Rand Paul Sets CNN Straight On Naming Ukraine Whistleblower

Sen. Rand Paul is getting pretty feisty about revealing the identity of the Ukraine whistelblower. If the person’s identity is important to Paul, a long-time advocate of whistleblower protection to ensure government oversight, then it must be pretty damn important.

“I’m more than willing to, and I probably will at some point. … There is no law preventing anybody from saying the name,” Paul told reporters on Tuesday of his desire to expose the whistleblower’s identity.

CNN reporter Suzanne Malveaux, appalled that anyone would call for transparency in the impeachment process against President Trump, got into it with Sen. Paul.

Trending: WATCH: Popeyes Is Officially the Thunderdome of Fast Food After Employee Body Slams A Customer

“The whistleblower laws they protect the whistleblower,” Malveaux said. “You know it’s illegal to out a whistleblower?”

take our poll - story continues below

Would election by popular vote be better than the electoral college?

  • Would election by popular vote be better than the electoral college?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Political Cowboy updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“Actually, you see you’ve got that wrong,” Paul answered before Malveaux interrupted and said, “No, we don’t.”

Paul then proceeded to capture the pertinent details of the case and why the whistleblower’s identity is important:

Except, of course, Paul knows good and well that CNN isn’t really concerned with reporting the facts, but he was being the amiable gentleman his dad taught him to be.

Paul made an appearance shortly thereafter on Fox News’ “Special Report” with host Bret Baier, who asked Paul: “I referenced that tweet moments ago, Andrew Bakaj, the whistleblower’s attorney, ‘If Congress and others do not protect my client’s anonymity, which my client is afforded by the law, not only does it jeopardize their safety, but it jeopardizes an entire system that took decades to build. It will destroy effective Congressional oversight for years to come.’ Your response to that?”

“You know, I don’t wish harm on anyone,” Paul answered. “I’ve been the victim 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 of my ribs broken by a hater of President Trump. So, I know what political violence is all about. I don’t want that, at all. But the report was — not correct, in the sense that the statute says the Inspector General can’t reveal the name. It says the president should enforce the law, but the person you quoted was disingenuous in what they were saying. The statute says the Inspector General can’t reveal the name. 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. But there’s no law that prevents me from mentioning the name of who’s been said to be the whistleblower. But there’s also –

“But are you convinced you know?” Baier interjected.

“Yeah. And there’s something important, also. It’s called the Constitution. The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution says if you are going to accuse me of a crime, I get to stare you down in court,” Paul continued. “That is absolutely part of the Constitution. The statute might say one thing, 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 for that.”

“But I can do [reveal the identity of the whistleblower] right now, if I want. 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 added. “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 a material witness to the Biden corruption in Ukraine.”

Of course, every liberal commentator and their grandma is missing the forest for the trees and complaining that this champion of whistleblower protections is now seemingly tossing them out the window when the reality is that the whistleblower is a key witness to the Biden family’s hilariously corrupt dealings in Ukraine.