During his confirmation hearing, Roberts was touted as the most intelligent judge as a judge to USSC, that nobody had seen before, and he passed every questions with flying color better than anyone before him without hesitation!
Now nobody is going to tell me that he botched the oath, if it was NOT for the very seriousness that he knew/know the usurper was NOT legal eligible to march into the W.H., and when at the same time looking directly in the eyes of the devil himself and being himself (Roberts) an enabler to the biggest scam and crime being presented to the American people by this Constitutional crisis!!
This having the meeting at SCOTUS January 14, 2009 in mind, which we don't know what transpired there!!!
Hasn't it been reported that the second due-over oath (without a Bible) also had some problems???
The other thing that is very curious is the timing of when Roberts invited Obama for the meeting - an unprecedented event that had never been done for ANY POTUS before taking office, much less one with lawsuits coming before SCOTUS, and even much much less the invitation coming from the chief justice who knew there would be cases before SCOTUS at the time the meeting took place.
IOW, Roberts in an unprecedented move specifically invited Obama for what Roberts knew would be an unethical ex parte communication.
And he did it on the exact same day as the first eligibility case came before SCOTUS. The day on which Roberts knew what the court had decided but the public hadn’t yet been notified. Roberts made sure not only that he invited Obama, but that the public got the news of the invitation before they knew what SCOTUS had decided on the Donofrio case. If I didn’t know better (cough), I’d almost say that was a deliberate attempt to make the invitation look as fishy as possible to as many people as possible. On the first day that SCOTUS actually had to decide something about Obama’s eligibility.
This was after the whole big mess with SCOTUS clerk Danny Bickel, where lots of people like myself wrote to SCOTUS to tell them there was funny business going on. Roberts probably knew there were already red flags raised by others and it sure looks to me that he made sure to raise some of his own in answer to those already raised.
I hadn’t heard about any problems with the 2nd oath. I know that it was not videotaped, just audiotaped. I wonder why that was.
Does anybody know about the admissibility or standards for audiotaped evidence? Is it any different than the standards for videotaped evidence?
Had you heard something different?