Trump engaged in yet another ‘internal investigation’ to silence whistleblowers in the White House

Donald Trump’s silence over the Russian scheme to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan hasn’t been getting much press, displaced from the headlines by Trump’s own schemes for killing wholesale volumes of American civilians in America. But never let it be said that Trump can’t multitask. Trump can hate everyone who tries to inject any semblance of reality into the nation’s planning for the coronavirus pandemic, and Trump can hate everyone who spilled the beans on how he kept chatting up Vladimir Putin months after he was aware that Putin had put contracts on Americans. 

As Politico reports, Trump is engaged in an internal investigation to locate and punish the people who let slip both the knowledge of Russia’s efforts to buy American deaths in Afghanistan, and the people who keep making it clear that Trump knew about the scheme for over a year. But this is just the latest in Trump’s long line of efforts to determine who stole the strawberries. And just as likely to succeed.

Whistleblowers of any sort have long been on Trump’s naughty list. His own twisted sense of morality requires that personal loyalty to Trump trumps all other concerns—even when Trump is in the midst of plans that could harm large numbers of people or the nation. Even when he’s doing something purely illegal. Trump made it clear that he was perfectly willing to breech both the spirit and the letter of whistleblower protection laws during his impeachment (Reminder: Donald Trump was impeached!) and the purge of inspectors general shows that Trump is out to get the tattletales, no matter where they live. Who watches the watchmen? No one, as far as Trump is concerned. 

Trump is still engaged in announced investigations of who posted an anonymous op-ed back in September of 2018 that said, among other things, “many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.” And Trump is still looking for the person who distributed internal schedules in 2019 showing that Trump spent well over half his time either thumbing buttons on Twitter, or appreciating the softness of the Charmin, in unstructured “executive time.”

And now even more of Trump’s White House is involved in investigating those scoundrels at … Trump’s White House, this time in an effort to catch whoever let slip the Russian bounty scheme, and then kept making if obvious that Trump knew. Because he did. As a quick reminder:

  • Trump was personally briefed on the Russian operation by John Bolton over a year ago.
  • Trump received updates on the scheme at multiple points, including a February 27 daily brief.
  • Trump has called Putin at least five times since March, with the content of those phone calls unknown.
  • Trump has made repeated demands, despite knowing that Russia was both conducting a proxy war against American forces and engaged in an effort to thwart peace negotiations in Afghanistan, to have Russia readmitted to the G7, and threatened to invite Putin personally if other nations did not agree.

Amusing as it may be to see how much effort Trump puts into chasing his own tail, it’s even more frustrating that all of these whistleblowers are content to remain whistleblowers. Again and again, members of Trump’s staff have spoken up to denounce his policies after they’ve been removed from office—and often after they’ve secured a book contract so they can collect a check for describing just how dysfunctional things are within Trump’s regime. But none of them seem to be willing to step forward openly and immediately when seeing Trump engaged in behavior harmful to the nation.

There should always be whistleblower protections, and the information brought forward by these women and men is invaluable. But the fear with which insiders continue to regard Trump is frustrating specifically because Trump mistakes that fear for respect.

Trump’s attacks on judges and prosecutors aren’t the worst part of his threat to the judicial system

This week alone, Donald Trump has attacked career prosecutors because they refused to go along with a political decision to interfere in the sentencing of one of Trump’s advisers. Trump has also taken multiple swings at the federal judge involved in the case, including demanding a do-over for his pal Roger Stone after Stone was convicted on seven out of seven counts. But as bad as those attacks on the justice system may be, there’s one other thrust from Trump that may be the most deadly to anything resembling impartial justice: Trump has been attacking jurors.

Leveraging a statement from the jury foreman that they thought the U.S. attorneys involved in the case were “honorable,” Trump has made multiple assertions that the jury was biased against Stone from the start. Not only that, but he has tweeted attacks against the jury foreman by name, destroying the concept that a private citizen serving on a jury out of civic duty deserves to be shielded from political pressure and threats.

Trump’s attack on the jurors isn’t just a head-on assault on the American system of jurisprudence; it’s also a slam at the attorneys. Not the U.S. attorneys—Stone’s attorneys. After all, every one of the jurors survived questioning and challenges from Stone’s legal team to be seated. The transcript of the jury selection even shows Stone’s team learning that a juror had previously been a Democratic candidate for office and declaring themselves fine with it. Trump is creating a standard by which there’s no trial in America that could hold up. Or at least, no trial that Trump wants to see hold up.

And it’s not just Trump. Naturally, Fox News is all-in on the idea of attacking the privacy and assumed independence of jurors. Judge Andrew Napolitano has been all over this topic, insisting that the juror had an obligation to reveal information that very much was revealed during the jury selection. In fact, Stone’s attorneys were absolutely aware that some of the jurors had political positions opposed to Trump, with the transcript showing an attorney questioning one potential juror’s previous response, repeating, “Your answer was supported Hillary Clinton in 2016. Deeply opposed to everything Donald Trump stands for,” and the juror responding, “Yes.”

Stone’s attorney accepted that juror, along with others who said they had political positions opposed to Trump. There is no basis here for any retrial unless Stone wants to file an appeal on the grounds that his counsel was inadequate, which is a tough play, considering the essentially unlimited funds he had available to surround himself with a multimember team.

In many ways, Trump’s attack on the jurors resembles another campaign that he and his Republican allies just waged: the one against the intelligence community whistleblower whose information spurred the investigation that led to Trump’s impeachment. In that case, the whistleblower’s role was simply to bring information to the attention of authorities—no different than someone who called in on a tip line, or sent police anonymous information about a potential crime. The identity and motivations of the whistleblower mattered not one whit as soon as that role was performed. Not one piece of evidence came from the whistleblower. Not one action taken was based on testimony by the whistleblower.

But the IG whistleblower and Stone trial juror both represent something that Trump, and Fox, cannot stand: ordinary people trying to do the right thing, even in the face of pressure from the powerful. When that happens, Republicans spring into action. To attack. To threaten. To demean.

Because until people learn that they should just shut up around their betters, the world just can’t be the way that Trump and his allies demand.

Rand Paul Says the Name of Alleged Whistleblower, Asks if Impeachment Was Rigged from Beginning

On Tuesday, Sen. Rand Paul took the Senate floor, where he read the name of the alleged whistleblower at the center of the House impeachment inquiry.

His comments occurred after Paul was not allowed to read the same statement last week. He submitted the same question last week during President Trump‘s impeachment trial and it included the person’s name.

Paul Silenced No More

“I think they made a big mistake not allowing my question. My question did not accuse anybody of being a whistleblower,” Paul said Tuesday from the Senate floor.

RELATED: Rand Paul Says President Trump Would Be ‘Going Against The Law If He Didn’t Investigate The Bidens’

The question made reference to two alleged Democratic operatives including one who has been reported to be the whistleblower who filed a complaint about Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelensky.

‘I think they made a big mistake not allowing my question’

“Now during the proceedings, I asked a question that was disallowed. And I’m going to ask that question again this morning, because the Constitution does protect debate and does protect the asking of questions,” Paul said. “I think they made a big mistake not allowing my question. My question did not talk about anybody who is a whistleblower. My question did not accuse anybody of being a whistleblower.”

Paul noted that he “simply named two people’s names,” then repeated his question, including saying the names.

“And you say, well we should protect the whistleblower, and the whistleblower deserves anonymity. The law does not preserve anonymity,” Paul said. “His boss is not supposed to say anything about him, he’s not supposed to be fired. I’m for that.”

Paul said naming names was necessary to determine if there was a possible plot to take down the president.

“My point is, is by having such protection, such overzealous protection, we don’t get to the root of the matter of how this started,” the senator said. “‘Cause this could happen again.”

RELATED: Kentucky Democrat Mocks Rand Paul Assault

Don Jr. Approves!

The President’s son, Donald Trump Jr. praised Paul for asking these questions.

“Must watch,” Don Jr. tweeted along with a video of Paul’s presentation. “Great job Rand Paul for calling this nonsense out.”

Sen. Paul’s comments came as both Republican and Democratic senators spent the day making arguments for and against removing Trump from office due to his supposedly questionable dealings with Ukraine.

The post Rand Paul Says the Name of Alleged Whistleblower, Asks if Impeachment Was Rigged from Beginning appeared first on The Political Insider.

Continuing his quest to endanger alleged whistleblower’s life, Rand Paul names him in Senate speech

Sen. Rand Paul continues to be a flaming heap of whistleblower-outing trash. Whistleblowers are protected for reasons that an alleged libertarian like Paul should appreciate—that protection encourages people to come forward when they see something wrong in government. But after Chief Justice John Roberts refused to read Paul’s question naming the person who Republicans believe to have been the whistleblower on Donald Trump’s impeachable Ukraine call, Paul took matters into his own hands.

He’s already read the question, with the name, to reporters. But apparently he didn’t get enough attention for that, so on Tuesday, Paul brought a large poster of his question up with him as he made a floor speech in the Senate, during which he read the question.

To recap: the chief justice refused to read Paul’s question because it named a rumored whistleblower, possibly endangering that person. Paul then held a news conference to read the same question, and then, as if he hadn’t done enough, read it on the Senate floor while standing before it printed on a large poster, for anyone watching C-SPAN to hear and see.

Paul has insisted that this is all innocent because he doesn’t know that this is the whistleblower, he just happens to be asking lengthy questions about a random person whose name hasn’t come up in the impeachment for … reasons. I think we know the reason, and the reason is that Rand Paul is a terrible piece of human trash and he’s part of a political party that rewards that.

Trey Gowdy: “Both Sides are Wrong” in Whistleblower Fight

Speaking to Fox News, former Representative Trey Gowdy said that “both sides are wrong” in the fight as to whether or not to call the whistleblower to testify.

“I Don’t Need Him – I’ve Got the Transcript!”

Senator Rand Paul recently named the alleged whistleblower in a series of tweets, as his question was rejected by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Martha McCallum asked Gowdy whether it was acceptable for Senator Paul to name the alleged whistleblower.

“I like Rand but I think both sides are wrong on this,” Gowdy said. “We make 4-year-olds testify in court. We make women who have been sexually assaulted testify in court. So the notion that, if you are a relevant witness, that somehow you could escape being cross-examined, we don’t do it for anyone else, why would we do it for this whistle-blower?”

However, Gowdy continued, and noted that on the other hand, there is no need for the whistleblower to testify

“I don’t need him,” Gowdy said. “I’ve got the transcript. Why do I care what someone who overheard the conversation felt about it or thought about it or believed about it? I can read it for myself. Yes, the whistleblower is relevant, but he’s not material. There are 20 witnesses that I think would be more probative than a whistleblower of a transcript that you and I can read for ourselves.”

Why Was the Whistleblower on the Call?

McCallum then asked Gowdy if he was worried with the precedent that was set with the leak of the phone call between President Trump and Zelensky in the first place.

“I am, and the remedy for that is to limit the number of people who are on those calls,” he said. “There are consequences any time someone takes unprecedented acts, and if you’re going to listen to a conversation between the President and a leader of a foreign country, and then you’re going to violate that confidence and tell someone about it, the President should shrink the number of people who are on those calls!”

Gowdy went on to suggest that the calls should be limited to only a select few. ”

Maybe the Secretary of State and a subject matter expert [should be on], but there were what, a dozen people on that call? Do we really need a dozen people to take notes?” Gowdy asked. “I’d rather hire a court reporter and then let them read the transcript.”

I couldn’t agree more with Gowdy. I, for one, hope that the Senate will vote to stop taking witnesses, and get this “impeachment” sham over and done with! The American public are tired with wasting time on this nonsense. However, there must be a full investigation into the supposed whistleblower, and how the hell this got out in the first place, along with looking into Hunter Biden and his crooked dad, Sleepy Joe.

The American people need answers, but they also want impeachment finished.

The post Trey Gowdy: “Both Sides are Wrong” in Whistleblower Fight appeared first on The Political Insider.

Roberts Not Allowing Rand Paul’s Question About Whistleblower Is Ruffling Feathers

Chief Justice John Roberts isn’t merely a disappointment. He is part of the cabalist infrastructure.

Roberts, who is presiding over President Trump’s Senate impeachment trial, has rejected questions from Sen. Rand Paul on a few occasions and gone to the Democrats and asked theirs. Paul let it be known he wanted to know about the whistleblower and if that individual would ever be called as a witness, but Roberts has decided to shelve that opportunity.

Why do you think Justice Roberts denies the president the opportunity to confront his accuser? Why does he deny the Senator’s right to freedom of speech? There is no legal nor constitutional guarantee or even offer of anonymity for a whistleblower. There is no credible fear of death or physical harm; after all, he did not blow the whistle on a Clinton.

MORE NEWS: Dave Chappelle: “I Don’t Look at Trump Supporters as My Enemy”

Beginning but not ending with his handling of the FISA court and the appointments thereto, the next impeachment should be his. Justice Roberts’ behavior saddens me, but not surprised. He has been suspect since the Obamacare trial.

None of this corruption in Washington would ever have seen the light of day if it were not for Donald Trump. The exposure of the fraud and treasonous behavior within the government itself and the complicit media will make him the single most important person in American history if the country is to go forward as it was founded.

There are some things we need to keep in mind?

MORE NEWS: 2020 Dem Michael Bloomberg Will Run $10 Million Gun Control Ad During Super Bowl

First, Chief Justice Roberts is the reason Obamacare initially survived in the Supreme Court when during the eleventh hour and 59th minute, he switched sides. It was so late in the process that Justice Ginsburg’s concurring opinion ends with the following words: “I respectfully dissent.” The only problem is that when you file a concurring opinion, you are not dissenting. What happened? Justice Ginsburg wrote her opinion when she thought she would be in a 5-4 minority.

Second, in my opinion, there is absolutely no legal basis for Chief Justice Roberts to refuse Paul’s question. The question is far more relevant than other questions that have been posited by the Chief Justice. Also, there was nothing in the question that identified the whistleblower as Eric Ciaramella or any other person.

Third, even if somebody wants to argue that the question “outs” the whistleblower, that is not a basis for Chief Justice Roberts to not read the question. Nowhere in the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended (“ICWPA”), which amended the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 and the Inspector General Act of 1978, is anonymity even mentioned. On October 10, 2012, President Barack Obama issued Presidential Policy Directive 19, which provided specific whistleblower protections. Nothing in this directive provided anonymity for an intelligence community whistleblower; the directive prohibited retaliation against a whistleblower.

MORE NEWS: Fox Refuses To Air Super Bowl Ad About Abortion Survivors – Greenlights Commercial Featuring Drag Queens

The Inspector General Act of 1978 prohibits the inspector general from releasing the name of a complainant, but this applies to no one else. Under the statutory framework, whistleblowers are granted certain rights against retaliation or reprisal in the workplace. In other words, they cannot be demoted, transferred, fired, or otherwise penalized for filing a complaint that meets the statutory whistleblower requirements. However, identity protection is neither provided for nor contemplated, anywhere in the statutory language.

Senator Paul should submit another question about Ciaramella, and when Roberts refuses to read it, object, and demand a count of Senators willing to overrule Roberts. It’s time to find out how many Senators believe that the accused has the right to face his accuser!

Sections 7(B) of the Inspector General Act of 1978 “provides for the identity of an employee making a complaint, such as a whistleblower, to remain undisclosed to the extent practicable: “The Inspector General shall not, after receipt of a complaint or information from an employee, disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the Inspector General determines such disclosure is unavoidable during the investigation,” according to

Since Senator Paul is not the Inspector General (and neither am I), he is not precluded (and neither am I) from releasing the name of Ciaramella as the whistleblower.

More Stories From


The post Roberts Not Allowing Rand Paul’s Question About Whistleblower Is Ruffling Feathers appeared first on The Political Insider.

Sen. Rand Paul tries to out whistleblower during impeachment, #ArrestRandPaul goes viral on Twitter

Wednesday evening, reports came out that Sen. Rand Paul was trying his darndest to out the alleged “whistleblower” by getting Chief Justice Roberts to say the name inside of a question, to be read during the Senate impeachment trial. It’s the kind of rich kid douchebaggery one expects from a 1980s teen movie villain … and Rand Paul. Because of the bad press that justifiably rained down on him, Sen. Paul illegally went out to talk with reporters during the Senate impeachment trial to clear his name by continuing to be a gruesome person and even worse senator. It’s important to note here that Sen. Rand Paul does shitty things on occasion like this, mostly to remind the country that he’s still here. Also because, like his dad, he’s mostly interested in his own power, and also like his dad, his libertarian ideas are worthless and cyclically ebb and flow with the rise and fall of fascism.

And so Rand was able to make the day’s headlines, and stay in those headlines, but not because people think the gold-diapered baby senator is a patriot. No, people had Sen. Paul on their minds for a very different reason altogether—American history and common sense. #ArrestRandPaul began to trend on Twitter, and took off.



No. No there’s not.



And people aren’t saying it simply as a joke.


And while it is preaching to the choir, the depth of this move, the true inhumanity and bleakness of soul that it takes to put people’s lives in jeopardy over some worthless political points that you might get from Donald Trump, is pathetic.


If our justice system was even half working at this point, Sen. Rand Paul would be in a whole heap of very real trouble.


SHOWDOWN: Rand Paul Vows to Fight after Justice John Roberts Blocks Question Naming Whistleblower

Tensions were on the rise Wednesday evening as Chief Justice John Roberts blocked a question from Senator Rand Paul that would have identified the alleged whistleblower at the center of the impeachment trial.

Roberts’ actions prompted shouting from the Kentucky Senator as he vowed to “fight for recognition.”

Sean Davis, a co-founder of the Federalist, reported that Roberts, at the behest of Democrats, “previously vowed to ban any questions about the whistleblower whatsoever, named or not.”

“Roberts’ arbitrary and unilateral censorship of senators and Senate business raises serious questions about whether he would similarly ban any and all motions to subpoena by name the whistleblower … to compel his testimony,” Davis said.

GOP senators previously suggested having the whistleblower testify should witnesses be approved for the trial.

After Republicans threatened a vote to rebuke Roberts on the record, the Chief Justice retreated and said the actual name of the whistleblower would be the only thing earning a block.

Even that should be challenged.


RELATED: Watch: Rand Paul Obliterates Reporter Who Claims It’s Illegal To Out Whistleblower

Paul Fuming

Roberts move at the encouraging of Democrats, reportedly, left Paul fuming and vowing to engage in a fight to be heard.

“I don’t want to have to stand up to try and fight for recognition,” Paul was heard shouting during a break in the trial. “If I have to fight for recognition, I will.”

Reporter Niels Lesniewski said Paul’s complaint was “audible from the galleries above the chamber.”

Paul, who has been insistent on testimony from the whistleblower for the record, said “tbd [to be decided]” when asked if he would force the issue.


RELATED: Photo Emerges of Alleged Whistleblower Shaking Hands With Obama

Outing the Whistleblower

As Senator Paul has explained time and again, whistleblowers are protected by federal law from retaliation in the workplace but are not guaranteed anonymity.

“The whistleblower statute protects the whistleblower from having his name revealed by the inspector general,” Paul previously noted when threatening to out him. “Even The New York Times admits that no one else is under any legal obligation.”

He has noted that the whistleblower is a material witness in the case “because he worked for Joe Biden at the same time Hunter Biden was receiving $50,000 per month.”

The Political Insider has identified the alleged whistleblower as CIA officer Eric Ciaramella, a registered Democrat who worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan.

His identity is crucial because House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and his office have allegedly coordinated the effort with him to take down President Trump.

Ciaramella’s work history and coordination with Schiff’s office would indicate a political bias – not a concern over truth and justice – in trying to impeach the President, something that is thoroughly relevant to the trial.

Attorney to the whistleblower, Mark Zaid, was revealed to have discussed a coup and other devious secret plans to oust the President.

“Democrats must be accountable for their hoaxes and their crimes,” Trump said regarding the ‘coup.’

Roberts, by protecting Schiff and the whistleblower, is assuring they will not be held accountable. Paul must continue to fight this and his Republican colleagues must stand with him.

The post SHOWDOWN: Rand Paul Vows to Fight after Justice John Roberts Blocks Question Naming Whistleblower appeared first on The Political Insider.

Adam Schiff Claims ‘I Don’t Know Who the Whistleblower Is’

On Wednesday, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff insisted that he did not know the identity of the so-called “whistleblower” who filed the original complaint about President Donald Trump that led to the impeachment trial.

‘I don’t know who the whistleblower is’

“First of all, I don’t know who the whistleblower is, I haven’t met them or communicated with them in any way,” Schiff said Wednesday during the Senate impeachment trial.

What Schiff failed to mention was that the “whistleblower” approached a House Intelligence Committee aide with supposed details about Trump’s phone call with Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

RELATED: Chris Wallace Hosts Republican Will Hurd of Texas, Who Breaks with GOP on Whistleblower Identity

The New York Times reported that a Schiff committee staffer told the “whistleblower” to meet with the inspector general and file a whistleblower complaint.

Schiff Denies His Staff Did Anything to Help Whistleblower

Yet Schiff is still denying that any member of his staff did anything to help the “whistleblower.”

“The committee staff did not write the complaint or coach the whistleblower what to put in the complaint,” Schiff said.

Schiff condemned what he called a “conspiracy theory” that someone on his committee staff allegedly “colluded” with the whistleblower to craft a complaint that launched the impeachment investigation.

A spokesman for Schiff told the NYT that the whistleblower, “contacted the committee for guidance on how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community.”

Schiff said his staff has shown “complete professionalism,” adding that members of his staff had become subject to threats on social media thanks to “smears” committed by President Trump and his allies.

Schiff Vowed Not to Reveal Identity

Schiff vowed he would not do anything to reveal or endanger the identity of the “whistleblower” as the trial continues.

Republican Congresswoman Elise Stefanik of New York accused Schiff on Twitter of lying about the “whistleblower.”

“Stunning that Adam Schiff lies to millions of Americans when he says he doesn’t know the identity of the whistleblower,” she wrote. “He absolutely knows the identity of the whistleblower because he coordinated with the individual before the whistleblower’s complaint! His staff helped write it!”

RELATED: ‘This Ain’t Over’: Doug Collins Challenges Schiff To Testify About Whistleblower

Many Republicans have called for the “whistleblower” to testify as part of the impeachment process, with Schiff repeatedly refusing at each turn.

On Wednesday, Schiff told the Senate that the “whistleblower” testifying was no longer relevant because President Trump released the transcript of the call.

“There’s no need for that whistleblower any more except to further endanger that person’s life,” Schiff said.

The post Adam Schiff Claims ‘I Don’t Know Who the Whistleblower Is’ appeared first on The Political Insider.