Chief Justice John Roberts Shuts Down Rand Paul’s Question on Alleged ‘Whistleblower’

[mystery-ak]

Joshua Caplan 30 Jan 2020

Supreme Court Justice John Roberts on Wednesday blocked an attempt by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) to pose questions regarding the so-called “whistleblower” — the individual who sparked the House Democrats’ partisan impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump — according to reports.

Politico and The Hill state that Roberts indicated he would oppose reading Paul’s questions, as it is believed that he would be forced to name or provide identifying information on the alleged individual.

Speaking to reporters following a Republican dinner, Paul signaled that he may still fight to have his question read.

“It’s still an ongoing process; it may happen tomorrow,” he told reporters.

However, other Senate Republicans, include Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-SD), appear to have sided with Roberts over Paul.

“I don’t think that happens, and I guess I would hope that it doesn’t,” Thune said when asked if the so-called “whistleblower” will be named.

more
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/30/chief-justice-john-roberts-shuts-down-rand-pauls-question-on-alleged-whistleblower/

[mystery-ak]

Justice Roberts blocks Sen. Paul from naming whistleblower, source says – and Paul may force the issue
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/justice-roberts-blocks-sen-paul-from-naming-whistleblower-source-says-and-paul-may-force-the-issue

[skeeter]

Roberts has not offered any legal argument for hiding the individual’s identity.

Isn't there any requirement for Roberts to cite the specific statutory code underlying his determination?

His (non)argument seems very weak - the 'whistleblower's' testimony is critical to the defense, everyone seems to know who he is already and there are ways to protect his identity and still obtain his testimony.

And since this is no longer 'not a trial', doesn't Trump have the right to confront his accuser? Since when do we allow secret whistleblowers to assist in prosecutions?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

And since this is no longer 'not a trial', doesn't Trump have the right to confront his accuser? Since when do we allow secret whistleblowers to assist in prosecutions?

Technically, the whistleblower's transcript was never sent over to the Senate, so it isn't in evidence, and he therefore isn't a "trial witness" against Trump.  And the House managers have been careful to avoid any mention of him in their case in chief, likely for this exact reason.

I still think he should be called, because I don't think "right to be confronted by the witnesses against you" actually is the correct standard here.  Because there was no discovery phase, witnesses whose testimony might lead to the discovery of admissible and relevant evidence also should be permitted to testify.  If there was essentially a conspiracy involving the whistleblower, Schiff, and/or other witnesses, that's information that the Senate should know even if the whistleblowers own testimony isn't part of the prosecution's case.