Replies

And I quote, verbatim, Sen. Rand Paul:

"I think Eric Ciaramella needs to be pulled in for testimony ... he is a person of interest in the sense that he was at the Ukraine desk when Joe Biden was there and Hunter Biden was working for Ukrainian oligarchs. Simply for that, I think he is a material witness and needs to be brought in, the other question is, while the whistleblower is protected from being fired or from retaliation in court proceedings, the whistleblower is not protected from being asked who gave him the information, because we can't have a country where the private contents of the president's phone calls are leaked to people who are not supposed to be in that loop.

"I think all these questions have to be asked. I don't think the whistleblower statute was never intended to have criminal trials and people put before the penalty of criminal justice without being able to hear from their accusers. So I think ultimately, he should testify. Adam Schiff is going to prevent it in the House. In the Senate, I will be advocating that if it comes to the Senate, we haven't had a vote yet of what the rules should be. By a simple minority, we should make the rules that the president is allowed to call all his witnesses, and then it is up to the president who he wants to call as his witnesses."

In this context, it is obvious to clear-headed people that Rand Paul is connecting "Eric Ciaramella" with "the whistleblower." If Rand Paul is *not* fingering Eric Ciaramella as the whistleblower, why is he mentioning Eric Ciaramella's name? There's only one logical reason why RP mentions EC: Because RP considers EC to be the whistleblower.

Context, context, context.