Category: judge

Judge Who Signed Mar-A-Lago Warrant Defended Jeffrey Epstein Employees, Donated To Obama

Posted on by Becky Noble

The details of Monday’s FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago, the Florida home of former President Donald Trump, keep getting more interesting.

Bruce Reinhart, the federal magistrate judge who signed off on the search warrant for Trump’s residence donated to former President Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, and at one point, went from prosecutor to defense attorney to defend individuals connected to financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

RELATED: Another Republican Who Voted To Impeach Trump Goes Down – Trump Mocks Her For ‘Stupidly Playing Into Democrats’ Hands

The Judge In Question

According to a report from Politico, Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart is ‘highly regarded’ in the Palm Beach legal community, and is known for being “meticulous” in his work. 

Reinhart’s background was in prosecution until Jan. 2 2008, he became the defense counsel representing several employees of Epstein, including pilots, his scheduler, and a woman later described by some of Epstein’s victims as a “sex slave.”

Politico reports that in 2011, Reinhart was named in a lawsuit and was accused of violating Justice Department policy by representing the Epstein employees. Reinhart has denied any wrongdoing. He said that he was not a part of the criminal case and did not learn any confidential information while serving as prosecutor.

RELATED: Teachers Union President Randi Weingarten Claims Conservatives The Enemy Of Educators

More Details Of The Raid Emerging

Fox News reports that the search warrant issued for Mar-a-Lago was to focus entirely on “presidential records and evidence of classified information being stored there.” 

The Fox News report also says that agents combed through former First Lady Melania Trump’s wardrobe and the private office of the former president. Drawers were also gone through and a safe broken into.

Reportedly, the FBI or DOJ did not allow attorneys for Trump into the residence to observe what was going on during the roughly nine-hour raid. About 15 boxes were taken from a locked private storage basement area.

Federal agents also reportedly attempted to get Trump representatives to turn off any security cameras which they refused to do.

RELATED: Why Are Lawmakers Continuing To Push For A Digital Dollar? Look To China

Who’s Next?

Republicans didn’t have to wait long for the answer to the question “who’s next.” The day after the Mar-a-Lago raid, Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA), chairman of the House Freedom Caucus and a close Trump ally, said his cellphone was seized by FBI agents while on vacation with his family.

In a statement, Perry said,

“This morning, while traveling with my family, 3 FBI agents visited me and seized my cell phone. They made no attempt to contact my lawyer, who would have made arrangements for them to have my phone if that was their wish. I’m outraged — though not surprised — that the FBI under the direction of Merrick Garland’s DOJ, would seize the phone of a sitting Member of Congress.”

Perry has refused to cooperate with the Jan. 6 Committee on several occasions, calling it “illegitimate,” and also filed articles of impeachment against Attorney General Merrick Garland in October of 2021 in relation to targeting parents at school board meetings.

With judges like Bruce Reinhart at the ready, perhaps Republicans should keep asking who’s next.

Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

The post Judge Who Signed Mar-A-Lago Warrant Defended Jeffrey Epstein Employees, Donated To Obama appeared first on The Political Insider.

Wisconsin Republicans gave this investigator $676,000 in public funds to claim election was stolen

Posted on by Aysha Qamar

Some GOP officials never seem to know when to give up. Despite having absolutely no proof, cries that the election was stolen still seem to ring in the ears of Republicans. Despite legal experts noting that it was impossible, a Wisconsin judge has claimed that there are grounds for the state legislature to “decertify” the results of the 2020 election. The claim follows a review of the election demanded by Republicans, in which individuals in the state assembly hired Michael Gableman, a former state supreme court justice to investigate the election.

The 136-page interim report released Tuesday has received widespread bipartisan criticism and has been labeled unnecessary because not only was it poorly done but used $676,000 in public funds. During a presentation of the report Tuesday, Gableman said the state Legislature should “take a very hard look at the option of decertification of the 2020” presidential election. Moments before Gableman presented, Donald Trump encouraged supporters to listen in, BuzzFeed News reported.

Both Democrats and Republicans alike rejected the idea and called the move illegal.

“Still not legal under Wisconsin law,” Republican Assembly Majority Leader Jim Steineke tweeted. “Beyond that, it would have no practical impact b/c there is no Constitutional way to remove a sitting president other than through impeachment or incapacity. Fools errand. Focus on the future.”

I have ten months remaining in my last term. In my remaining time, I can guarantee that I will not be part of any effort, and will do everything possible to stop any effort, to put politicians in charge of deciding who wins or loses elections. 1/

— Jim Steineke 🇺🇦 (@jimsteineke) March 1, 2022

Not sure what kind of attorney Gableman was, because the report not only falsely claimed Biden’s win could be decertified, but also said that decertifying the election would not have any legal consequence.

“It would not, for example, change who the current president is,” the report said.

Of course, like other conservatives, Gableman also attempted to backtrack what he said and issued confusing contradictory statements.

When Democratic state Representative Jodi Emerson, asked him, "Are you saying we should decertify Wisconsin's votes from 2020?"

Gableman responded:

"I'm not saying it and I did not say it because it's not my place to say it. What is my place to say, and what I do believe, and what I do say, is there appears to me—without having the benefit of input from any substantive witness—there appears to me to be very significant grounds for such an action."

Others also dismissed the report, noting that a recount and investigations were conducted multiple times. According to the Associated Press, despite the recounts, multiple state and federal lawsuits, an audit by the nonpartisan Legislative Audit Bureau, and a report by the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, it was found that Biden defeated Trump by a little under 21,000 votes in Wisconsin.

“There does not appear to be anything new in this report, although it is apparent that Michael Gableman is adopting the most fringe and extreme arguments presented by election deniers,” Attorney Jeffrey Mandell, who is representing the mayor of Green Bay in a lawsuit opposing a subpoena from Gableman, said. “This report, and Mr. Gableman’s presentation, is an embarrassment. This process needs to come to a quick end.”

An Associated Press review of Wisconsin and other battleground states also found far too little fraud to have tipped the election for Trump.

Of course, there are other controversies found in connection with the report. A review conducted by the Associated Press found that the report was paid for with $676,000 in taxpayer money. Additionally, it was due at the end of last year but delayed after mayors and state and local election officials filed multiple lawsuits to block subpoenas issued to them. During his presentation, Gableman said he had spent about $360,000 so far on the investigation and issued 90 subpoenas, but no one with information about how elections are run has spoken with him. 

During the presentation, Gableman not only criticized the process of voting in nursing homes but attacked the use of drop boxes. He recommended changes in voting procedures including shortening the early voting period and dismantling the bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission.

Overall Gableman said he hoped the report’s recommendations would be used by lawmakers to enact changes before the session ends next month.

Despite the lack of support for his findings, he even went as far as to suggest that his work continue, as he still has funds remaining in his budget. "I'm not in this for anything other than the truth,” he claimed.

According to CBS News, Gableman was appointed by Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos in June 2021. Gableman's appointment came a day after Trump issued a statement saying that Vos and other Wisconsin Republican leaders were "working hard to cover up election corruption."

"I'd like to thank the Office of Special Counsel for their tireless efforts in finding the truth," Vos said in a statement. "They've done a good job at showing there were issues in 2020, and the report is intended to help correct these processes for future elections."

Judge Rules Virginia Board Of Elections’ Rule About Late Absentee Mail-In Ballots Was Illegal

Posted on by LifeZette

In August of last year, a rule was made by the Virginia Board of Elections that would have allowed elections officials to count late mail-in ballots that arrived without a postmark up to three days after this past November’s presidential election. A judge reversed this on Monday, ruling that the board’s decision was illegal.

Virginia Judge Issues Ruling

Virginia Circuit Court Judge William Eldridge ruled that with this rule, the board violated state elections law, according to the Daily Caller. He issued an injunction that will stop Virginia from adopting this rule in future elections moving forward.

Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), a legal group representing Frederick County electoral board member Thomas Reed in his case against the state mail-in ballot law, announced the judge’s decision.

“This is a big win for the Rule of Law,” said PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams. “This consent decree gives Mr. Reed everything he requested – a permanent ban on accepting ballots without postmarks after Election Day and is a loss for the Virginia bureaucrats who said ballots could come in without these protections.”

Related: The Left And Deep State Eager To Turn ‘War On Terror’ Tools On The American People

Elections Board Reveals New Rule

On August 4 of last year, Virginia Board of Elections revealed the new rule, telling county boards that any ballots “received by the general registrar’s office by noon on the third day after the election … but does not have a postmark, or the postmark is missing or illegible” were not to be rendered invalid. A week later, the board added that these ballots should be counted.

Pilf fired back in October by filing a lawsuit against the board on the behalf of Reed, who claimed that this rule violated state law. The specific Virginia statute that he thinks it violated states, “Any absentee ballot returned to the general registrar after the closing of the polls on election day but before noon on the third day after the election and postmarked on or before the date of the election shall be counted.”

Related: Hillary Clinton, Pelosi Push Conspiracy Theory Suggesting Trump Updated Putin About The Capitol Riots, Demand 9/11-Style Investigation

The court agreed with Reed, issuing an order on October 28 preventing the state of Virginia from accepting and counting late absentee ballots that did not have postmarks. This meant that the ballots did not end up being counted in the presidential election, and thanks to the judge’s new ruling, they won’t be in the future either.

This piece was written by James Samson on January 27, 2021. It originally appeared in LifeZette and is used by permission.

Read more at LifeZette:
Katie Couric’s Calls To ‘Deprogram’ Trump Supporters Come Back To Haunt Her As She Prepares To Host ‘Jeopardy’
Democratic Senator Hirono Reveals Real Goal Behind Trump Impeachment Effort
Meghan McCain Blasts Katie Couric For Saying Republicans Need To Be ‘Deprogrammed’ – ‘Go To Hell’

The post Judge Rules Virginia Board Of Elections’ Rule About Late Absentee Mail-In Ballots Was Illegal appeared first on The Political Insider.

Schumer Vows To Use ‘Every Tool In The Toolkit’ To Delay Trump Supreme Court Nominee

Posted on by John Hanson

On MSNBC’s “Rachel Maddow Show” on Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said that Senate Democrats “will use every tool in the toolkit” to prevent or delay Republicans from filling the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

“We have tactical options to slow them down,” Schumer explained. “We will use every tool in the toolkit.”

 

RELATED: Trump Dares Pelosi To Try Impeachment Again: ‘Go Ahead’

Did Chuck Schumer Forget President Obama Nominated His Own Supreme Court Pick Before The 2016 Presidential Election?

He continued, “Now, admittedly, McConnell has changed things, changed the rules, so we have fewer tools and they’re less sharp, but every tool we have we will use. Today, we delayed committees going into effect. We had the right to do that and we did it.”

“Tonight, we’re on the floor taking up all the time on the floor to talk about how bad this potential nominee — and there will be many other things that we can use,” Schumer vowed. “You’ll see them in the days ahead.”

 

Democrats Forge Unified Front Against Trump’s SCOTUS Nominee

Schumer’s plans are just the latest example of Democratic leaders coming out in force against President Trump doing his constitutional duty in selecting a justice to fill the newly opened seat.

2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden is calling for the SCOTUS choice to be delayed until after the election, despite his administration nominating judge Merrick Garland for an open seat on the high court right before the 2016 presidential election. A Republican-controlled Senate blocked President Obama’s nominee.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went on a wild rant Monday about the alleged threat to America’s “children” Trump’s court choice poses.

RELATED: Pelosi on Filling the SCOTUS Seat: Republicans Are ‘Coming After Your Children’

“They are on a path to undo the Affordable Care Act. They are on a path to undo a woman’s right to choose,” Pelosi told MSNBC.

Pelosi added, “They’re coming after your children. Protect your children from what they are trying to do in this court.”

There’s no telling what kinds of unhinged things Democrats will continue to say and do as this process moves forward.

President Trump has said he will name his Supreme Court nominee at 5 PM ET on Saturday.

The post Schumer Vows To Use ‘Every Tool In The Toolkit’ To Delay Trump Supreme Court Nominee appeared first on The Political Insider.

Rush Limbaugh: Skip the Senate Hearings And Go Straight To A Vote On Trump’s SCOTUS Nominee

Posted on by Rusty Weiss

Rush Limbaugh toyed with the idea that Senate Republicans skip the confirmation hearings for President Trump’s next Supreme Court nominee.

Limbaugh, a conservative radio host, mentioned the idea during his Monday broadcast.

He believes whoever the nominee is, Democrats will be planning to drag their name through the mud, just as they did with other Republican presidential nominees.

“I want the Judiciary Committee — I think it’d be great if it were skipped,” suggested Limbaugh.

“We don’t need to open that up for whatever length of time so that whoever this nominee is can be Kavanaughed or Borked or Thomased,” he added. “Because that’s what it’s gonna be, especially when it’s not even required.”

RELATED: FBI Agent Who Discovered Hillary’s Emails On Anthony Weiner’s Laptop Claims He Was Told to Erase His Own Computer

Rush Limbaugh Explains Why Republicans Should Skip SCOTUS Hearings

Aside from noting that the next nominee to the court will have their lives turned upside down by Democrats, Limbaugh believes there is no requirement dictating hearings must be held.

“You know, I mentioned that the Judiciary Committee does not have to do its thing. It’s become a tradition, but it’s not a requirement,” he explained.

“Why not just blow up another tradition? Because, I’ll tell you, that’s how we’re gonna maintain the ones that matter,” continued Limbaugh.

“They have to be defeated. This Supreme Court seat has to be confirmed, it has to be named and confirmed before the election.”

The United States Senate website on nominations states that the practice was not initially common:

“In the 19th century, the Senate referred few nominations to committees. Since the mid-20th century, committee referral has become routine and most nominees testify at Senate hearings.”

Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution alludes to the “advice and consent of the Senate” being required.

The president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for…”

The Senate site notes that this section though, “has inspired widely varying interpretations” of its meaning.

RELATED: AOC, Pelosi Hint Impeachment Should Be Considered To Stop Trump Supreme Court Selection

SCOTUS Process Was Always Going to Come Back to Haunt Dems

If holding confirmation hearings in the Senate is nothing more than a tradition, we see no reason for President Trump not to ‘blow it up.’

For two reasons:

1. Democrats are already threatening to blow up the process by using impeachment – a process reserved for ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ – as a means to stop Trump’s nominee.

2. Is there any doubt that the resistance party would take any action necessary the moment they have power again? Please.

In 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell triggered the so-called ‘nuclear option’ after Democrats filibustered the nomination of  Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Doing so abolished the 60-vote requirement for nominees, something the Democrats themselves instituted for other judicial nominees under the leadership of Harry Reid in 2013.

And McConnell warned him not to do it …

“You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think,” McConnell warned from the Senate floor.

Gorsuch, and later Brett Kavanaugh, were both beneficiaries of the ‘nuclear option’ being invoked.

It will certainly come into play with Trump’s selection to fill the vacancy left by the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

We have Democrats to thank for the controversial tactic. Now Limbaugh wants to see Republicans toss out another archaic tradition. Should they do it?

The post Rush Limbaugh: Skip the Senate Hearings And Go Straight To A Vote On Trump’s SCOTUS Nominee appeared first on The Political Insider.

What Ginsberg Said Four Years Ago About Filling A SCOTUS Vacancy During An Election Year

Posted on by John Hanson

While liberals continue to circulate and praise the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s “fervent wish” that her seat isn’t filled until after the November election, they have not been as eager to share what she thought about filling vacancies to the nation’s highest court before the 2016 presidential election.

When the GOP blocked former President Obama’s pick of Merrick Garland to fill the late Antonin Scalia’s seat through Republican-controlled Senate, Ginsburg instructed them to proceed with reviewing the nomination.

RELATED: AOC, Pelosi Hint Impeachment Should Be Considered To Stop Trump Supreme Court Selection

Most Democrats Believed The 2016 SCOTUS Vacancy Should Have Been Filled Before The Election

“That’s their job,” Ginsburg said to The New York Times. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.”

Then-President Barack Obama said basically the same thing in 2016.

“When there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court, the president is to nominate someone, the Senate is to consider that nomination'” Obama said. “There’s no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off-years.” That’s not in the Constitution text.”

Biden Said In 2016 That Not Appointing A SCOTUS Justice Could Result In A ‘Constitutional Crisis’

Not surprisingly, 2020 Democratic nominee Joe Biden is now saying filling Ginsburg’s vacant SCOTUS seat should wait until after the election, though in 2016, the then-vice president believed that blocking Garland might result in a “constitutional crisis.”

Hillary Clinton also believes the nomination process should wait – but that’s not what she necessarily thought about Garland’s appointment four years ago.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said before the 2016 election, “Every day that goes by without a ninth justice is another day the American people’s business is not getting done.”

 

The Republican National Committee shared a video on Sunday with examples of what Democratic leaders were saying in 2016 about filling a seat during an election year.

 

Cruz Agrees With Biden (Four Years Ago) – Failure To Nominate A Justice Could Lead To A ‘Constitutional Crisis’

Sen. Ted Cruz – similar to Democrats in 2016 – worries that an eight-member court hading into the election could pose a “constitutional crisis.”

“Democrats and Joe Biden have made clear they intend to challenge this election,” Cruz said Friday on Fox News “Hannity.”

“They intend to fight the legitimacy of the election,” he said. “As you know, Hillary Clinton has told Joe Biden ‘under no circumstances should you concede, you should challenge this election.’”

RELATED: Trump Fires Back After Obama Says He Shouldn’t Fill SCOTUS Vacancy

“And we cannot have Election Day come and go with a 4-4 Court,” Cruz told Sean Hannity.

“A 4-4 Court that is equally divided cannot decide anything,” the senator continued. “And I think we risk a constitutional crisis if we do not have a nine-justice Supreme Court, particularly when there is such a risk of … a contested election.”

The post What Ginsberg Said Four Years Ago About Filling A SCOTUS Vacancy During An Election Year appeared first on The Political Insider.

AOC, Pelosi Hint Impeachment Should Be Considered To Stop Trump Supreme Court Selection

Posted on by Rusty Weiss

Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) have hinted impeachment would be considered as a weapon to halt President Trump from filling a Supreme Court vacancy.

The vacancy arose following the passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday.

Trump has vowed to nominate an individual to fill her seat while Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced the nominee “will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

House Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) and AOC (D-NY) demonstrated that they are in lockstep in trying to stop the Presidential’s Constitutional duty to select a replacement.

They’ve even gone so far as to wield impeachment – potentially – as a tool to accomplish their politically motivated goals.

RELATED: Fox News’ Harris Faulkner Tries To Explain Why Her Show Stopped Newt Gingrich From Discussing George Soros

Pelosi Refuses to Rule Out Impeachment

Pelosi appeared in an interview with ABC News’ “This Week,” where the topic of impeachment was broached by former Bill Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos.

Stephanopoulos discussed impeaching either President Trump or Attorney General William Barr.

“You and the House could move to impeach President Trump or Attorney General Barr as a way of stalling and preventing the Senate from acting on this nomination,” he suggested.

“We have our options. We have arrows in our quiver that I’m not about to discuss right now, but the fact is we have a big challenge in our country,” Pelosi replied.

She added, “This president has threatened to not even accept the results of the election.”

When questioned again Pelosi claimed her oath to the Constitution would compel her to use every tool at her disposal.

“We have a responsibility. We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” she continued.

“We have a responsibility to meet the needs of the American people.”

Pelosi concluded: “When we weigh the equities of protecting our democracy, it requires us to use every arrow in our quiver.”

RELATED: Kayleigh McEnany Hammers Media For Refusing To Ask One Question About Historic Middle East Peace Deals

AOC Suggests Impeachment As Well

If you thought Pelosi’s response was unhinged, you needn’t point to any further proof than the fact that AOC is on board with the idea.

Yes, the former bartender believes impeachment – a process reserved for ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ – is a viable option.

“Would you be in support of potentially reviewing talks of impeachment hearings either against the attorney general or the president?” a reporter asked.

“These are procedures and decisions that are largely up to House Democratic leadership,” she deferred.

“But I believe that also we must consider, again, all of the tools available to our disposal, and that all of these options should be entertained and on the table.”

Take note that the reporters are the ones throwing out the impeachment suggestion, leading both Pelosi and AOC to comment on the matter.

It’s almost as if they’re working together to harness these wild and unhinged ideas into action.

Pelosi’s interview also raised questions as to whether or not she was reading off a teleprompter with her answer because of this curious exchange.

Let’s reiterate that exchange:

Stephanopoulos – “To be clear, you’re not taking any arrows out of your quiver, you’re not ruling anything out?”

Pelosi – “Good morning. Sunday morning. The, uh, we have a responsibility …”

This is strikingly similar to moments when Joe Biden has been caught reading words he wasn’t meant to read off of a teleprompter.

Did ABC feed her the question ahead of time for the answer to be queued up on the screen?

The post AOC, Pelosi Hint Impeachment Should Be Considered To Stop Trump Supreme Court Selection appeared first on The Political Insider.

Judge Orders Hunter Biden To Appear For Sworn Testimony

Posted on by LifeZette

Hunter Biden got some very bad news this week when an Arkansas judge ordered him to appear in person next month to testify in a paternity lawsuit filed by his baby mama Lunden Alexis Roberts, a former stripper.

Circuit Judge Holly Meyer ordered Biden to appear in person for a deposition after he tried to argue that he would be unavailable to do so until April, according to the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. Meyer, however, was not having any of it.

“He needs to make himself available and unless his hair is on fire, he needs to be in Arkansas and he needs to be in a deposition,” she told the lawyers representing the two feuding parties on a recent phone call.

MORE NEWS: What if Biden drops out?

Biden initially denied that he was the father of Roberts’ child, but a paternity test then proved he was indeed the father back in January. The current legal battle is over child support, which Biden claims he can’t pay because he is unemployed.

Clint Lancaster, Roberts’ lawyer, had sought to depose Biden before March 13, but his lawyer Brent Langdon claimed that he would not be available until April 1. Meyer found this hard to believe, given the fact that Biden doesn’t have a job.

“My question to you is, why could your client not be available until after April 1? All the information I have is that he’s unemployed,” she said.

Langdon would not elaborate on what supposedly is keeping Biden so busy.

Democrats reportedly fear that Biden testifying could further damage his father Joe Biden’s presidential campaign, which is already struggling enough as it is, according to The Blaze. When he testifies in court, Biden could be forced to reveal all about his business dealings in Ukraine, which came under heavy scrutiny in the impeachment investigation of President Donald Trump.

MORE NEWS: Sanders won’t attend pro-Israeli forum, loathes Israel

Meyer had previously ordered Biden to appear in court in January, when it was alleged that he was improperly withholding financial records. She told him at the time to “show cause, if any exists, as to why he should not be held in contempt for any of the alleged violations of this Court’s orders.”

We’re glad to see that Meyer is forcing Biden to testify next month. The Biden family is as crooked as they come, and the American people deserve to know the truth about what they have really been up to all these years.

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

Read more at LifeZette:
Hollywood seemingly turns on Democrats after disastrous debate: ‘What a mess’
Police backtrack on initial Obama-era DHS whistleblower ‘suicide’ reports—FBI investigating his death
Hillary Clinton breaks her silence about her Harvey Weinstein connections after he’s convicted of rape charges

The post Judge Orders Hunter Biden To Appear For Sworn Testimony appeared first on The Political Insider.

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

Posted on 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.

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.