Sen. Rand Paul( R-KY) divulged on Tuesday that he may reveal the identity of the Ukraine whistleblower while speaking to a group of reporters and then doubled down on it later in the night during an appearance on Fox News.
” I’m more than willing to, and I probably will at some phase . … There is no law preventing anybody from saying the name ,” Paul told reporters.
CNN reporter Suzanne Malveaux, apparently unnerved over the fact that Paul wanted transparency in Democrats’ impeachment investigation, aggressively tackled Paul over the issue.
” The whistleblower laws they protect the whistleblower ,” Malveaux said.” You know it’s illegal to out a whistleblower ?”
Paul immediately corrected her, saying,” Actually, you see you’ve got that incorrect .”
” No, we don’t ,” Malveaux falsely claimed as she became agitated.
Paul then proceeded to educate Malveaux on the laws surrounding the whistleblower.
Question:” The whistleblower statutes protect the whistleblower. You know it’s illegal to out a whistleblower ?”
— The Hill (@ thehill) November 5, 2019
Paul later appeared on Fox News’ “Special Report” with host Bret Baier, who questioned Paul:” I referenced that tweet a few moments ago, Andrew Bakaj, the whistleblower’s attorney,’ If Congress and others do not protect my client’s anonymity, which my patron is afforded by the law , not only does it threaten their security, but it imperils an entire structure that took decades to build. It will destroy effective Congressional oversight for years to come .’ Your response to that ?”
Paul responded,” You know, I don’t wish harm on anyone. I’ve been the main victims 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 members of my ribs broken by a hater of President Trump. So, I is common knowledge that political violence is all about. I don’t want that, at all. But review reports was — absolutely no truth to the rumors, in the sense that the statute says the Inspector General can’t reveal the call. It says the president should implement the law, but the person you mentioned was disingenuous in what they were saying. The ordinance says the Inspector General can’t reveal the identify. 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 or persons. But there’s no law that prevents me from mentioning the epithet of who’s been said to be the whistleblower. But there’s also –
” But are you persuasion you are aware ?” Baier pressed.
” Yeah. And there’s something important, likewise. It’s called the Constitution. The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution says if you are going to accuse me of international crimes, I get to stare you down in courtroom ,” Paul continued.” That is absolutely part of the Constitution. The statute might say something, 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 questions that .”
” But I can do[ reveal the identity of the whistleblower] right now, if I crave. 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 continued.” 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 training materials witness to the Biden corruption in Ukraine .”
Read more: dailywire.com