“The Sixth Amendment is pretty clear. It’s part of the Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, and it says that you get to confront your accusers. And so, I think it’s very clear that the only constitutional mandate here is, is that if someone’s going to accuse you of something that might remove the president from office, for goodness’ sake, shouldn’t they come forward and present their accusations in person?”
— Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), in a Fox Business Network interview, Nov. 5, 2019
“The Sixth Amendment guarantees an individual the right to face their accuser. Yet the House of Representatives has been conducting a secret impeachment inquiry based on secret claims made by a secret whistleblower. My bill would make clear that the Sixth Amendment is not superseded by statutes and that the president should be afforded the same rights that we all should: to understand the nature of the allegations brought against them and to face their accuser. This is in the Sixth Amendment. So for all the caterwauling about whistleblower statutes, there is a high law of the land. It is the Constitution, it is the Bill of Rights, and the Sixth Amendment says if you’re accused of a crime, you get to face your accuser.”
— Paul, in a Senate floor speech, Nov. 6, 2019
Paul has long championed protections for whistleblowers. But the one who filed a complaint about President Trump should be unmasked and confronted, Paul says.
The Sixth Amendment gives criminal defendants the right to face their accusers. A defense attorney, for example, might cross-examine a witness to poke holes in their testimony.
But Paul’s claim falls apart quickly, because the Sixth Amendment applies only in criminal cases. Trump is facing impeachment — a different process with its own constitutional rules. Confrontation rights aren’t guaranteed in impeachment cases, though the Senate holds a trial in which the accused may defend themselves from any charges.
View the complete November 8 article by Salvador Rizzo on The Washington Post website here.