-16

In an interview with a reporter from The Hill, and reported by both The Hill and Real Clear Politics, Senator Rand Paul made the claim that the anonymous whistleblower who raised concerns about President Trump’s contacts with Ukraine, leading to the House's impeachment inquiry, had been working with Joe Biden at the time:

REPORTER: The whistleblower laws protect the whistleblower. You know it's illegal to out a whistleblower?

SEN. RAND PAUL: Actually, you see you've got that wrong too.

REPORTER: No, we don't.

RAND PAUL: You should work on the facts. The whistleblower statute protects the whistleblower from having his name revealed by the inspector general. Even The New York Times admits that no one else is under any legal obligation.

The other point, and you need to be really careful if you really are interested in the news, is the whistleblower actually is a material witness completely separate from being a whistleblower because he worked for Joe Biden at the same time Hunter Biden was receiving $50,000 per month. So the investigation into the corruption of Hunter Biden involves this whistleblower because he was there at the time.

Did he bring up the conflict of interest? Was there a discussion of this? What was his involvement with the relationship between Joe Biden and the prosecutor? There are a lot of questions the whistleblower has to answer.

So was the whistleblower working for Joe Biden at the same time Hunter Biden was being paid by Burisma?

Community
  • 1
  • 3
    I believe the "evidence" for this is that a person rumored to be the whistleblower (no link or name on purpose) was invited to a state dinner sponsored by then-VP Biden. I would not view this as a working-for relationship. – Andrew Lazarus Nov 05 '19 at 22:06
  • 7
    The question as-asked aside. Even if a person X is a material witness in an investigation, that person is so **completely separate** from being a whistleblower, and thus being "the whistleblower" as well should be insubstantial (and confidential). Every whistleblower protection law ever made is made so that future potential whistleblowers are not discouraged from speaking up for fear of exposure and retaliation. I know the USA has played it very loose in that regard recently (Snowden, Manning), and Mr. Paul's cavalier disregard for the *spirit* of the law continues in that vein. – DevSolar Nov 06 '19 at 11:01
  • This is probably a premature question until more of the mainstream press discusses the matter. For now we'd either have to take at face value Trump's partisans' words, which include the article you've self-answered with (that was also [heavily promoted](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/07/trumps-allies-turned-online-campaign-quest-unmask-ukraine-whistleblower/) in pro-Trump Facebook ads) or take the whistleblower's lawyers' words at face value. VTC as "unresolved current event". – Fizz Nov 08 '19 at 05:45

1 Answers1

24

The whistleblower's attorneys have denied he or she worked with or for Biden

Via ABC News:

In a statement, the whistleblower's lawyers say the person has never worked for any political candidate, campaign or party and "spent their entire government career in apolitical, civil servant positions in the Executive Branch."

As a career civil servant, it's very possible the person served under then-Vice President Joe Biden or provided briefings on Capitol Hill to lawmakers, but such a role would not normally be considered political.

Community
  • 1
BradC
  • 3,829
  • 24
  • 35
  • Solid piece of evidence, will leave open in case a more neutral source comes forward –  Nov 05 '19 at 21:52
  • 12
    @KDog Unless and until someone (illegally) reveals the whistleblower's identity, it might be the best we can get. Additionally, there is good reason to doubt that Rand Paul's claim is a good-faith objection; like Trump he appears to be changing his argument from moment-to-moment, as each successive one is discredited. – BradC Nov 05 '19 at 22:02
  • 15
    I think the burden of proof now falls on Rand Paul, as he provided no evidence to support his claim, or even that he knows who the whistle blower is. Of course, the whistleblower complaint was backed up by the memo released by the administration so it kinda makes the whole point moot regardless. – DenisS Nov 05 '19 at 22:38
  • @DenisS yes, I think that's the best answer here. Rand Paul's claim (made previously by Trump) was made with no knowledge of who the whistleblower is. – De Novo Nov 05 '19 at 22:57
  • 4
    @DenisS and the claim could be made with equal credibility about any nonpartisan officer working on Ukraine. It's an obvious attempt to discredit. – De Novo Nov 05 '19 at 23:08
  • The lawyer came out as pro coup days in of the inauguration. Sorry, he's unreliable –  Nov 08 '19 at 10:25
  • 2
    @KDog This has nothing to do with your opinion of the whistleblower's attorneys; the point is that they speak on the whistleblower's behalf. – BradC Nov 08 '19 at 14:24
  • 1
    @KDog Turns out the "coup" tweet was deliberately taken out of context and means the [exact opposite of what Trump and the GOP claims](https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/gop-smears-whistleblower-lawyer-with-even-more-misleading-version-of-coup-has-started-tweet/). It was in response to (and directly referencing) Trump's firing of Sally Yates; so was accusing *Trump* of being the architect of the "coup" by firing those who refused to go along with (what they perceived to be) his unlawful orders. – BradC Nov 14 '19 at 14:41
  • @bradC spin, spin spin. It's not like he doesn't have a half dozen tweets just like it. –  Nov 14 '19 at 14:43
  • This answer is confusing. Its bolded conclusion at the top says, "The whistleblower's attorneys have denied he or she worked with or for Biden," but then the provided quote to back this up says, "As a career civil servant, **it's very possible the person served under then-Vice President Joe Biden** or provided briefings on Capitol Hill to lawmakers" which sounds like exactly he opposite of the conclusion. The first part only says that he didn't work with a political _candidate_ or _campaign_, not that he didn't work with or for an already-elected political official. – reirab Nov 22 '19 at 22:01
  • @reirab "Worked in the same building" and "reported directly to" don't mean the same thing. – Draco18s no longer trusts SE Nov 23 '19 at 16:19
  • @Draco18s Agreed, but "worked with or for" means more the former than the latter. The bolded statement in this answer is 180 degrees from what the actual cited source says. – reirab Nov 23 '19 at 21:06
  • 4
    @reirab Nominally true, but the point the lawyer is making is that their employ was irrespective of the politician in the office. Their duties could be of a nature that means that they take direction from or provide documents to, but to the *office* not the *person.* Eg. they could just have easily *also* served Dick Cheney 12 years ago. It'd be like asking if the Janitor who vacuums the oval office works *for* Donald Trump. – Draco18s no longer trusts SE Nov 23 '19 at 23:30