Posted on 01/29/2020 6:30:00 PM PST by yesthatjallen
Sen. Rand Paul's (R-Ky.) attempt to ask about the whistleblower whose report helped spark the impeachment inquiry is running into a roadblock in the form of Chief Justice John Roberts.
A source confirmed that Roberts has indicated he would not read a question from Paul regarding the whistleblower at the center of the House impeachment inquiry.
The question from Paul is expected to name the individual. Because Roberts is responsible for reading the questions that would put him in the position of publicly outing the person on the Senate floor.
Paul indicated to reporters after a closed-door Republican dinner that he was not backing from trying to ask his question.
“It’s still an ongoing process; it may happen tomorrow,” the libertarian-leaning senator told reporters as he headed back to the Senate chamber.
The Senate is in its first of two days for senators to question both House managers and President Trump's legal team.
Senators have been submitting their questions to Republican leadership, who were responsible for weeding out duplicate questions.
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Donald Trump should be able to face his accuser, and impeach (no pun intended) his credibility. Is there such a thing as a Stalinist kangaroo?
Just say his name and let Roberts scratch his head trying to cite a law preventing it.
Needs repeating !
A compromised judge can never be a consistently competent judge, only a corrupt judge.
Roberts sold us out in 2012 with Obamacare. He’s crooked.
And why are two low level staffers, who are at the heart of this impeachment effort, allowed to remain anonymous, unseen, and are to be believed absolutely?
It’s hard to believe, at this juncture, but there are those “in the know” who either do not believe all this is going on in the upper echelons of government.. before Trump’s.... or refuse to let it be discussed for fear of making it true.
Much like the ones who have been made public in the Hollywood arena... and finally meeting justice.. that it was always known about who they were and no one did anything... it was silenced or accepted and the world went on.
Roberts and others... may know all this and not want it to be discussed, for that would make it true and then something would have to be done with the guilty. And it’s been said no one would go after the past President.. just imagine what would take place in the people’s arena if they took Obama in … you think his “people” would be nice about it?
What do they do when the highest in the land... is found guilty from evidence and no one has the guts to even talk about it.
“..whistle blower he IS a LEAKER.”
A leaky whistle is not good. I’m sure there are drugs for that. I know the name of a good Urologist.
I am implying that you are arguing/inquiring in bad faith.
I'd ask the day that the whistleblower went to Schitt's office.
Before McConnell makes such a statement, can you imagine if there was a vote that held C.J. Roberts out of order by the US Senate? I would really go for that.
P.S. - Rehnquist wipes Roberts like a cheap towel.
That's interesting. Where did you learn this? Link?
I’m glad to hear it.
Obviously Roberts has no spine, and no principles, but even so it sounded like a way to get his finger, or big toe, in the democrat pie.
Here’s hoping Mitch pulls the trigger in the next 24 and gets this foolishness and deceit over and done with once and for all.
Alexandra Chalupa looks like she needs to drop a few chalupas.
:: Just ask it in the right way ::
For House Manager Schiff: Have you or your immediate staff ever had contact, by email, telephone/cellphone, or in-person, with Mr. Eric Ciaramella?
See, no mention of whistleblower.
And, by the way...how is it CJ Roberts knows the name of the whistleblower so as to not accept the question?
Exactly, when submitting the question the senators address Roberts and tell which senators, in addition to themselves, are asking the question.
“Mr. Chief Justice, I have a question about Eric Ciaramella, the whistleblower”. The cat is thus out of the bag.
I presume the same thing.
I’d prefer Rand Paul exposed the Schiff/HPSCI/Lawfare plotting and coordination with the whistleblower and IG Atkinson. And when it started — my guess is that the plot pre-existed Trump’s calls about Ukraine. They were searching for a pretext and found one.
There was a threat by Republicans. That’s why Roberts changed to not allowing the whistleblower to be named. Previously he wanted nothing about whistleblower in any questions.
Here’s an idea I’ve had for awhile. Why not ask questions about Eric Ciaramella? No need to associate him with being the whistleblower.
How can anyone object? If they do, THEY would be confirming that HE is the whistleblower.
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.