Washington – The presiding magistrate John roberts declined to read a question from the Republican senator Rand paul in the political trial to Donald Trump about the complainant of the intelligence community whose complaint set off the investigation against the president.
Paul has said he believes the complainant may have conspired with advisors to the House of Representatives at the time of writing your report last August.
“The magistrate who presides over the case refuses to read the question as it was presented,” Roberts announced. The presiding judge did not indicate what was in the note.
Previously, Roberts staff told the Senate majority leader team Mitch McConnell that Roberts did not want to read the name of the complainant, according to a Republican with knowledge of the situation and was not authorized to reveal his name.
After Roberts rejected his question, Paul wrote on Twitter that it was about “if individuals who stayed in the National Security Council after the (Barack) Obama administration and members of the Democrats conspired with Schiff’s staff to take the president to political trial before the House of Representatives initiated formal proceedings. ” That was in reference to the president of the Intelligence Commission of the lower house, Democrat Adam Schiff, who led the investigation.
Paul left the Senate to give a press conference about it. He said his question was not intended to reveal the identity of the complainant.
“I don’t know who the complainant is. Adam Schiff doesn’t know who the complainant is. My question was not about the complainant,” Paul said. “My question was about two people who are friends and worked together in the National Security Council and who have been heard to take the president for political trial for years.”
“Nowhere does he accuse, nor know, if any of them is the so-called ‘whistleblower,'” said Paul spokesman Sergio Gor.
Informant laws in the United States exist with the goal of protecting the identity and career of people who accuse government officials of irregularities. Legislators of both parties have historically backed these protections.
The Associated Press usually does not reveal the identity of informants.
– .
