Posted on 01/30/2020 8:57:35 AM PST by davikkm
Supreme Court Justice John Roberts on Wednesday blocked an attempt by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) to pose questions regarding the so-called “whistleblower” — the individual who sparked the House Democrats’ partisan impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump — according to reports.
Politico and The Hill state Roberts indicated he would oppose reading Paul’s questions, as it is believed he would be forced to name or provide identifying information on the alleged individual.
Speaking to reporters following a Republican dinner, Paul signaled he may still fight to have his question read.
“It’s still an ongoing process; it may happen tomorrow,” he told reporters.
However, other Senate Republicans, include Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-SD), appear to have sided with Roberts over Paul.
“I don’t think that happens, and I guess I would hope that it doesn’t,” Thune said when asked if the so-called “whistleblower” will be named.
Roberts has not offered any legal argument for hiding the individual’s identity. As Breitbart News has repeatedly explained, the only statutory protection for people who submit whistleblower complaints is that the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) cannot name him or her publicly:
Even left-wing mainstream media outlets—CNN, the New York Times, National Public Radio (NPR), and Reuters — determined that, certainly, no law prohibits President Donald Trump or members of Congress from disclosing the name of the leaker who sparked the impeachment inquiry.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
“he could ask whether Schiff has ever discussed impeachment of President Trump with a gentleman by the name of Eric Ciaramella”
Yep. It really is time to go guerrilla, this is war the rats would do it in a NY minute.
Although I like your question, it does not work that way.
The announce that they have a question for either side and it gets presented to the chief justice to read.
The Dems will just start another impeachment if this one is shut down. Instead, why can’t the defense use this as an opportunity to rip the curtain off the Bidens? Because there won’t be another one of those.
“I am all the USC..but drawing straws would have made the whole affair a little more festive.”
Oooh! RBG! Nah, she’s probably at the gym.
More overreach on the part of judges. He is assuming the right to screen questions from the Senators. Unless that right is challenged, he becomes able to corrupt the impeachment process. And we know from bitter experience what that can lead to.
The senator with the question stands up, that senator, out of his own mouth, announces he or he and other senators have a question. It absolutely does work that way. This afternoon watch, then tell me who is saying, “Mr. Chief Justice, I have a question” before the page runs over to collect the written question.
Further, legitimate “whistleblowers” are not guaranteed any anonymity, simply insulated from retaliation. The entire premise is specious and Roberts is clearly comprimised, as was surmised when the House forwarded impeachment despite complete lack of basis or evidence.
Impeach Roberts
“according to reports” = rumors = fake news ...
Damn it! Rand just blew his chance. He told Roberts he was sending the question up and Roberts censured him again.
“Whistleblower” is another Orwellian term. Schiff and the DS had all of this coordinated in advance of any “whistleblower report.” The whole purpose of CIA Ramallah was to be fed the prepared information from another source, in order to pipe it to the IG who had just magically changed the whistleblower statute to allow non-firsthand information. CIA Ramallah was privy to nothing and never was. Just a vector, a conduit. The actual actors remain in the shadows as planned.
I agree with that.
If they do have witnesses, the cat will be out of the bag, and CIAramella may spill the beans on Brennan, Biden, Vindman, Atkinson, Chalupa, and Schiff. When it’s down to push comes to shove, the rats are going to be fighting each other to get off the sinking Schiff.
Does this proceeding have some rule that supercedes the First Amendment?
Or isn’t a question considered free speech?
I think Roberts is really light on LAW.
Hate to say it.
In other words, he’s doing the same thing he does in the USSC (i.e., pretends to be objective and protects the Swamp).
I kind of wish Rand Paul would verbally state the name of the suspected whistleblower in a question to Justice Roberts, I’m curious to see what would happen. It’s possible that Justice Roberts would find Rand Paul to be in contempt, because Roberts had already slapped down the question by refusing to read it. Any FR lawyers know if that would be grounds for contempt?
Yep, and now, so does the entire country, thanks to roberts, who is apparently too smart by half. Paul’s question didn’t contain the word “whistleblower”.
How does the Chief Justice know the name of the whistle-blower to know that this is the whistle-blower, thus preventing the name of the whistle-blower to be uttered in the Senate? Rand Paul was asking about partisan hacks, not whistle-blowers, which just might be one in the same......
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.