To: CottonBall
Said before and will again. I believe Roberts was told of a sealed indictment of the whistle blower and the possibility that he might have to adjudicate in his case. Therefore so he would not have to remove himself from a potential 5-4 decision decided now was the time to not be involved.
Only possibility I can think of. Otherwise why would someone give him the heads up on the name. Someone had to do that.
7,139 posted on
02/04/2020 1:12:22 PM PST by
hoosiermama
(When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.DJT)
To: hoosiermama
Interesting! That’s about the only thing that makes sense.
7,141 posted on
02/04/2020 1:15:04 PM PST by
CottonBall
(This space for rent.)
To: hoosiermama
I would like to believe that’s true. But in reality, can we move that slow? Besides, if it is true that he is the whistleblower, the dems could say Roberts should recuse himself because he knew who the whistleblower was.
7,225 posted on
02/04/2020 3:15:19 PM PST by
Rusty0604
(2020 four more years!)
To: hoosiermama
Otherwise why would someone give him the heads up on the name. Someone had to do that.
I'm guessing, that by this time, the "supposed" WB name has been bandied about every freakin where and the CJ doesn't live in a vacuum.
I think he handled the question poorly. I think he should have just read the question and let the RATs faces turn purple and their heads explode trying not to say "you can't ask about the WB."
7,266 posted on
02/04/2020 4:36:57 PM PST by
stylin19a
((2016 - Best.Election.Of.All.Times.Ever.In.The.History.Of.Ever))
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson