Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 01/30/2020 View Wed 01/29/2020 View Tue 01/28/2020 View Mon 01/27/2020 View Sun 01/26/2020 View Sat 01/25/2020 View Fri 01/24/2020
1
2020-01-30 Home Front: Politix
John Roberts blocks Rand Paul's question on whistleblower
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Besoeker 2020-01-30 02:50|| || Front Page|| [11130 views ]  Top

#1 So much for the 'Whistleblower' being called to testify. I doubt Roberts will allow the Bidens to be called either.
Posted by Besoeker 2020-01-30 02:56||   2020-01-30 02:56|| Front Page Top

#2 Video of Shifferbrains calling Bolton a liar gives fence sitter Murky an easy out. Droopy now sees no advantage in pretending to be undecided. Willard left out in the cold.
Posted by M. Murcek 2020-01-30 05:03||   2020-01-30 05:03|| Front Page Top

#3 Because Roberts is responsible for reading the questions that would put him in the position of publicly outing the person on the Senate floor.

Why is he pretending Eric Ciarmella's identity as the whistleblower isn't already public knowledge? Is he gonna start calling fouls like that all game?
Posted by Raj 2020-01-30 07:37||   2020-01-30 07:37|| Front Page Top

#4 PJ Media link found here. Short excerpt below:

"If the whistleblower, as is alleged in some public reports, actually did work for then-Vice President Biden on Ukraine issues, exactly what was his role? What was his involvement when issues were raised — we know from testimony that questions were raised — about the potential conflict of interest that the vice president then had when his son was sitting on the board of Burisma," Philbin asked. "Was the alleged whistleblower involved in any of that and in making decisions to not do anything related to that?"

Whistleblower was a Klingon analyst who has returned to the mothership and cannot be named or bothered.

Likelihood of Whistleblower or Hunter Biden being called to testify in impeachment trial? Feel free to file under 'snowball's chance in hell.'

I reckon you can figure it out from here.

My emphasis added in excerpt.
Posted by Besoeker 2020-01-30 07:45||   2020-01-30 07:45|| Front Page Top

#5 SS, Part gazillion.

"Protecting the identity" -- ...of someone known to the world

"Whistleblower" -- who is a longtime partisan activist, a protege of Trump's likely rival in November

"Preserving integrity of the process" -- ... by shielding the faux-whistleblower and his close friend who works for Schifferbrains, plus other individuals on Schifferbrain's staff who all collaborated in what would normally be a criminal action ... except that an additional conspirator at the FBI helpfully changed the rules - BRIEFLY! - to allow this criminal action to go forward.

And now the Chief Justice is preventing our representatives from even asking about - from even asking a simple f---ing question! - if this obvious conspiracy to frame president, refute the results of the 2016 election.

And to throw the upcoming election to the protege of this moronic little partisan activist masquerading as a protector of all that is right and sacred.

And that protege, that Dem presidential candidate and rival of the president, is himself guilty of the exact same corruption and interference which these shit-for-brains Shitshow Clowns falsely accuse the president of.

Complete, utter, total Shitshow.

We are ruled by morons.

Banana republic time in the USA.
Posted by Lex 2020-01-30 09:24||   2020-01-30 09:24|| Front Page Top

#6 /\ "Preserving integrity of the process" -- ... by shielding the faux-whistleblower and his close friend who works for Schifferbrains, plus other individuals on Schifferbrain's staff who all collaborated in what would normally be a criminal action ... except that an additional conspirator at the FBI helpfully changed the rules - BRIEFLY! - to allow this criminal action to go forward.

I believe you have nailed it (at least in part) Lex. Obfuscation and deception at entirely new levels.....well, not if you count the 3000 Clinton emails and 'homebrew' server.
Posted by Besoeker 2020-01-30 09:40||   2020-01-30 09:40|| Front Page Top

#7 * protector, not protege

The conspirators in this SS are all bound up with each other in such a ridiculously tight interwoven fabric that the protected ones are protectors and vice versa. Utterly ridiculous.
Posted by Lex 2020-01-30 09:52||   2020-01-30 09:52|| Front Page Top

#8 The whistle-blower is not a whistle-blower. He is a conspirator and seditionist.
Posted by JohnQC 2020-01-30 10:06||   2020-01-30 10:06|| Front Page Top

#9 /\ The whistle-blower is not a whistle-blower. He is a conspirator and seditionist.

Excellent point! I've not trusted that fok'n Roberts since he made the Obamacare call. Roberts has obviously received the 'hands off' memo. Of all the questions fielded, that's the only one he sent to the dustbin ?

I have a gut feeling the (not too bright) Bidens were simply following the Clinton Foundation - Intelligence Community cover for action model.

Hat tip to Rand Paul. I hope someone verifies the 'whistleblower-Biden' connection and sticks it squarely up the dems arse.
Posted by Besoeker 2020-01-30 10:22||   2020-01-30 10:22|| Front Page Top

#10 I've not trusted that fok'n Roberts since he made the Obamacare call

Still believe that someone in O's camp has the goods on Justice Roberts.

That could be Brennan, Comey, Holder or a myriad of others.
Posted by Mullah Richard 2020-01-30 11:04||   2020-01-30 11:04|| Front Page Top

#11 Ask the court to dismiss the whistleblower complaint.
Tell them that if they can't prove the existence of a whistleblower, then there isn't one.

No secret laws, no secret courts, no secret witnesses.
Posted by flash91 2020-01-30 12:03||   2020-01-30 12:03|| Front Page Top

#12 Ask the court to dismiss the whistleblower complaint

It's sounding more and more like the Senate will take care of that tomorrow.

But, yeah, Roberts cannot be trusted. He is, after all, a Bush appointee which makes him just about as bad as Kagan and Sotomayor.
Posted by Abu Uluque 2020-01-30 12:17||   2020-01-30 12:17|| Front Page Top

#13 If Shiff doesn't know the name of the whistle blower then how would Roberts know?

Posted by Airandee 2020-01-30 12:19||   2020-01-30 12:19|| Front Page Top

#14 John Roberts appointed the judge that signed off on deepstate FISA warrants. The same judge could have issued bench warrants(?) to said DOJ and FBI criminals who file the fraudulent claims.

Robert's reaction? Crickets.
Posted by Woodrow 2020-01-30 13:17||   2020-01-30 13:17|| Front Page Top

#15 I don't comment much on the impeachment.
But if you believe and accept the BS Dershowitz said yesterday, I'm worried.
Posted by European Conservative 2020-01-30 13:30||   2020-01-30 13:30|| Front Page Top

#16 We sure as hell don't believe the BS that Schifferbrains and his colleagues have been peddling.
Posted by Abu Uluque 2020-01-30 13:35||   2020-01-30 13:35|| Front Page Top

#17 Roberts is the one who should be impeached.

(OT - who would preside over the impeachment trial of the Chief Justice?)
Posted by Spot 2020-01-30 13:40||   2020-01-30 13:40|| Front Page Top

#18 What is Justice Roberts' opinion on the Dred Scott decision?
Posted by Alaska Paul 2020-01-30 14:02||   2020-01-30 14:02|| Front Page Top

#19 IMO I can't help but wonder if Dem's have something on Roberts to blackmail him with.

Here are some of Rand's recent tweets;
Senator Rand Paul
@RandPaul 1h
My question today is about whether or not individuals who were holdovers from the Obama National Security Council and Democrat partisans conspired with Schiff staffers to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings.

Senator Rand Paul
@RandPaul 1h
My exact question was:
Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together 1/2

Senator Rand Paul
@RandPaul 1h
and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings. 2/2

Senator Rand Paul
@RandPaul
My question is not about a “whistleblower” as I have no independent information on his identity. My question is about the actions of known Obama partisans within the NSC and House staff and how they are reported to have conspired before impeachment proceedings had even begun.
Posted by Jan 2020-01-30 15:04||   2020-01-30 15:04|| Front Page Top

#20 Roberts is an establishment, globalist, eGOP man at heart. He will do anything to keep the status quo and the elites in power. That is why he does the things he does.

He is very much part of the deep state.
Posted by DarthVader 2020-01-30 15:36||   2020-01-30 15:36|| Front Page Top

#21 
Posted by 3dc 2020-01-30 15:36||   2020-01-30 15:36|| Front Page Top

#22 Ciamarella is Schiff's daughter boyfriend!

Adam Schiff

Happy Thanksgiving from my family to yours! With Eve, Alexa and her boyfriend Eric.
Posted by Bright Pebbles 2020-01-30 19:25||   2020-01-30 19:25|| Front Page Top

#23 You spend a lot of time speculating on the whistleblower and really not any on Dershowitz.
Posted by European Conservative 2020-01-30 19:33||   2020-01-30 19:33|| Front Page Top

#24 EC, Dershowitz is one of the most brilliant criminal defense attorneys this nation has produced. His comments on first Mueller and now impeachment have been dead-on, thoroughly expert, completely nonpartisan-- consistently, fearlessly, for three years now. He has nothing whatsoever to gain - in fact, he's lost a great deal, personally and socially - from this fearless, sober, totally consistent defense of principle.

What is your problem?
Posted by Lex 2020-01-30 20:08||   2020-01-30 20:08|| Front Page Top

#25 My problem with Dershowitz is that he basically stated this:

If the President just thinks he's acting in the public interest (which is supposed to include his own reelection), he can do any quid pro quo he wants with anyone.

This is absurd and the defense of an autocrat. I have not heard from a single authority on constitutional law (and they can't be all mad leftists) who'd agree.

And yet no Republican has come out against this. Be careful where you tread.

The next president may not be one you like.
Posted by European Conservative 2020-01-30 20:35||   2020-01-30 20:35|| Front Page Top

#26 Seeking political gain is what politicians do. There is no concept of "quid pro quo" in politics; all political negotiations, strategems, maneuvers are in one way another the application of pressure or inducement for political advantage.

What the Democrats are trying to do is to criminalize democratic politics. That is truly outrageous and disturbing.
Posted by Lex 2020-01-30 20:44||   2020-01-30 20:44|| Front Page Top

#27 Seeking political gain is what politicians do. There is no concept of "quid pro quo" in politics; all political negotiations, strategems, maneuvers are in one way another the application of pressure or inducement for political advantage.

What the Democrats are trying to do is to criminalize democratic politics. That is truly outrageous and disturbing.
Posted by Lex 2020-01-30 20:44||   2020-01-30 20:44|| Front Page Top

#28 Lex

Imagine that this were true:

A President blackmails the president of another country to dig up dirt on political opponent. If not, this country would not get aid it badly needs.

Now I'm not saying this happened (it's what the House says), but just imagine for a while it were true.

Why do you think this is not an abuse of power?
Posted by European Conservative 2020-01-30 21:07||   2020-01-30 21:07|| Front Page Top

#29 Nice try, EC, but the Ukrainians never KNEW they were being blackmailed. Explain how THAT works. Nite
Posted by Frank G 2020-01-30 21:28||   2020-01-30 21:28|| Front Page Top

#30 Now I'm not saying this happened (it's what the House says), but just imagine for a while it were true.

Like "imagining" Poland invading Germany ?
Posted by Besoeker 2020-01-30 21:33||   2020-01-30 21:33|| Front Page Top

#31 Can Fred's engine make that eurine cuckservative?
Posted by M. Murcek 2020-01-30 21:44||   2020-01-30 21:44|| Front Page Top

#32 I'm trying to not make this about Trump. But what I imagine is what Dershowitz said it's ok.

Don't forget the next President will remember this Senate trial. And he could use it for things you won't like.

FrankG
I don't know what the Ukrainians knew. From what I've read they did know.

But as I said, I don't want to make this about Trump. Dershowitz wants to give the President an amazing carte blanche. No Republican seems to object.

Do you want to give that power to Biden or Sanders?
Posted by European Conservative 2020-01-30 21:46||   2020-01-30 21:46|| Front Page Top

#33 M.Murcek
Insults are never conducive to a fair debate.
Posted by European Conservative 2020-01-30 21:47||   2020-01-30 21:47|| Front Page Top

#34 EC - You are absolutely correct.
Posted by Clem 2020-01-30 21:50||   2020-01-30 21:50|| Front Page Top

#35 Re #30 only, with nothing but respect for all parties to the actual conversation...

In Generalgouvernement Sud,
Oppressed by the Pole and the Jud,
Stewed one Adolf H.,
Mad Euro-belittler:
"Dey all mit der Russkies collude!"
Posted by Grampaw Hupiper3009 2020-01-30 21:54||   2020-01-30 21:54|| Front Page Top

#36 A President blackmails the president of another country to dig up dirt on political opponent. If not, this country would not get aid it badly needs.

Points:
1) Blackmail (in American) is threatening to release harmful information about someone unless they do something you demand. There was no blackmail threat.

2) political opponent - I keep hearing this phrase on the BBC. The investigation was about Hunter Biden, the son and Burisma. Not Joe Biden.

3) Trump did send aid in the form of Javelin anti-tank missiles. Much more kinetic than the dried food they got during the Obama administration.
Posted by SteveS 2020-01-30 22:01||   2020-01-30 22:01|| Front Page Top

#37 Let me be clear. I don't say that anything of this happened.

I would like to know: IF it happened, would it be ok, and if it were, what would this mean for the powers of the Presidency?

Trump may be gone in one year. But what the Senate decides today will have huge effects on what a President can do and what not.
Posted by European Conservative 2020-01-30 22:03||   2020-01-30 22:03|| Front Page Top

#38 Insults are never conducive to a fair debate.

Let us not venture onto the Vertex of Vulgarity, O My Brothers. But instead, remain tangent to the Hypotenuse of Snark and Collegiality.
Posted by SteveS 2020-01-30 22:05||   2020-01-30 22:05|| Front Page Top

#39 SteveS
You're correct, I should have used "extorted" (the German term "erpressen" makes no difference).
Posted by European Conservative 2020-01-30 22:05||   2020-01-30 22:05|| Front Page Top

#40 If Dershowitz said dual use is hokay then no problem for EC
Posted by M. Murcek 2020-01-30 22:12||   2020-01-30 22:12|| Front Page Top

#41 Let me be clear. I don't say that anything of this happened

Mein freund, the law doesn't concern itself with what-if and imagine-this and maybe-possibly.

There are facts, and there is law. Both are on the president's side. This is a bulkshit prosecution that is 100% political, and it must be halted - forthwith.
Posted by Lex 2020-01-30 22:17||   2020-01-30 22:17|| Front Page Top

#42 Lex,

The fact is that Dershowitz DID argue "what if". And I don't hear any objection from the Republican side.

Of course the law does concern itself with what-if. That's why law books are so thick. They try to cover as many possibilities as possible.
Posted by European Conservative 2020-01-30 22:25||   2020-01-30 22:25|| Front Page Top

#43 He didn't. Eppur si muovo.
Posted by Lex 2020-01-30 22:27||   2020-01-30 22:27|| Front Page Top

#44 eppur si muove :-)

But whether he did it or not is not my point here. The President's defense says it would be ok if he did it.
Posted by European Conservative 2020-01-30 22:36||   2020-01-30 22:36|| Front Page Top

#45 Shitshow. Complete, utter, total Shitshow.

Here's Schiff, speaking about the credibility of his star witness -- try not to laugh, or spit out your (coffee) (bourbon) (single malt whiskey):

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., now the lead House impeachment manager [claimed that his supposed star witness] Bolton had a distinct "lack of credibility" and was prone to "conspiracy theories."

[Schiff said,] "given the history, where we've had the politicizing of intelligence over WMD [weapons of mass destruction], why we would pick someone who the very same issue has been raised repeatedly, and that is John Bolton's politicization of the intelligence he got on Cuba and other issues, why we would want someone with that lack of credibility, I can't understand."

And here's BOLTON HIMSELF -- again, the star witness -- impeaching, as it were, his own credibility:

Bolton himself had admitted in the past that he would be more than willing to lie if he felt it was in the nation's best interest.

“If I had to say something I knew was false to protect American national security, I would do it," Bolton said in an interview with Fox Business in 2010.



Posted by Lex 2020-01-30 22:38||   2020-01-30 22:38|| Front Page Top

#46 We could just hear from Bolton and make up our minds then.
Posted by European Conservative 2020-01-30 22:56||   2020-01-30 22:56|| Front Page Top

#47 Even if a resident has conditioned a benefit on another party's rendering a political service to that president's political prospects, that would be well within the realm of LEGALLY-PERMISSIBLE POLITICAL OPERATIONS.

Some examples (names masked in order to get you to think objectively, and not with NeverTrumper-spleen):

POTUS-1 says to Nation-A, I will deliver Benefit X to you after I win the election. Implied request: Don't make waves for me and disrupt my re-election campaign between now and November.

POTUS CANDIDATE -2 says to Nation-B, I will deliver Benefit Y to you after I win the election. Implied request: Don't release the hostages you hold and thereby disrupt my re-election campaign between now and November.

POTUS CANDIDATE - 3 says to Nation-C, I will deliver Benefits Z1-Zn to you NOW, during and after the election. Bluntly stated (not I mplied) request: Help me and disrupt my opponent's re-election campaign between now and November.

Here's the point: none of the above ACTUAL PROPOSED POLITICAL TRADE-OFFS IS ILLEGAL.

None.

No "high crimes" were committed in any of these actual, real incidents. No "misdemeanors."

They're all examples of POLITICS - "horse-trading," "sausage-making," hardball, curveball spitball whatever-the-fook-ball you want to call it. But not criminal activity.

Not criminal. Just politics.

If we lose that distinction, then democratic politics becomes impossible.

In short we will have a permanent, rolling Shitshow in which normal democratic political operations are deemed criminal activity - to the detriment of BOTH the criminal justice system AND the democratic political process.

Posted by Lex 2020-01-30 22:58||   2020-01-30 22:58|| Front Page Top

#48 As I have said, future Presidents will take note.
Posted by European Conservative 2020-01-30 23:13||   2020-01-30 23:13|| Front Page Top

#49 By the way, there are at least a half a dozen other examples of presidents using the normal, standard, unobjectionable instruments of political influence - per Machiavelli your "zuckerbrot und peitsche," "carota e bastone," carrot & stick - to coax, wheedle, cajole, induce, bully, lean on, bludgeon, beat etc a desired outcome out of another nation's leader.

That's politics. Not criminal activity. Never.

We WANT our presidents to be cunning and ruthless practitioners Machiavelli's arts of princely behavior. We expect it, we allow it.

God forbid we should allow raving mad hypocrites like Schifferbrains to strut and posture and pretend that this type of activity - which they themselves engage in DAILY-- is somehow criminal.
Posted by Lex 2020-01-30 23:19||   2020-01-30 23:19|| Front Page Top

#50 A nice, fact-based, concise evisceration of the Shitshow-mongers is here.
Posted by Lex 2020-01-30 23:31||   2020-01-30 23:31|| Front Page Top

#51 Lex of course they do. That's foreign policy in a nutshell.
If you do all this for personal gain (and get caught), that's a different story.
Posted by European Conservative 2020-01-30 23:35||   2020-01-30 23:35|| Front Page Top

#52 Trump was investigating US political corruption.
Posted by Varmint Splat1454 2020-01-30 23:41||   2020-01-30 23:41|| Front Page Top

23:41 Varmint Splat1454
23:35 European Conservative
23:31 Lex
23:19 Lex
23:19 Solomon Brown7362
23:13 European Conservative
22:58 Lex
22:56 European Conservative
22:39 charger
22:38 Lex
22:36 European Conservative
22:27 Lex
22:25 European Conservative
22:17 Lex
22:12 M. Murcek
22:05 European Conservative
22:05 SteveS
22:03 European Conservative
22:01 SteveS
21:54 Grampaw Hupiper3009
21:50 Clem
21:49 Clem
21:47 European Conservative
21:46 European Conservative









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com