Sen Rand Paul stood up and reminded the Senate that the Constitution does protect debate and does protect the asking of questions.
And he proceeded to ask the very same question that the Chief Justice had disallowed during the sessions of questioning the House Managers and the Defense team.
He had a reason to name the ‘name that must not be named’ that had literally NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the report that may (or may not) be rightly classified under the whistleblower statute.
Rand was raising a question about a conversation, reported in the news, dating back to 2017. A conversation overheard in which this same infamous name was talking with others — including someone now on Schiff’s staff — about their intention of impeaching the President of the United States of America.
— CSPAN (@cspan) February 4, 2020
If, two years later, these same people just ‘happened’ to find themselves right in the thick of the events that led to a Presidential impeachment, wouldn’t this 2017 conversation and questions about malice aforethought be relevant to the accusations being leveled at the President?
Oh, and he reminds us of something else — he also knew the Vindeman Brothers.
There might be some kind of an innocuous explanation. But does the accused not have a right to know whether there was an unlawful conspiracy to deprive him of his office?
It isn’t as though it would be the only time government power has been improperly leveraged against him or his circle.
— FISA courts were fed at least 17 lies by the FBI abusing government power in the process of warrants to spy on Trump associates and — by extension — Trump himself.
— Jim Comey unlawfully leaked documents with the express purpose of forcing an Independent Council which harassed the President for years and cost taxpayers tens of millions. This orchestrated investigation could well have been the difference-maker allowing Democrats to take back the House in 2018.
— General Flynn has withdrawn his plea, complaining that the Feds have been playing games with his case, have fabricated evidence against him and that he was forced to plead guilty to a crime he never committed by a legal counsel with conflicted interests.
Is it really that far-fetched to wonder whether a party that has literally been calling for impeachment from the day he took office (or even earlier) could have created an elaborate trap for impeachment here, too?
It’s about Limited Government.
It’s about the rights of the people.
And it’s a good message that deserves to be heard.