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?

  • 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 5 '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 6 '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 in pro-Trump Facebook ads) or take the whistleblower's lawyers' words at face value. VTC as "unresolved current event". – Fizz Nov 8 '19 at 5:45

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.

  • 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 5 '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 5 '19 at 22:38
  • 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 5 '19 at 23:08
  • 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 8 '19 at 14:24
  • 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

You must log in to answer this question.