• Chief Justice Roberts Refuses To Read Whistleblower Question...Why?

    January 30, 2020
    Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, John Roberts. YouTube

    Is the avoidance of an uncomfortable moment for the intelligence community more important than justice? The answer, it seems, is yes. And that should be very disappointing for Americans of all political persuasions.

    During the last 24 hours, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts tangled with Sen. Rand Paul (KY-R) over a proposed question for impeachment hearings. Paul's question named Eric Ciaramella, the de facto whistleblower. His secondhand account of the famed July 25 telephone conversation between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky is the acorn that grew into the diseased oak tree now casting shade over the White House.

    Ciaramella's complaint was submitted concurrently with a quiet change to CIA whistleblower rules. The edit to the rules--which magically allowed secondhand, or hearsay, complaints--was made immediately before or after (the CIA refuses to divulge the exact timing) Ciaramella met with Rep. Adam Schiff Adam Schiff's staff.

    Schiff maintains that he is unaware of the whistleblower's identity. Just his staff, who arranged to meet with Ciaramella in the midst of his reporting the complaint.

    The allegations aren't contested, nor are they even recent. One month ago today, The New York Post reported the following damning evidence:

    What is already known is that on July 26, one day after Trump’s call with the Ukrainian president, Schiff hired Sean Misko to join his staff. Shortly after that hire, Schiff’s staff met with Ciaramella, a friend and co-worker of Misko’s in the ­intelligence community. Schiff’s staff gave Ciaramella “guidance” on how to make a complaint. A cozy arrangement. The emails will likely divulge more.

    Schiff concealed these dealings until the New York Times caught him in the lie. Schiff also withheld from House investigators documents detailing how his staff aided the whistleblower.

    The whistleblower filed his complaint with intelligence community Inspector General Michael Atkinson on Aug. 12, also concealing that he had met with Schiff’s staff. When the complaint became public in September, Schiff feigned surprise.

    NY Post

    Even the New York Times reported on Schiff's collusion with Ciaramella. And Judicial Watch (JW) has sued the Dept. of Justice and the CIA for communications between Ciaramella and Schiff, among others. We wish them luck and godspeed.

    Even if Tom Fitton and JW succeed, the question remains: will Schiff, Ciaramella, and/or the CIA face justice? The answer, based on the history of this duct-taped and super-glued impeachment effort--this soft coup--is a whispered but insistent NO.

    Why? Roberts represents the highest court in the land. If anyone is qualified to make a judgment in favor of shining a light instead of leaving the public in the dark, it is he.

    Here are two theories. Take them as that, no more, no less.

    1. Someone in the intelligence community has damaging information on Chief Justice Roberts. They have leveraged this information to prohibit some information from reaching public ears. There are theories online, but they are wholly unsubstantiated, and as such, CD Media will not enumerate or endorse them. That would explain Roberts' shaking right hand at his swearing in. Then again, it was a big moment, and he's only human.
    2. Roberts has made the decision that he is acting in the role of Senate trial judge, not as the voice of the Supreme Court. President Trump is on trial, not the CIA. Therefore, any decisions that expand the boundaries of the case are outside his purview. If investigations after the trial lead to lawsuits that reach the fully impaneled SCOTUS, he will hear them there.

    As tempting as the first option is to frustrated conservatives in the heat of the impeachment, it also smacks of fake news. The second option is the most likely answer of the two. When it moves, justice moves slowly.

    Dear reader, if you disagree--or have other substantiated theories--we would love to hear from you.


    Court Anderson

  • Subscribe
    Notify of

    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments

    […] This article originally appeared at SOURCE LINK […]

    Ray Berrian

    Does not The Constitution of the United States require,
    that a citizen be faced by his accuser?
    I wonder when the sixth amendment was rewritten, to preclude this right?

    Lois W Hart

    Roberts will NOT hear any cases arising out of this trial, because he will be required to recuse himself, having overseen the trial. Conflict of interest, leaving a potential 4-4 SCOTUS vote.

    Charles C. Miller

    As sent to the WH 1:11 pm, pacific, 1/30/2020

    Dear President Trump, our President.
    Your Beneficiaries, Miller, Westover, Provost Jr., are monitoring the circus in the Senate along with the periphery surrounding the charade.
    WE are in quasi shock that the blatant in our face crimes exposed in the Impeachment Trial have been publicly certified by the Trial Judge. Given our personal experiences with the federal judiciary and prosecution process, our shock is tempered by the simple loss of hope that any one in our government would simply comply with the Bill of Rights, and prosecute those who intentionally act out side our law.
    Senator Paul was denied having his legitimate question responded to by any one. Senator Paul attempted to expose the so called whistleblower so that our President would be provided opportunity to know and confront his accuser.
    Justice Roberts, by refusing to allow the Paul question to become part of the record, denied the President of the United States the absolute right to receive protection of the Sixth and Fifth Amendments. Roberts committed a breach of personal oath, resulting in the highest of crimes, the denial of the Office of President the protection of the Bill of Rights. Our President is denied the absolute right to execute the law as required by Article II by the Chief Justice of the United States Judiciary.
    Mr. Trump, is it now in your face the magnitude of the Constitutional Crises created and pushed by Divided Loyalty alleged public servants.
    When will the Show Cause Orders demanding these conspiring felons be brought forth to show their cause for premium acts violating the Bill of Rights?

    Francisco Machado

    "President Trump is on trial, not the CIA" - President Trump was on trial before the House which, with the fall of the gavel, determined his impeachment. What is on trial before the Senate, analogous to a jury, are the bills of impeachment submitted by the House. If either is confirmed, the Senate will decide if the charges constitute sufficient reason to remove the President from office and, separately, whether he is barred from running for office again. If neither is confirmed the issue is dead and the next Progressive impeachment attempt by the Kamikaze Party commences. They have promised it.

  • Subscribe to our evening newsletter to stay informed during these challenging times!!