Thursday, January 30, 2020

Rand Paul should be censured and then run out of politics

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul named the alleged Ukraine intelligence whistleblower Thursday after Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts refused to read a question he submitted at President Trump’s impeachment trial that included the person’s purported name.

The conservative Republican left the proceedings to hold an impromptu press conference at which he fingered the person whom right-wing media have named as the CIA operative in the White House who filed a complaint about Trump’s infamous July 25 call to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Paul read out his conspiratorial question that Roberts twice refused to read inside the chamber, apparently out of the judge’s respect for federal law protecting whistleblowers from retaliation.

  NY Daily News
Totally disgusting.
The whistleblower’s lawyer, Mark Zaid, declined to comment.

Bradley Moss, a law partner of Zaid, hit back within minutes, calling on Paul to resign.

[...]

Presidential son Donald Trump Jr. called outing the whistleblower a crucial part of his dad’s defense against the impeachment effort led by Rep. Adam Schiff.
Despicable little prick.
Paul (R-Ky.), a fiery defender of Trump, first sought to sneak the whistleblower’s name into the impeachment record on Wednesday night.

Roberts refused to read his question and repeated his refusal when Paul resubmitted it Thursday.

“The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted,” Roberts said.

Under Senate rules, lawmakers are supposed to remain in the chamber while the trial is in session, although some exceptions are made for bathroom and other breaks. It’s unclear if Paul could face any punishment for holding a press conference as the trial continued inside the Senate chamber.
Not likely. And he's probably not the only one who has.
Federal law prohibits retaliating against government workers who file whistleblower complaints. It doesn’t explicitly bar identifying them, although legal experts say anyone publicly disclosing the name of a whistleblower might be opening themselves up to liability for any harm they undergo.
Besides it being simply an unconscionable act of intimidation and a tool of oppression.

No comments: