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 ...
Roberts is worse than useless. Thanks, GWB.
Rand Paul has to write it down and John Roberts has to read it, Roberts refused to read it.
I must have missed it. Was that this afternoon?
Essentially, Roberts is OK with Trump not being able to confront his accuser, or even know who his accuser is. Isn’t that a major part of our legal system?
It looks like Trump isn’t above the law, he is below the law.
Call Ciarella as a witness. Don’t label him as the whistleblower. Ask him on the stand what his part was.
I’d just jump up and read it myself. Why is the judge screening questions?
I think John Roberts is owned by the Bush family. Still convinced that GWB told him to save Obamacare.....as a favor to Michelle no doubt.
Now This is really interesting-— Why would Roberts block a question that “purports” to name a whistleblower— when he has NO PROOF that this individual IS the so called whistleblower?
Even if it IS the whistleblower, there is NO PART of the Statute, which Roberts well knows, that requires the anonymity of the whistleblower. The Statute only protects the employee from vindictive revenge acts and career harm from the Employer, in this case the NSC and cee eye ehhhhhh.
So, WHY is it that Roberts thinks that he should not read out the name of the “whistleblower” UNLESS he is PART of this continuing coup, including his purposeful running of the FISA court, accepting false evidence for the Court. He must be part of the coup.
Proven corrupt Roberts (tax-maker) read it,
and decided it would protect the ELECTED PRESIDENT.
No. He is presiding over the senate for the purpose of enforcing the senate's rules.
Must be a tax question . . .
That’s just the format, Senators must submit questions in writing, the Chief Justice reads them.
I don’t think he is supposed to be screening them, this is the first he balked at.
The whistleblower and tin soldier Vindman are at the heart of this Ukraine scam. They should be compelled to testify as should Schiff as he was orchestrating the whistleblowers testimony.
John Roberts is a fake ass judge.
What a fraud.
John Roberts should resign.
‘
He’s named in the Public Mueller Report!
The protection applies on to the ICIG - no one else.
There is no law to cite.
Stefanik said on Hannity tonight the hoaxblower and Schiff would be called if the Senate has witnesses. That’s dependent on GOP votes, of course.
Really? Can you please point us all to the Senate Impeachment Questions Rule that states that certain questions posed may not be asked?
We would really like to know exactly what that rule is. Where is it written.
I don't know how to post an article but this story is brand-new at The Hill website.
John Roberts is garbage.
“Schiff said he is perfectly willing to have Roberts rule on issues with no review of his decision and challenged GOP to do the same”
John Roberts had a long record of constitutional rulings prior to becoming chief justice of the supreme court. He seemed a most worthy man to be the chief justice.
His rulings relative to Obama Care were bizarre to say the least. He was either a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a man blackmailed or mentally unhinged with his relationship to constitutional law. I do not think he is unhinged thus it must be my first two posits.
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.