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 ...
So the dems have introduced the muler report as evidence can’t be he president’s team reference the part of the report with his name while answering a question?
The whistleblower committed high crimes by colluding with the Schifty head. The public deserves to know his identity and see that he pays for his crimes along with those he colluded with.
“The Chief Justice does not have the authority to decide which questions are asked.”
Correct. But he can and did refuse to personally read it. The Senate ultimately decides, and I hope they do expose all of the cockroaches.
That's right !!
That's right !!
What’s strange to me is how almost anyone who cares to know, can find this guy’s name in minutes with a minimal of surfing, yet the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is afraid to be the one to ‘out him’. Roberts is untouchable. What is he afraid of? I respect him greatly but I fear some of you may be right, that he may be somewhat politically naive. That is even a scarier thought to me than the spectical that Adam Schiff and the Dems have been. Well, no. Not even close I guess but still a scary thought...CIArella..ok, I get it. You guys are funny
‘
Yes.
The Mueller Report doesn’t call him the Whistleblower though. It’s referencing any earlier time.
Ciaramella has been trying to take out Trump.
They could put his name in a Question regarding his earlier attempts to get Trump.
Exactly. So Roberts REFUSAL to read Paul’s questions are entirely ARBITRARY. No basis in known law or established rules.
Yet, once again Roberts chooses to protect the Dems from uncomfortable questions by the Republicans. Just as he protected ObamaCare twice from legit legal challenges by rewriting and re-interpreting.
Neither of which is within the purview of the courts.
All of this is FACT yet you choose to excuse and defend his actions. Why?
We are better off stopping this conversation than continuing it.
I really don’t appreciate being hit with false accusations.
YOU are better off stopping this conversation. There is no WE in this. That said, I will honor your request and end it here. Good night.
Roberts just making this C up as he goes. He doesn’t have the authority to not ask that question.
He is not naïve, he is owned.
So are you implying the senate has a rule to help the dems protect a ‘so called’ whistle blower...not everyone even agrees he is by definition a whistle blower...not even the ‘so-called 18th witness whose transcript wasn’t sent over to senate by the house dems nor has seen the light of day by any repub agrees to that, it has been reported in some quarters?
At first Roberts did not want any questions about the whistleblower. Later changed it to not allowing whistleblowers name. Reason was Republicans were furious. They were going to have a vote to rebuke Roberts on the record.
I think he can. However...any of his rulings can be overridden by a majority of Senators. Sen Paul needs to put forward the motion to have his question read.
I don’t understand why questions have to be given to Roberts before they are asked. This is a trial, not a town hall meeting. If someone asks a question the other side doesn’t particularly like, they can object, and then argue it out in front of Roberts, who can then make a decision whether the question can stand or not.
that is what was done in the Clinton impeachment apparently.
I sort of like it, because it forces them to ask an actual question, and listen to the answer. In the normal format, they often make little rhetorical speeches, and don’t even want (or leave time for) an answer.
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.