If Schiff doesn't know the name of the whistleblower, then how does Chief Justice Roberts know it?

Mollie Hemingway asks in a tweet,

"Why was Rand Paul's question not asked? By what law or what justification was he silenced? This is extremely scary to witness and answers are needed."

Ace of Spades writes,

Paul's question did say "Eric Ciaramella," who is a known NSC Deep Stater, friends with Sean Misko and other known partisans. Roberts -- and the media -- block this name on the stated assumption that this is in fact the whistleblower, which puts lie to Adam Schiff's claim that he doesn't know who the whistleblower is (then how does Roberts know?) and also puts lie to the media's insistence that the name is a secret which must be protected.

...Everyone knows the name. This isn't about "protecting the whistleblower's identity." Everyone knows Eric Ciarmella's identity.

This is about two things:

1, It's about denying any ability to inquire into Schiff's lies, and Ciaramella's possibly-illegal leaks and conspiring, to put Operation Fusion Dossier 2.0 into effect. The Democrats/media -- they are precisely the same, including most of the personnel at Fox -- know that if you can't even identify the schemer who worked with Schiff to draft his fake whistleblower complaint, you obviously cannot call him to the Senate and ask him questions about his conspiracy.

2, And of course it's about what it's always about: The left's Show of Absolute Force and Dominion in telling you what you can and cannot say in public.

Some of these things they don't even care about -- but they very much do care about Power and Coercion, and always insisting upon their extra-constitutional POWER to control you, and punish you if you defy their control.

Twitter has already increased its powers to censor Unapproved Speech:

Ace then shows a Twitter rule that allows a tweet to be censored if "It's misleading about a political election." To which Ace asks,

"Misleading information about an election?" Isn't all information about an election thought to be misleading by partisans on the opposite side?

Oh well, a friend says, I'm sure Twitter will be even-handed and nonpartisan in determining whose idea of "misleading" is right, and who are the Garbage-People Deplorables on the Wrong Side of History.

Tomorrow they could just as easily forbid you from saying "blueberry muffin." Why would they do that? For no other reason than to exert their authority and by doing so, remind you of their authority and remind you of your diminished legal status.

If you can speak at all, it's only because the Left, in all of its benevolence, has permitted it. For today, at least.