Home Trump Why Did Rand Paul Reveal the Impeachment Whistleblower’s Name?

Why Did Rand Paul Reveal the Impeachment Whistleblower’s Name?

27
(L to R) Tom Mueller, Sen Rand Paul, and Eric Ciaramella 

by Mary W Maxwell, LLB

I print below a letter that Tom Mueller sent to the leader of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics.  Tom Mueller is the author of an incredibly well researched book, Crisis of Conscience: Whistleblowing in an Age of Fraud (2019).

He wants Senator Rand Paul to be held accountable for breaking the whistleblower protection law. Rand Paul publicly revealed the name of a person whom he takes to be the one that first reported President Trump’s possibly impeachable behavior along the lines of bribery.

Allegedly, the president asked a foreign country to look into the wrongful behavior of the son of a man who is competing with Trump in the 2020 election, namely Joe Biden (who was Obama’s vice-president from 2009 to 2017).

I am hesitant to undertake this topic for three reasons. One, it is not Australian and Gumshoe is based in Melbourne. Two, I hated the whole impeachment circus from the get-go, as it took up so much media space, excluding far more important matters.

Three, I have a personal stake in “loving Rand Paul.” He and his father ex-Rep Ron Paul are, to me, the best models of Republican legislators. (I can add US Senator Ben Sasse to that club.). At Republican  meetings where I am not known, I sometimes announce myself as “a clone of Rand Paul.”

Still, I trust Tom Mueller on matters related to the protection of whistleblowers. I am currently in fear of my life, in regard to some whistleblowing in which I am engaged in the US.

Here is the letter of complaint, abridged. It is addressed to the chairman, Senator James Lankford.  Hop over it if you want to hear my reactions.

Re: The Misconduct of Senator Rand Paul During the Impeachment Trial of the President

Dear Chairman Lankford and Ranking Member Coons:

Senator Rand Paul defied the rules of the Senate and engaged in improper conduct that is unethical and unbecoming of a Senator. Last week, Senator Paul submitted a question in the impeachment trial of President Donald John Trump that illegally and dangerously named a government whistleblower.

Senator Paul compounded his criminal conduct by then publicizing his question after it was rejected by Chief Justice John Roberts. Senator Paul then doubled down on his inappropriate conduct by publicly displaying a card with the alleged whistleblower’s name on it on the Senate Floor in front of public cameras. I submit this complaint requesting a full review by the Senate Select Committee on Ethics.

The Constitution mandates that the Chief Justice preside over a Senate impeachment trial of a President.

  1. The Constitution also authorizes the Senate to determine the rules for its proceedings and to punish its members for disorderly behavior and failure to follow those rules.
  1. In harmony with those provisions of the Constitution, the Senate has established rules for impeachment trials. Those rules specify that the Chief Justice, as Presiding Officer, “shall have power to make and issue, by himself or by the Secretary of the Senate, all orders, mandates, writs, and precepts authorized by these rules or by the Senate, and to make and enforce such other regulations and orders in the premises as the Senate provides.”
  1. As part of the orderly procedures of the impeachment trial of President Trump, members were invited to submit questions for the House Managers and the President’s legal team. Senator Paul submitted a question mentioning by name a mid-level government official. Some limited-circulation media outlets have alleged that this mid-level government official is the intelligence-community whistleblower who wrote of an urgent concern about the President’s conduct with respect to Ukraine. Senator Paul knew of those allegations when he composed his question.
  1. On January 30, 2020, Chief Justice Roberts exercised his power under the Constitution and the Senate’s rules to decline to read Senator Paul’s question on the Senate floor. Upon receiving Senator Paul’s question, the Chief Justice stated: “The Presiding Officer declines to read the question as submitted.” After the Chief Justice’s ruling, Senator Paul did not revise his question, nor did he ask that a formal vote be taken upon the question in accordance with the Senate rules.
  1. Instead, he immediately left the Senate chamber, read his question aloud at an impromptu press conference, and proceeded to tweet the question verbatim to his 2.6 million Twitter followers. In so doing, Senator Paul directly defied the Presiding Officer and violated the rules established by the Senate for the conduct of impeachment trials. … Senator Paul did not back down from this conduct. Instead, on February 4, 2020, Senator Paul renewed his campaign of attack on the whistleblower by reading his name aloud on the Senate floor and printing a poster with his name on it, displayed towards C-Span cameras (which blanked it out).
  1. The whistleblower’s name was thus both heard and seen by countless persons, on top of Senator Paul’s prior publicizing of his name. Senator Paul’s actions constituted a retaliatory outing of a government witness—which is criminal conduct. Federal criminal law prohibits the obstruction of justice, and provides that “[w]hoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.”
  1. Courts have regularly found that outing a whistleblower in online media—exactly what Senator Paul did here—can constitute such criminal retaliatory action.
  1. The obstruction of justice statute is intended to protect the safety of whistleblowers. Senator Paul’s conduct provides a sadly apt example of why such a statute is necessary. By naming an otherwise anonymous person through the public press and the public forum of 4 Senator Paul’s knowledge of these allegations is well-established, and he has urged the outing of the whistleblower for months. For instance, on November 13, 2019, in a radio interview with D.C.-based WMAL, Senator Paul identified by name the same government official alleged to be the whistleblower. … [he] created the real possibility that this person will confront threats of violence.
  1. Whether or not the named individual was in fact the whistleblower, as Senator Paul claimed, is irrelevant to this concern. A senator charged with the safety and security of the nation should not be purposefully placing a citizen in harm’s way for no public purpose. This dangerous conduct is not protected by the special constitutional protections provided to members of the Senate. The “Speech and Debate Clause” protects members from being “questioned in any other Place . . . for any Speech or Debate in either House.
  1. Court decisions have clarified that such protections extend only to legislative activity, as the purpose of the clause is to protect the free and full expression of congresspeople during such activity. …

Senator Paul’s defiance of the Presiding Officer demonstrated contempt for the rule of law and Chief Justice Roberts in his role as presiding officer, flouted the Constitution’s design for presidential impeachments, and may have chilled the future reporting of Executive Branch misdeeds….

I ask that the Senate Select Committee on Ethics undertake an appropriate investigation to address this unethical and improper conduct.

Sincerely, /s/ Tom Mueller tom@tommueller.co.

My Reactions

One rather minor thing can be said in defense of Rand Paul, contra Tom Mueller’s complaint — the jurisprudence about the yakity-yak privilege for legislators “being limited to legislative matters” is not very relevant if no case has ever been put concerning an impeachment process. I would guess that the Supreme Court would allow full say-anything chatter to occur.

Granted, where another law (such as the whistleblower protection law) contradicts this constitutional right, ways may have to be found to cater to both.  Possibly the use of the name John Doe would suffice.

I was very surprised, early on, to hear Rand Paul exclaim that the president was entitled, under ancient law, to meet his accuser.  That is true in criminal trials, bigtime.  But the impeachment trial is NOT a criminal trial and the “accused” does not enjoy the full spectrum of due process.

(Note: the fact that Senator Paul also named the whistleblower OUTSIDE of the chamber renders this point moot anyway.)

Disgust

Now I must confess that I did not follow the comings and goings very much during December and January as I was preoccupied with my campaign. ( I am still flabbergasted that nine hundred New Hampshire citizens voted for me to be the Republican nominee for president.)

Moreover, I did not want to watch all the silliness that was going on since it was constantly being described as Dems versus Repubs.  This is infuriating to me. When I was young it was expected that every vote in Congress was a conscience vote.   Being able to predict an outcome on party lines was reserved for matters to which a party had a strong traditional preference, and even then there was no guarantee.

The Westminster system in Australia similarly disgusts me. Why even ask a legislature to vote if it would be enough for the Party to say what it wants?

“Stand with Your Man”

So accurate is the parody (shown below) on Tammy Wynette’s song “Stand by Your Man,” that any American should be sad to see how mindless is the whole process. Sure, loyalty is a good feature in human life. But the job of a president is to think about vital issues and the Congress also needs to use brain power. It should not use pure emotion.

The various news channels, too, are apparently “pro Dem” or “pro Trump.”   Thus they do not even discuss the issues; they take a position to show how bad the opposite party is behaving.  A few of them praised Rep Tusli Gabbard’s vote on impeachment. (She voted “Present.”)  But wait, those who praised her were the pro-Trumpers, as her action could be seen as helping Trump avoid impeachment!

Mueller’s Initiative

I am happy to say that I do not know which party Tom Mueller supports.  I will assume his letter asking for investigation of Rand Paul is not a ploy to get Rand in trouble. God knows, Rand is the most responsible fellow on the Hill.

So lets’ be glad that Rand’s behavior is being scrutinised.  Note: I would have been happy to see all aspects of the Ukraine affair scrutinized.  Thus it was sad that the Senate voted against allowing witnesses.

We older Americans expect any controversy to be aired in full. The younger crowd not only does not expect it, they will now “learn from the Trump impeachment” that folks do not have a right to hear the particulars, as in a court of law. It will just be a screaming match instead.

(Recall my shock that Alan Dershowitz, on the Senate floor, acting as Trump’s lawyer said…  oh never mind I do not even want to repeat it.  It’s in a GumshoeNews article here.)

I will be glad to hear in the Comments section below, any quibble with the logic of Tom Mueller’s letter. On a later occasion I will review his 2019 book Crisis of Conscience, which contains a stunning collection whistleblowing events, with an overview as to the power structure involved.

Note: Tom is not related, as far as I know to the rascal Robert Mueller, who came into the FBI top job just a few days before 9-11 and left shortly after the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing.

 

 

SHARE

27 COMMENTS

  1. “I am hesitant to undertake this topic for three reasons.”

    I am not hesitant in saying I dont know of anyone other than yourself and Dee and a few other regular contributors here, that work so hard in exposing truths, of sometimes, difficult shocking topics that most people would rather never hear of, regardless of the need to scream it from the rooftops.

    Truth knows no borders and owes no allegiance to any side of politics., and for all your work ( gumshoe ) for your diligence, integrity, thoroughness, Id just like to say *thankyou, once again, for the thankless job you have all been doing for years.

    *its not the caning that hurt so much as the smile on his face when he took the run up!

    • Thanks, Fair. Impeachment is the proper caning. It was DEFINITELY put into the Constitution in order to let the people (via their reps) sack an errant president.

      I made this video when Obama said he might strike Syria EVEN IF Congress forbade him to do so. It’s not worth watching the whole thing, but at 5 minutes I said the proper response by Congress would have been to eject him from office that very day. Pow! Bam! Out!

      (Note: I don’t approve of wearing the flag as clothing as I was, sort of, doing that day. Also the audio is bad — I was so depressed about the strike I could hardly talk.)

  2. Here comes the conspiracy theorist:

    I imagine that the 2017 attack that gave Rand Paul 6 broken ribs (and led to lung surgery) was not based on a dispute about land. I think the attacker was under some kind of instructions to let the senator — and hence all legislators — know that they are in danger if they don’t obey.

    That is also what I think about the baseball game in 2017 at which Rep Scalise was critically shot. The other day I heard Tulsi say that she had been scheduled to play in that baseball game but stayed home.

    Maybe the plan was to “take her out.” They certainly are taking her out of media campaign coverage and out of the debates. She was not well known in 2017. They could have had the gunman kill a couple of Congresspersons and who would guess the real reason?

    Around December, Rand Paul started to say that he would ensure that no Republican senator would vote to allow witnesses re impeachment. I was shocked and right away wondered if a gun was metaphorically being held to his family’s head.

    Truly his “loyalty” behavior has been peculiar. Until now his loyalty was to the Constitution, 100%. Even today he is the strongest protector of the Fourth Amendment and is cracking down on the FISA courts for spying on our phone calls, etc.

  3. The partisan farce impeachment was based on hearsay evidence that Trump made a phone call to the Ukraine President with a quid pro quo proposal in the offing. Trump had the transcript of his phone call released that exposes the whistleblower as a false witness – he was not present in the room when Trump made the call, so his allegation has since, been thoroughly dis-proven.

    Going on that fact alone, there was no credible whistleblower who had gained first hand and damning information as an eye witness against Trump, but as Rand Paul exposed, was an Obama holdover who was willing to lie to keep other people’s secrets, as well as his own, from being exposed by Trump.

    I don’t see Rand Paul in trouble at all – and Roberts should have read out what Paul wanted read out because what Paul wanted, was to expose the whole sham impeachment that was based on hearsay evidence that no court, even a senate kangaroo court, would entertain as being factual.

  4. Mary , your theory on Rand Paul’s attack makes a lot of sense .

    It’s hard to believe that so brutal an attack would have been inflicted over something so petty.

    Meanwhile, since we’re focused on U.S politics , a little bit of fun.

    It looks like the Dem nomination is going down to two : Sanders ( with the popular support ) & Bloomberg ( who will try to buy enough super delegates to get over the line ).

    BUT, will Bloomberg have enough money to compensate for the following :

    ( Language Warning : Profanity abounds )

  5. Here’s the original, so you can compare the lyrics. The late Tammy said she spent 15 minutes writing this song and a lifetime defending it.

    (The Phyllis Schlafly in me says it’s just fine.)

  6. Now for something a little off topic ( but which was very much on topic last week ) , here is a video from arguably the greatest orator in the English speaking world : George Galloway – defending Julian Assange .

    ( Scroll down a little to the video & listen to a masterful display ) :

    https://russia-insider.com/en/watch-one-best-orators-alive-uk-politician-george-galloway-electrifying-speech-lynching-assange

    Many of you will have heard the disinformation smearing Assange claiming he's a CIA asset & such ( some of it via misguided fools trolling in the comments section of GumShoe ) .

    But make no mistake, Julian Assange is the REAL DEAL.

    As Galloway says :

    ‘ If we allow Julian Assange to be sent , for the rest of his life , into the dungeons of the U.S injustice system , then journalism , freedom , freedom of speech , democracy itself will have been murdered in plain sight on our watch ‘ .

    • I am not able to say who is, and who is not, CIA. Or Mossad, or MI6. There are kazillions of them floating around. Some are pillars of the community.

      Also some are so brainwashed that they do not realize who is in charge. At least that is my observation/guesstimate.

      In the US, I assume all school principals are FBI. But I could be dead wrong. How about all bishops? All news anchors? All bank managers? All book publishers? Postal managers?

      To whom do police commissioners in US, or fire commissioners in OZ, feel loyal? What about all judges? The loyalty oath of judges in Australia is to the queen, not secret at all. It’s very lazy of us not to try to see what that really means.

    • Come to think of it, T.V., maybe many Congresspersons are in the game. Surely Porter Goss was. Per Wikispooks:

      “Porter Goss served as a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1989 until 2004, when he became [CIA Director]. Goss worked in the now infamous JM/WAVE station in Miami under Ted Shackley, and was very probably a member of Operation 40, although he denies it, though admitting that he has been a long time CIA operative. He was pressured to resign as Director of the CIA in 2006, less than a month after the ‘Cocaine One’ drug bust in Mexico revealed a CIA-linked plane laden with 5½ tonnes of cocaine.”

      Do you recall how Rep Goss and Rep Maxine Waters handled the drug info from Gary Webb? Maybe 1989? There he was, the Chair of a relevant congressional committee, while also being CIA.

  7. Meanwhile, still on U.S politics , here is further proof of whose interests Trump works for ( not that we needed any ) :

    https://russia-insider.com/en/us-syria-illegally-proxy-israel-s-arabia-trump-israels-errand-boy/ri28314

    Yes, once again ex-CIA white hat / whistleblower Phil Giraldi has the guts to say what the cowards won’t .

    ( For those pressed for time , you need only read the paragraph immediately below the header. It pretty much encapsulates all you need to know about Trump ) .

  8. Mary, I was not familiar with the real time machinations that went on in the late 80’s involving Porter Goss & Maxine Waters , as they relate to Webb’s info.

    What I do know about Gary Webb ( which isn’t very much ) , is courtesy of the following video from The Corbett Report that I saw some years ago :

    It has some overlapping footage with the clip you posted a little while ago.

  9. Meanwhile, more on Assange ( in the words of a proper investigative journalist ) :

    https://russia-insider.com/en/wikileaks-assange-did-what-all-journalists-should-do/ri28344

    The author of the article says that :

    ‘ The [ Collateral Murder ] disclosures were probably the GREATEST JOURNALISTIC SCOOP IN HISTORY ‘ .

    Think about that statement next time you're vacillating as to whether Assange ( & Wikileaks ) are Deep State assets or forces for good .

  10. Many of you will be aware of the exchanges I’ve had with an individual in the comments section who is likely a Mossad affiliated disinformation sayanim who asked me to give him just one example of the Human Rights violations committed on a daily basis by the IDF on behalf of the Apartheid state of Israel .

    ( This , he asked me , after I had already given him several fact-checked & well documented such examples ).

    Well , here comes the first of many installments of this Tsunami which I shall drip feed into the comments section in the coming months – for the benefit of said sayanim automaton ( because his absorption rate for truth is rather lacking ) :

    https://russia-insider.com/en/shocking-gruesome-details-emerge-israeli-and-us-torture-palestinian-prisoners-much-worse-falluja

    • Dear Truth Vigilante,

      I am Gumshoe’s Comments monitor. This column is not really suited to carrying out an ongoing education of a particular commenter with whom you disagree.

      Many of us disagree. So what? With rare exception it does not lead to name-calling. Actually, Gumshoe is remarkably lucky to have a community where we enjoy one another’s views.

      If you want to tell us something about Palestine, you could write an article and submit it to McLachlanDee@gmail.com. Or, if it’s a “this-just-in” type item, you could put it here with the heading “Off-topic.” Such things are welcome.

  11. Very annoying — the videos I have submitted above keep changing. Maybe this is only happening on my computer. The one that I offered as “the original” for Tammy Wynette’s “Stand By Your Man” is now playing “San Quentin,” and the one about the president’s psychiatrist has turned into an ad for Elizabeth Warren.

    Sorry. (Please let Dee know if it is happening to you also.)

  12. Mary, I don’t mind constructive criticism – it leads to my amending my previous fallacious opinion(s) on an issue & homing in on the truth .

    This particular case is more than just about being in disagreement with someone.

    That said, I value your objectivity on what does or doesn’t constitute proper discourse here , so I will respect your wishes & refrain from the name calling .

    • Ta, T.V. I did tune in on your linked article and found it compelling. The stress positions used on Palestinian prisoners is quite something. The torturers ought to be removed from the species, asap.

      I also (and this has nothing to do with my “monitoring” remarks) flipped to another item on that same newssite –Russia Insider — and found it very inaccurate.

      Just imagine, just IMAGINE pouring your time and talent into a mission to deceive. Yet many do it!

  13. I have found Russia Insider to be one of the better sites as far as accuracy & truthfulness goes (at least relative to the outright disinformation being peddled in the western media ) .

    Like RT, it features interviewees & discusses topics that get little or no air time in the MSM .

    You will notice that Russia Insider features many articles by prominent western writers ( mostly individuals with a history of integrity ).

    That said, its vetting for accuracy is lax on occasion & some stories will be disseminated because they favour the ‘ Russian angle ‘ so readers will have to do their own due diligence.

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.