Rand Paul Speech

C-Span ^

[maggief]

[maggief]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khloPIKjS1k&feature=emb_logo

Sen Rand Paul R-KY on the Senate floor right now with his impeachment trial speech;

Feb 4, 2020

Rand Paul just read aloud his question on the Senate floor that names the alleged. Roberts declined to read the question during the trial. Paul says he’s not outing the bc he doesn’t know who it is.

[PGalt]

Yes, a MUST SEE. HOORAY Rand. Thank you, sir.

[mass55th]

"Lindsey Graham, please pick up the white courtesy telephone and DO. SOMETHING. about this debacle!"

I wonder if Graham will have the balls to actually use Ciaramella's name when, and if he ever holds hearings. Not holding my breath on this one.

[Lakeshark]

Unbelievably awesome speech. He just nailed it.

He asked the question today I did when Roberts refused to allow Rand Paul's initial question during the stupid impeachment trial. How did Justice Roberts know all this unknowable info about Ciarmella?

[Openurmind]

Yes he did, just watched this. He did good.

[thesearethetimes...]

ListenLater

[mass55th]

"He said that as a former prosecutor he knows that when someone won’t turn over evidence it is because they know they are guilty."

And when a former prosecutor has to lie about having served in Vietnam, we all know what a lying prosecutor he was.

[RooRoobird20]

So alleged former “prosecutor” D’Nang D*ck is saying the accused has to prove their innocence—which means the burden of proof is not on the prosecution. Now there’s a Constitutional genius.

DUMB@SS!! Dear D*CK: Whatever law school you supposedly went to should retroactively revoke your diploma. You’re an embarassment to the legal profession.

[Alberta's Child]

Paul says he’s not outing [the whistleblower because] he doesn’t know who it is.

That's exactly right.

That's also why I had been saying for weeks that calling Eric Ciaramella to testify in any proceeding would have been pointless until AFTER his role in this whole charade had been confirmed. I strongly suspect that there may a half-dozen people (or more) who could be considered A "whistleblower" in this matter, which means every one of them has plausible deniability if asked if he or she is THE whistleblower.

[Openurmind]

Yep, and that was the huge question, if Roberts is not in the loop of collusion and conspiracy then how does he know?

[Timocrat]

Shifty is going to be amazed at the identity of the whistle-blower and that one of his staff has such a close relationship to him. /SSSS

[Alberta's Child]

Roberts may have read Ciaramella's name from the same online media sources you see posted here regularly.

And by refusing to ask the question, he may have simply been "outing" Ciaramella without directly doing so. LOL.

[caww]

Rand Paul was great! Put it right out there! Only one I’ve enjoyed listening to.......he used tone and facts and hit it right out of the park....well worth the listen.

[DesertRhino]

He talks to them. He also torched Justice Roberts.

[ImpBill]

I too am a huge fan/supporter of Senator Paul. He always sticks up for his conservative/libertarian (small “L”) principles regardless of how the press and Social Media attacks him.

[GnuThere]

Good for him!
If you want to watch the entire speech on the C-SPAN link, it starts about 12:02 ET.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

"So if he [Schiff] doesn't know who he [the "whistleblower"] is, and the President's counsel doesn't know who he is, how does the Chief Justice of the United States know who the whistleblower is?"

I'd really like to know the answer to that one. Maybe the Chief Justice can tell us?

[sjmjax]

Unfortunately, I believe that is to a mostly empty chamber.

[Randy Larsen]

Could it be that Rand Paul’s question was a backdoor way to confirm the true identify the whistle blower? He’s a real smart cookie to do this.