Chief Justice Roberts Visibly Irritated With Warren’s Suggestion His Legitimacy is Tainted Over Impeachment Trial

Posted on January 31, 2020 by Rusty Weiss

Chief Justice John Roberts became visibly agitated after having to read a question from Senator Elizabeth Warren which suggested the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and his own career would be tainted following the impeachment trial.

Roberts had to read the question aloud – as he has throughout the trial with one notable exception – which insinuated an acquittal of President Donald Trump would lead to a loss of faith in major institutions of American government.

“Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk,” Warren declared from the floor of the Senate.

“At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government,” Roberts read, “does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution?”

WATCH: Chief Justice Roberts reads an impeachment trial question from Sen. Warren that focuses on Republican senators, witnesses and the legitimacy of the chief justice, the US Supreme Court and the US Constitution. pic.twitter.com/rQpXcbkTnX

— MSNBC (@MSNBC) January 30, 2020

Roberts Angered

It’s difficult to say what Warren’s plan was here. Angering Roberts and the rest of the justices on the Supreme Court when you’re running for President seems unwise at best.

Fox News reports that upon finishing the question, Roberts became “visibly irritated” and “pursed his lips and shot a chagrined look.”

If we’re being honest, isn’t that how we all feel when listening to Senator Warren?

Perhaps Warren is paving the way for a proposal getting legs amongst extremist liberals who wish to abolish the Supreme Court in the era of Trump.

“The Court is now a blunt political instrument, used repeatedly to undermine outcomes of democratic governance — often on behalf of corporate interests,” leftist outlet Vox claimed, adding that “the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation has further delegitimized the Court in the public’s mind.”

Warren herself has proposed ‘packing’ the court with many more Justices as a means to lessen the influence of Presidential appointments, a move explicitly aimed at minimizing Trump’s victories after the Kavanaugh debacle.

“It’s not just about expansion, it’s about depoliticizing the Supreme Court,” she claimed.

The fact that Senator Warren submitted this question, and the fact that Chief Justice Roberts read it unflinchingly, highlights how well and dutifully he executes his office, and how poorly and cynically she executes hers. https://t.co/mZJhmgf8nn

— Adam White (@adamjwhitedc) January 30, 2020

Even Schiff Wouldn’t Go There

Upon reading the question directed at Democrat impeachment managers, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff stepped up to the microphone and promptly ran as far away from Warren as he possibly could.

“Senator, I uh, would not say that it contributes to a loss of confidence in the Chief Justice,” Schiff replied. “I think the Chief Justice has presided admirably.”

What he did suggest would be affected adversely, however, is the nation as a whole.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has expanded on this notion that a trial without fabricating new witnesses eliminates the legitimacy of the presidency.

“He will not be acquitted,” she said realizing he is on the verge of being acquitted.

“You cannot be acquitted if you don’t have a trial,” Pelosi continued. “You don’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and documentation and all of that. Does the president know right from wrong? I don’t think so.”

The post Chief Justice Roberts Visibly Irritated With Warren’s Suggestion His Legitimacy is Tainted Over Impeachment Trial appeared first on The Political Insider.

Roberts Not Allowing Rand Paul’s Question About Whistleblower Is Ruffling Feathers

Posted on January 31, 2020 by Wayne Dupree

Chief Justice John Roberts isn’t merely a disappointment. He is part of the cabalist infrastructure.

Roberts, who is presiding over President Trump’s Senate impeachment trial, has rejected questions from Sen. Rand Paul on a few occasions and gone to the Democrats and asked theirs. Paul let it be known he wanted to know about the whistleblower and if that individual would ever be called as a witness, but Roberts has decided to shelve that opportunity.

Why do you think Justice Roberts denies the president the opportunity to confront his accuser? Why does he deny the Senator’s right to freedom of speech? There is no legal nor constitutional guarantee or even offer of anonymity for a whistleblower. There is no credible fear of death or physical harm; after all, he did not blow the whistle on a Clinton.

MORE NEWS: Dave Chappelle: “I Don’t Look at Trump Supporters as My Enemy”

Beginning but not ending with his handling of the FISA court and the appointments thereto, the next impeachment should be his. Justice Roberts’ behavior saddens me, but not surprised. He has been suspect since the Obamacare trial.

None of this corruption in Washington would ever have seen the light of day if it were not for Donald Trump. The exposure of the fraud and treasonous behavior within the government itself and the complicit media will make him the single most important person in American history if the country is to go forward as it was founded.

Chief Justice John Roberts again refused to read Republican Sen. Rand Paul's question to the Senate. Roberts then immediately read verbatim a question from a Democrat senator.

Incredible cowardice, arrogance, and abuse of power by an unelected judge to hijack the U.S. Senate.

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) January 30, 2020

Can we add John Roberts to the witness list? I mean, he appointed the judges who authorized the unlawful warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. In fact, why isn’t he recused on that very basis? The IC IG worked for the agency that submitted all 4 applications to the court…

— Julie Kelly (@julie_kelly2) January 30, 2020

Interesting question:

How does John Roberts know the name of the whistleblower?

We don’t. And the question wasn’t about that.

— Doug Stafford (@dougstafford) January 30, 2020

John Roberts is rigging the impeachment trial. Withholding crucial evidence.

Whole system is rigged and needs to be destroyed.

— John Ocasio-Nolte (@NolteNC) January 30, 2020

How can one of the jurors in the senate trial be denied the right to do his job?

— Jim Marcello (@jimmarcello) January 30, 2020

The text of the question confirms this. So why was it censored? https://t.co/cUTRk7f3fv

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) January 30, 2020

Why was Rand Paul's question not asked? By what law or what justification was he silenced? This is extremely scary to witness and answers are needed.

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) January 30, 2020

There are some things we need to keep in mind?

MORE NEWS: 2020 Dem Michael Bloomberg Will Run $10 Million Gun Control Ad During Super Bowl

First, Chief Justice Roberts is the reason Obamacare initially survived in the Supreme Court when during the eleventh hour and 59th minute, he switched sides. It was so late in the process that Justice Ginsburg’s concurring opinion ends with the following words: “I respectfully dissent.” The only problem is that when you file a concurring opinion, you are not dissenting. What happened? Justice Ginsburg wrote her opinion when she thought she would be in a 5-4 minority.

Second, in my opinion, there is absolutely no legal basis for Chief Justice Roberts to refuse Paul’s question. The question is far more relevant than other questions that have been posited by the Chief Justice. Also, there was nothing in the question that identified the whistleblower as Eric Ciaramella or any other person.

Third, even if somebody wants to argue that the question “outs” the whistleblower, that is not a basis for Chief Justice Roberts to not read the question. Nowhere in the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended (“ICWPA”), which amended the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 and the Inspector General Act of 1978, is anonymity even mentioned. On October 10, 2012, President Barack Obama issued Presidential Policy Directive 19, which provided specific whistleblower protections. Nothing in this directive provided anonymity for an intelligence community whistleblower; the directive prohibited retaliation against a whistleblower.

MORE NEWS: Fox Refuses To Air Super Bowl Ad About Abortion Survivors – Greenlights Commercial Featuring Drag Queens

The Inspector General Act of 1978 prohibits the inspector general from releasing the name of a complainant, but this applies to no one else. Under the statutory framework, whistleblowers are granted certain rights against retaliation or reprisal in the workplace. In other words, they cannot be demoted, transferred, fired, or otherwise penalized for filing a complaint that meets the statutory whistleblower requirements. However, identity protection is neither provided for nor contemplated, anywhere in the statutory language.

Senator Paul should submit another question about Ciaramella, and when Roberts refuses to read it, object, and demand a count of Senators willing to overrule Roberts. It’s time to find out how many Senators believe that the accused has the right to face his accuser!

Sections 7(B) of the Inspector General Act of 1978 “provides for the identity of an employee making a complaint, such as a whistleblower, to remain undisclosed to the extent practicable: “The Inspector General shall not, after receipt of a complaint or information from an employee, disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the Inspector General determines such disclosure is unavoidable during the investigation,” according to FactCheck.org.

Since Senator Paul is not the Inspector General (and neither am I), he is not precluded (and neither am I) from releasing the name of Ciaramella as the whistleblower.

More Stories From WayneDupree.com

The post Roberts Not Allowing Rand Paul’s Question About Whistleblower Is Ruffling Feathers appeared first on The Political Insider.

SHOWDOWN: Rand Paul Vows to Fight after Justice John Roberts Blocks Question Naming Whistleblower

Posted on January 30, 2020 by Rusty Weiss

Tensions were on the rise Wednesday evening as Chief Justice John Roberts blocked a question from Senator Rand Paul that would have identified the alleged whistleblower at the center of the impeachment trial.

Roberts’ actions prompted shouting from the Kentucky Senator as he vowed to “fight for recognition.”

Sean Davis, a co-founder of the Federalist, reported that Roberts, at the behest of Democrats, “previously vowed to ban any questions about the whistleblower whatsoever, named or not.”

“Roberts’ arbitrary and unilateral censorship of senators and Senate business raises serious questions about whether he would similarly ban any and all motions to subpoena by name the whistleblower … to compel his testimony,” Davis said.

GOP senators previously suggested having the whistleblower testify should witnesses be approved for the trial.

After Republicans threatened a vote to rebuke Roberts on the record, the Chief Justice retreated and said the actual name of the whistleblower would be the only thing earning a block.

Even that should be challenged.

During the last break in the impeachment trial, “I don’t want to have to stand up to try and fight for recognition,” @RandPaul said loud enough to be audible from the galleries above the chamber.

“If I have to fight for recognition, I will,” he said.https://t.co/E8EOwenvbF

— Niels Lesniewski (@nielslesniewski) January 29, 2020

Paul Fuming

Roberts move at the encouraging of Democrats, reportedly, left Paul fuming and vowing to engage in a fight to be heard.

“I don’t want to have to stand up to try and fight for recognition,” Paul was heard shouting during a break in the trial. “If I have to fight for recognition, I will.”

Reporter Niels Lesniewski said Paul’s complaint was “audible from the galleries above the chamber.”

Paul, who has been insistent on testimony from the whistleblower for the record, said “tbd [to be decided]” when asked if he would force the issue.

Shameful and arbitrary abuse of power by Roberts, who has already done incalculable damage to the Supreme Court’s legitimacy as a non-political institution via his tortured defense of Obamcare’s constitutionality. Is he Chief Justice, or Chief Censor? https://t.co/KH83VjnkLZ

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) January 30, 2020

Outing the Whistleblower

As Senator Paul has explained time and again, whistleblowers are protected by federal law from retaliation in the workplace but are not guaranteed anonymity.

“The whistleblower statute protects the whistleblower from having his name revealed by the inspector general,” Paul previously noted when threatening to out him. “Even The New York Times admits that no one else is under any legal obligation.”

He has noted that the whistleblower is a material witness in the case “because he worked for Joe Biden at the same time Hunter Biden was receiving $50,000 per month.”

The Political Insider has identified the alleged whistleblower as CIA officer Eric Ciaramella, a registered Democrat who worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan.

A picture of the alleged Ukraine whistleblower shaking hands with @BarackObama has been unearthed.

“This picture raises serious questions about how this sham impeachment process started,” a senior Trump administration official said. https://t.co/5PwJbzzL62

— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) November 20, 2019

His identity is crucial because House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and his office have allegedly coordinated the effort with him to take down President Trump.

Stunning that Adam Schiff lies to millions of Americans when he says he doesn’t know the identity of the whistleblower.

He absolutely knows the identity of the whistleblower b/c he coordinated with the individual before the whistleblower’s complaint! His staff helped write it!

— Elise Stefanik (@EliseStefanik) January 29, 2020

Ciaramella’s work history and coordination with Schiff’s office would indicate a political bias – not a concern over truth and justice – in trying to impeach the President, something that is thoroughly relevant to the trial.

Attorney to the whistleblower, Mark Zaid, was revealed to have discussed a coup and other devious secret plans to oust the President.

“Democrats must be accountable for their hoaxes and their crimes,” Trump said regarding the ‘coup.’

Roberts, by protecting Schiff and the whistleblower, is assuring they will not be held accountable. Paul must continue to fight this and his Republican colleagues must stand with him.

The post SHOWDOWN: Rand Paul Vows to Fight after Justice John Roberts Blocks Question Naming Whistleblower appeared first on The Political Insider.

Tweets urge calls to Supreme Court for fair Senate trial

Posted on January 24, 2020 by Mark Sherman, Associated Press

The messages seem to be mainly from people who support the impeachment and removal from office of President Donald Trump.

WATCH: Roberts admonishes both sides in impeachment trial

Posted on January 22, 2020 by Jessica Gresko, Associated Press

It was just before 1 a.m., as tempers on the floor had started to wear thin, that he reminded senators, House impeachment managers and President Donald Trump's defense team who was in charge.

Chief Justice Roberts Forced to Play Referee During Impeachment Trials

Posted on January 22, 2020 by LifeZette

By David Kamioner | January 22, 2020

Tuesday’s first day of the Senate trial of President Donald Trump was a relatively boring affair, up until almost the end.

The GOP shield wall held up on vote after vote, losing only one member, Collins of Maine, one time on a small procedural matter. At the end of the night, the score was Trump 11, the Dems 0.

Fans of the president cheered and chortled on social media as 11 out of 11, save the one noted above, pathetic Schumer amendments were shot down in flames on 53-47 party line votes.

After a night of that kind of battering the Dems started to lose their equilibrium. You could see it in Schiff. He began to oddly glare at the GOP lawyers as if he could conjure up a death stare that would make them cease and desist legally beating him like a rug.

They didn’t seem to even notice him.

At almost the end, not long before 1am, the Dems could stand it no longer.

The frustration that they were convincing no Republican in the Senate to break party ranks enough to give them even one victory overwhelmed the already delicate sensibilities of Dem House Manager Jerry Nadler. He let loose.

He called GOP legal actions “treacherous.” Nadler claimed the Senate was engaged in a “cover-up” and that “only guilty people try to hide evidence.” He went on to say that “the Senate is on trial” and asked if they would “betray your pledge to be an impartial juror.”

The president’s personal lawyer struck back hard.

“We’ve made our arguments to you. And you don’t deserve, and we don’t deserve, what just happened. Mr. Nadler came up here and made false allegations against our team. He made false allegations against all of you; he accused you of a cover-up. He’s been making false allegations against the president. The only one who should be embarrassed, Mr. Nadler is you, for the way you’ve addressed the United States Senate. This is the United States Senate. You’re not in charge here. … It’s about time we bring this power trip in for a landing,” said Cipollone.

It got so heated that Chief Justice John Roberts, presiding over the trial, had to warn both sides on their language. He scolded, “Those addressing the Senate should remember where they are.”

The night ended soon after with complete GOP victory and Dem loss. Day two starts in mere hours.

This piece originally appeared in LifeZette and is used by permission.

The post Chief Justice Roberts Forced to Play Referee During Impeachment Trials appeared first on The Political Insider.