Skip to comments.Devin Nunes tells @dailycaller it is "shocking and inexplicable" that the FISA Court picked Obama's David Kris to oversee FBI's FISA reforms
Posted on 01/11/2020 8:59:46 PM PST by Swarthy Greek Immigrant
click here to read article
Oh, it’s explicable all right. We just don’t like the explanation.
It’s perfectly explainable when you know Chief Justice Roberts is the guy in charge.
We hear all this nonsense about “Russian assets”. But in truth our system is full of Democrat assets, leftist assets, globalist assets, elitist assets....
Who is in charge of the FISA court. John Roberts I believe. Seems to me IF I’m accurate on this there are surprises coming if the Senate does not dismiss the impeachment.
Roberts is compromised.
It should be obvious to everyone by now.
Sort of like assigning an Obama appointee (U.S. Attorney John Huber) to review the FBI’s work on the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One.
Agree; the tentacles of this taxpayer-funded octopus are everywhere, like weeds with deep roots.
When a criminal organization investigates itself the outcome is known before they start.
The Russian assets are misnamed and are communist assets. And you are right, the Dems are communist. Some lie and pretend they are moderates but smart people know the truth.
Swampers gonna swamp.
The FISA court is as corrupted as all the other federal agencies which functioned for eight years under a fraud president named Barry Soetoro, for student, CIA puppet.
Very likely, but the court still might have a shot at being guilty only of appalling neglect of duty plus gross incompetence.
“But in truth our system is full of Democrat assets, leftist assets, globalist assets, elitist assets....”
Worse yet is when these assets are further set against us by so called Republicans.
The Deep State has managed the chess pieces on this board very well.
7/9/2009, 4:59:46 AM · by Cindy · 26 replies · 1,291+ views
CNSNEWS.com ^ | Wednesday, July 08, 2009 | By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer
Obamas Assistant Attorney General Tells Senate: Terrorists Captured on Battlefield Have Constitutional Rights SNIPPET: Does that infer that these individuals have constitutional rights? McCain asked Kris. Ah, yes, Kris answered. What are those constitutional rights of people who are not citizens of the United States of America, who were captured on a battlefield committing acts of war against the United States? McCain asked. Our analysis, Senator, is that the due process clause applies to military commissions and imposes a constitutional floor on the procedures that the government sets on such commissions Kris said. So you are saying that these...
Hat tip to FReeper @piasa
For reals, Devin? How long have you been around?
Roberts is solely responsible for the FISA court. As suchh heh is a fact witness in thhe illegal activities that occured leading to the FISA court approval of spying on thhe Trump campaign and administration.
It would be a first order of business for the defense team to demand Robert’s recusal as chair of the impeachment trial. His failure to recuse himself would create a genuine constitutional crisis with no appeal other than his impeachment. That is, the Senate could refuse to allow him to sit in the trial.
Robert’s recusal would require that he resign from the Court, allowing Trump to appoint Thomas as Chief Justice. That would put an activist conservative judge in the top position on the Judicial branch of government. In point of fact this needs to happen.
For the Trump doctrine to move forward Roberts needs to come off the court and Thomas appointed as Chief Justice.
Roberts can only be removed through impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate, voluntary resignation. The Constitution provides no provision for the Senate to refuse to allow the Chief Justice to chair the Senate trial of the president. Furthermore, looking at the current composition of the Senate there isnt a majority vote to remove Roberts from office much less 2/3, even if the Constitution permitted the Senate to stop Roberts from chairing the upcoming Trump trial.
If Roberts were to die or resign prior to the trial of President Trump, the President can nominate whoever he wishes to be Chief Justice but the Senate must approve the nomination before the new Chief Justice can be seated. It is doubtful the Senate will take on the appointment of a new Chief Justice, particularly one nominated by the President being tried, before the impeachment trial.
Finally, if something happened to Roberts, if you want to change the direction of the court for decades do you really want to appoint a man in his 70s to the position of Chief Justice or do you nominate a strong conservative jurist who is much younger. Nominate a minority or white female aged 40-55 for the role who has impeccable credentials. Democrat Senators will be put in the position of opposing the appointment of the first minority or female to Chief Justice. Plus the Democrats running for President will have to go on record opposing or supporting the nomination. Their base will be pushing to oppose but if the nominee has stellar character, independent voters will not support opposing a historic appointment.
That scumbag Roberts is going to reside over the senate impeachment hearings?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.