Chief Justice John Roberts is playing politics again — and it couldn’t come at a more critical junction in our nation’s history.

On Thursday, Republican Sen. Rand Paul was incensed with Roberts’ decision to refuse the public reading of his question, which pertained to a possible push to remove President Donald Trump long before the official House impeachment proceedings.

While Paul’s question included the name of the alleged whistleblower, he argues that there is no justification for not reading his question.

“My question is not about a “whistleblower” as I have no independent information on his identity. My question is about the actions of known Obama partisans within the NSC and House staff and how they are reported to have conspired before impeachment proceedings had even begun,” he said in a tweet.

Paul is spot on.

When we’re talking of removal a duly-elected U.S. President, every deed should be brought to light and every rock must be uncovered. A trial without transparency is no trial at all.

The Kentucky senator released the exact question that was refused by Roberts:

Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings.

This question is more than appropriate.

Realistically, how can Roberts disallow a question about the “whistleblower” (allegedly Eric Ciaramella) if it’s not yet confirmed who the “whistleblower” is?

At the end of the day, this is an inquiry about a specific individual — that may also happen to be the whistleblower — who had great amounts of power and influence in the White House and might have used his sway in a manner that was destructive to the foundation of our Constitutional Republic.

Because Roberts — the presiding officer of the senate trial — declined to read this monumental question on the basis of partisan politics and false courtesies, the charge of “abuse of power” is more than justified.

And if need be, he should be removed from his role as presiding officer and replaced with a Supreme Court Justice who will remain impartial to the questions asked before the senate body.

In an impeachment trial, there is nothing off the table — ever.