In the Senate impeachment trial, Chief Justice Roberts refused to allow a question to be asked by Senator Paul because it included the name of the whistleblower. He is not authorized to decide what questions can be asked by the Senate, making this an issue.
He's denying the President his 6th Amendment Right and refuses to offer any legal grounds for his actions. We know that Eric C is a CIA plant, so does the Intelligence Community have some dirt on him? Do you think he's been compromised?
For not allowing that question, I think he was being judicious, not compromised. Oh, wouldn't you Republicans love to know who the Whistleblower is? I don't recall who asked the question, but that person knew that to reveal the identity would be a violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, Pub. L 101-12. That in itself would be a criminal act, which Justice Roberts had an obligation to prevent. The question was a setup, and he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. As presiding officer, Justice Roberts had an obligation to prevent compromising the Whistleblower's identity, and to have allowed the question would have compromised his alleged neutrality as a Justice of the Supreme Court. I don't think I have to explain that if he'd allowed the question, and if one of the managers, Schiff, Schumer, et al had answered the question, not only would said manager lose his seat and be out the door, but it would have been grounds for removal of the Chief Justice himself from the Supreme Court.
What the Hell kind of a question is that anyway? To even put such a question to this forum is nearly as bad as the idiot who asked it in the Senate trial. I'm disappointed in you, RJ.
"As presiding officer, Justice Roberts had an obligation to prevent compromising the Whistleblower's identity"
Sen. Paul knew that identity. Chief Justice Roberts knew it. As those questions come from the party, not the individual, other Republicans knew it. Certainly some Democrats knew it. Now I see a meme on FB showing a picture of the whistleblower.
The question thus becomes how would saying the name, without mention of "whistleblower", could possibly compromise the whistleblower any more than he already is.
Not that I disagree with you - it was a good call - but let's be real here. That name is common knowledge already.
HUH? I guess I missed it. Regardless of who already knew the name, Justice Roberts couldn't let it out to the TV cameras and the general pubic. If it is out, it has to have come through somebody else. I'll bite. Who is it? I actually haven't heard, and we've been watching this farce for several days.
The Trump propaganda machine is in full working over. Isn't it sad when a patriot gets smeared for being one? And a criminal gets rewarded for being one? We're back in the Old World with a tyrant on the throne, Miz! Do not doubt it.
I have no idea where the leak came from, just that it came. There was another meme on my FB this morning, including considerable "information" about his past. I have no idea if it's true or not, and if it is I'd have to guess that it's only about 10% true, but it still shows that it has been out there for long enough to do some research.
So what's his/her name, Dan? Has the WB program been sabotaged by the Right? If so, you should be proud. And it seems you are. Way to go in hindering another important facet of oversight on criminals. Now we're really getting something done for the king.....er I mean the Don!
Probably leaked by a disgruntled Democrat in the House, being forced to participate in their disgusting charade or find other work.
Can you vouch for the veracity of this meme, Dan?
It certainly doesn't sound like anyone who works for "Honest Don," Right?
We all know how much he admire's his own integrity and truthfulness.
Yeah, because Don and his as$ kisser cohorts never lie, cheat, or do anything underhanded.
The Right ought to be pleased as they've made history with the first Senate trial to have no witnesses. I said they'd be terrified of Bolton and they proved me correct.
No big surprise as they don't care if Trump is a criminal or not. But it turns out he's not the only criminal who was exposed in this sham trial. The Senate has 51 in it alone.
True, Randy. As I said, it looks like the Russians are at it again. Why should we believe that this man is the real whistleblower? Since Trump got off scott-free, I know that we'll see more of this kind of propaganda. I just hope it comes back to haunt McConnell and his bunch of Trump a$$kissers. Whatever happens, they will get what they deserve, but I hate to see the rest of us have to put up with their BS.
I agree Miz! I've already told my senator--David Perdue--I'll be backing hisr opponent with my voice and wallet. The only recourse we have is at the ballot box, and there's nothing assured Trump won't try to rig that as well.
The oversight in the Senate is apparently gone. The House will continue to do their job, but the Senate will continue to be terrified of the conman's wrath. This is so GD embarrassing for our country and our rule of law.
There isn't a single senator (especially Tom Cotton) or representative in my state that I can support because they are all Trumpers. I've never been one for term limits because as a state legislative employee, I saw what chaos can happen when all the experienced legislators are term-limited out at once. However, if it's the only way we can get these self-serving yahoos out, I'm for term limits.
But, if anyone thinks there was chaos in the Senate hearings, wait until a bunch of newbies are running the show. Term limits could backfire.
That's a problem, all right. No one wants their representative gone - they "bring home the bacon", after all, so they are re-elected for 30 years.
Sad, though, when a Senator can't be voted for because they support the President of the Unite States.
It's not the supporting bothering me, it's the covering-up for him. They fooled nobody with ignoring pertinent witnesses and facts for the first time in our history. Be Proud of the scoundrels following Trump intead of the Constitution, Dan.
A trial is supposed to be a search for truth, not for sticking one's head in the sand.
Spread the word! I have gotten a bunch of people to donate. We need to defeat Trump and as many of his a$s kissers as possible.
Doug Collins and David Perdue need to go as well. You should have seen the email I received from Perdue after I sent one to him stating I wanted him to vote for witnesses.
First he sent me the standard "want to do good for our country unlike the wacky Liberals" form letter, but then he sent me one saying Trump was innocent because bla.bla,bla,
Of course, I sent him a return email saying I hope he loses his next election and I'll be supporting his opponent with great enjoyment. Strange though, he hasn't emailed me back. I doubt he ever sees the emails from the left.
Just as a side note; I hadn't seen that meme, but I do recall seeing several references and sources that named Eric as the whistleblower's identity shortly after his identity became a topic.
I am not saying they are right, or that he is, but only that I have seen him named as the whistleblower before this meme.
And it's a shame for anyone to do this, even if it's true. I've lost all respect for these people who want to protect a conman at any cost. What's wrong with these people?
It was the media—first through 'Net revelations, and then through media articles about those revelations.
I am not going to go search for the specifics, but I wouldn't be surprised if the NYT wasn't one of those with articles that wouldn't say this is the whistleblower, but did say that this is who has been identified as the whistleblower. What is the difference? If I recall correctly, you certainly wouldn't include them as "a conman" supporter, would you?
Hubby and I are donating money to Democrats running against Moscow Mitch and Baby Lindsay, even though they're not our senators. It's time for the top two a$$ kissers to suffer the consequences of choosing party over country .
I do believe these guys are on the side opposite his a$$, Sandy.
Hooray for you! I guess I should be donating to someone, but I've been trying to send the Democrats the message that I won't donate to their socialist agenda, and any donation to my former party right now doesn't get that message across. I'm still being bombarded with dem. donation requests. However, your type of donations might. If a moderate democrat who has a chance of beating Trump is selected as the party's candidate, I will donate to get that person elected.
The DNC's decision to change the rules for Bloomberg have really pissed me off! All my money is going to individual candidates that I like from now on. They got $300,000 from Bloomberg and rewarded him with a rule change. Unacceptable!
Good for you. That is the way it is supposed to work.
I have already donated toward Warren's campaign even in the face of her recently waning fortunes. It is a shame that she has to spend so much time convincing people that a woman can win. She has to climb over the hurtles of misogyny before she can even begin to present the issues. America is so antiquated in its attitudes in so many areas.
I never want to acknowledge that Michael Moore could be right, that Trump will get another term based on the disunity and mixed messages among the Democrats.
The DNC changes its rules to accommodate Bloomberg's recent entry into the race?
Bloomberg told Warren that she was out of line with her proposals. He is running to destroy the progressive wing of the party. As far as I am concerned, a corporate democrat" is no better than a Republican. Corporate Democrats and Republicans have more in common than what it is that separates them. So, in effect, Bloomberg is a "fifth columnist", double agent, actually allied with Trump and his agenda, even though he says otherwise.
The system that allows a man like Trump to spawn and rise to the highest office in the land needs to eradicated, not merely accommodated. Why put Chanel No. 5 on excrement? That is Biden, Bloomberg and to a certain extent, Buttigieg.
I fear that America is not ready for the real change proposed by the progressive candidates, they are more than content with the status quo and the slow downward spiral that we have been on.
"I fear that America is not ready for the real change proposed by the progressive candidates . . . "
Should that say something to you? I think so.
Unfortunately, GA, it says that this is their deficit and not mine. So, the downward spiral will continue..., and have only have ourselves to blame for being content with business as usual.
hmm. . . I thought it might suggest a difference in opinion of the Progressive platform.
Are you thinking of it as a case of su dinero es mi dinero?
It is a matter of priorities as to where our "dinero" is to be allocated, but that is why I am progressive and you, basically conservative..
No, it is a matter of "my money" being "our money" to liberals, which is the (largest) basic difference between liberals and conservatives. Or progressives, if you prefer that label. That's what the quote means, not where to put "our" money.
Do you need a loan, Dan? You always seem to be worried someone wants to take your money. It's getting on my nerves after several years of your complaining about the govt taking your money.
Just come right out and ask for a loan if you're in dire straits. I'm sure we all can chip in and help you through the hard times. That's what friends are for, right?
by Randy Godwin 3 years ago
Does DT ever learn his lesson? He seems to piss off people in all parts of the Govt, even the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS. Roberts--in a rare statement to a POTUS--there were only fair judges and not Obama or Trump judges on the court. A good idea or not?
by Mary's Crumbs 9 years ago
Conservatives, how do you feel about Chief Justice Roberts siding in favor of upholding ObamaCare?In what can only be characterized as a victory for the Obama administration, the Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision which basically upholds the The Affordable Care Act. Chief Justice...
by Heidi 9 years ago
Justice Roberts: not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices“The mandate's unconstitutional, but the court has decided it's a tax, and therefore it's okay. So Obamacare is nothing more than the largest tax increase in the history of the world. The chief...
by wetbaknproud 9 years ago
the right wing nut talking heads are stunned by the supreme court ruling and by justice roberts' position in particular. How long before they start calling him a traitor and a socialist?
by Glenn S. 12 years ago
What in the world is Roberts getting involve in polical grand standing. Arn't Justices suppose to be impartial. Another Bush appointee shows his true colors. -In a controversy stretching back to January’s State of the Union Address, Chief Justice John Roberts told a group of law students at the...
by Ralph Schwartz 5 years ago
Isn't repealing Obamacare just tax reform? Justice Roberts said it was a tax, right?Obamacare costs are a tax - the Supreme Court made that clear after it was shoved down our throats. Trump making changes or getting rid of it is simply tax reform, an act all presidents do.
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|