Sen. Rand Paul insisted that the Senate openly name the anonymous Ukraine whistleblower during Thursday’s question and answer period. There’s nothing wrong with naming the whistleblower per se, but this counterproductive obsession with inserting the name into the trial record only distracts from important questions that Republicans must ask the House impeachment managers.
Chief Justice John Roberts communicated to senators on Wednesday that he would not read aloud questions deliberately naming the whistleblower. As of right now, Paul appears to be the only senator whose questions include the whistleblower’s name, and he’s not pleased Roberts has blocked them.
My exact question was:
Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together 1/2
— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) January 30, 2020
It’s important to note that there is nothing preventing Paul from asking questions about the whistleblower.
Sens. Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, and Josh Hawley each submitted questions on Wednesday asking for details about who the whistleblower worked with and who the whistleblower was in touch with before submitting the complaint that kick-started the Democrats’ impeachment investigation. These are important details that Democrats have yet to provide, and House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff’s deliberate falsehoods during the process suggest there’s more to that story than what we’ve been told.
These questions will only get answers, though, if Republicans follow the protocol Roberts has requested. Paul’s questions about the whistleblower are likely legitimate. But by intentionally defying Roberts’s request not to include the whistleblower’s name, Paul is effectively stonewalling his own efforts and potentially putting at risk the rest of his party’s ability to ask questions about the whistleblower, the report, and the intelligence community in general. After all, Roberts has already hinted he might block all questions about the whistleblower. Paul’s attempt to back him into a corner makes it more likely that Roberts will do just that.
Roberts is stuck between a rock and a hard place. He is the impeachment trial’s impartial adjudicator, and Paul’s question would force him to come down on one side of this issue. Either he says the alleged whistleblower’s name during the trial, or he doesn’t. Naming the whistleblower could easily lead to Democratic accusations of partiality — for the same reason that denying all questions about the whistleblower would appear biased against Republicans.
Most Republicans have argued naming the alleged whistleblower does not violate the Whistleblower Protection Act, and they’re probably correct. But an impeachment trial is not the place to have that debate, so Roberts is choosing to steer clear of it entirely.
Paul knows all of this but is choosing to inflate this issue anyway. For what? He’s made this political point many times already. The impeachment trial is not the place for virtue signals. The GOP must build the best defense of President Trump, and a fruitless debate over whether the whistleblower should be named on the Senate floor will not help Republicans do that.
If Paul wants to obtain crucial information and relay it to the public, as he says he does, he should follow the other Republicans’ lead and ask the House impeachment managers questions about the whistleblower’s actions and motives. Forcing Roberts to say the whistleblower’s first and last name isn’t necessary for that.
