Paul named the "whistleblower" is that he mentioned Ciaramella's name (along with other names), and everyone knows that it's been speculated publicly that the whistleblower is Ciaramella.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

I agree elvis! And I think it was the mere inclusion of Ciaramella's name in the question that made Justice Roberts decide to steer clear of the question. But I can see Rand Paul's point, and I think it's debatable whether or not it should have been read (as Paul wrote it, with no claim that Ciaramella was actually the whistleblower.)

Personally I'm worn out with the idea that nobody can even say the guy's name out loud, in any context.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

They guy's name has been bandied about in pubic so many times and yet, no one in handcuffs.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Yes. The purpose is to protect the whistleblower from being fired simply because of calling out the behavior being reported (unless, of course it's an "at will" job). Many seem to be under the misconception that it has something to do with the witness protection program. It does not.

4 Likes Save