If reports are true that Chief Justice John Roberts is refusing to ask any questions from senators that include the name of the alleged “whistleblower” in the impeachment trial, the public deserves to know what his reasoning is behind that decision.

Reports on Wednesday said Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky wanted to submit a question for Roberts to read aloud in the trial but that he was rebuffed by Roberts because it contained the name of the career government employee whose complaint last year started this whole thing. On Thursday, Paul submitted a question which Roberts read silently and then replied, "The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted."

Democrats and liberals in the media insist there’s not a single reason for the public to know who the “whistleblower” is or what his motives were in running to House Democrats with a complaint about what was supposed to be a private phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

That’s nonsense. There are plenty of reasons to know.

We need to know if he was moved to act out of a bias for former Vice President Joe Biden (reporting indicates that he was). We need to know if he’s the kind of unelected, permanent bureaucrat who sees it as his place to resist Trump’s policy positions, as has been a hallmark of this administration (reporting indicates that he is). And we need to know the extent to which he coordinated with California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff to get impeachment moving (reporting indicates that there was coordination).

Rand Paul has been a proponent of questioning the “whistleblower” directly, which, as of now, appears unlikely to happen because Senate Republicans look like they’re opposed to admitting any witnesses in the trial. The next best thing, then, is to identify him so that the public can evaluate his role in the matter.

It’s true that senators could simply ask about the “whistleblower” without naming him, but we’ve known Schiff to lie when asked about the whistleblower as an anonymous figure, so that’s not really a sufficient option anymore.

The public deserves to know who the whistleblower is, and, as has been proven time and time again, there exists no law that makes it illegal to know his name or share it, other than as it applies to the inspector general of the intelligence community.

If Roberts is going to determine on his own that he’s going to stifle information that we have every reason to want, he needs to explain why.