Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Justice Roberts Blocks Rand Paul Senate Trial Question on ‘Origins of the House Impeachment’

  1. #1

    Justice Roberts Blocks Rand Paul Senate Trial Question on ‘Origins of the House Impeachment’

    Chief Justice John Roberts blocked a question from Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) from being asked at the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump on Wednesday, according to reports. The question and answer session involves written questions submitted to Roberts, who is presiding over the trial, who then reads the question aloud. The questions posed to the Democrat House Managers and President Trump’s legal team alternate between Republicans and Democrat senators. Paul could be heard arguing on the Senate floor to have his question asked.

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...e-impeachment/



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    CNN reporter Phil Mattingly, “Sen. Paul’s question deals with the whistleblower and names the alleged whistleblower, per sources Chief Justice Roberts has, to this point, rejected the question – which he’d have to read. No sense Paul is backing down on asking, likely to be discussed during dinner.”
    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...op-leadership/

  4. #3
    Justice Roberts is acting as if Eric Ciaramella is really a whistleblower, rather than a CIA spy. He needs to address the ambiguity… state clearly if and how Ciamarella’s actions fit the definition of “whistleblower” under the law. Frankly, how can a CIA spy ever be anything other than a CIA spy?

  5. #4

    https://www.twitter.com/WhiteHouse/s...48708891848710
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  6. #5
    Justice Roberts wouldn’t give a damn about protecting a real whistleblower that exposed the deep state.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Justice Roberts wouldn’t give a damn about protecting a real whistleblower that exposed the deep state.

  8. #7
    John Thune (Senate Majority Whip) was never the trustworthy type. What can the grassroots do now, to get rid of swampy GOP leadership, BEFORE republicans take back the house? As long as people like McCarthy and Thune are in charge nothing will change!

    Chief Justice John Roberts Shuts Down Rand Paul’s Question on Alleged ‘Whistleblower’
    JOSHUA CAPLAN 30 Jan 2020

    …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…

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...whistleblower/

  9. #8


    This is Rand's chief of staff..

    TURN ON CSPAN.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9

    Jonathan Turley calls this conflict 'fascinating'

    Anyone know exactly what Rand's "fighting for recognition" would entail? Could get veeery interesting.
    https://jonathanturley.org/2020/01/3...ower-questions

    “If I Have To Fight For Recognition, I Will”: Paul and Roberts On Collision Course Over Whistleblower Questions
    January 30, 2020

    Yesterday’s question and answer period was a largely choreographed exercise with legal team spontaneously responding to questions with preset video clips and visual displays. However, there was one major but largely overlooked moment that raises some serious issues over the authority of the presiding officer vis-a-vis the Senate. In the midst of the questions, Robert spiked a question from Sen. Rand Paul (R, Ky). It concerned the whistleblower and the underlying legal premise for barring the question could prove controversial today.

    Sen. Paul appears to have delivered a question to Roberts that would have named the alleged whistleblower. Roberts had indicated that he was going to disallow questions on the whistleblowers but he was reportedly deterred from that course by the threat of being overruled by the Senate. He allowed general questions about the whistleblower by prevented Paul for asking his question. Paul reportedly pledged to revisit the issue today and was overheard by reporter Niels Lesniewski in saying “I don’t want to have to stand up to try and fight for recognition . . . “If I have to fight for recognition, I will.”

    This creates a fascinating conflict. Federal law does not guarantee anonymity of such whistleblowers in Congress — only protection from retaliation. Conversely, the presiding officer rarely stands in the path of senators seeking clarification or information from the legal teams. Paul could name the whistleblower on the floor without violation federal law. Moreover, the Justice Department offered a compelling analysis that the whistleblower complaint was not in fact covered by the intelligence law (the reason for the delay in reporting the matter to Congress). The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel found that the complaint did not meet the legal definition of “urgent” because it treated the call between Trump and a head of state was if the president were an employee of the intelligence community. The OLC found that the call “does not relate to ‘the funding administration, or operation of an intelligence activity’ under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence . . . As a result, the statute does not require the Director to transmit the complaint to the congressional intelligence committees.” The Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and EfficiencyCouncil strongly disagree with that reading.

    Regardless of the merits of this dispute, Roberts felt that his position allows him to curtail such questions and answers as a matter of general decorum and conduct. It is certainly true that all judges are given some leeway in maintaining basic rules concerning the conduct and comments of participants in such “courts.”

    This could lead to a confrontation over the right of senators to seek answers to lawful questions and the authority of the presiding office to maintain basic rules of fairness and decorum. It is not clear what the basis of the Chief Justice’s ruling would be in barring references to the name of the whistleblower if his status as a whistleblower is contested and federal law does not protect his name. Yet, there are many things that are not prohibited by law but still proscribed by courts. This issue however goes to the fact-finding interests of a senator who must cast a vote on impeachment. Unless Majority Leader Mitch McConnell can defuse the situation, this afternoon could force Roberts into a formal decision with considerable importance for this and future trials.

    https://jonathanturley.org/2020/01/3...wer-questions/
    Last edited by Valli6; 01-30-2020 at 12:01 PM.

  12. #10

  13. #11



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-31-2020, 06:10 PM
  2. Replies: 25
    Last Post: 01-31-2020, 01:25 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-30-2019, 09:11 PM
  4. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-18-2019, 06:13 PM
  5. GOP looks to block 2020 Democrats from Senate impeachment trial
    By phill4paul in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-10-2019, 06:25 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •