Deep State swamp rat blocks rand paul question

[Ray From Cleveland]

You know, it's kinda amazing really to watch Trump supporters. When Roberts was appointed, lots of conservatives on here were cheering Trump's choice for SCOTUS and how great he was going to be.

Then? He makes a ruling that the Trumpettes disagree with, and now he's the worst swamp creature ever.

Trump supporters are sure fickle.

No, it's we knew once appointed, he would go back in time and support ObamaCare.

 

[Crepitus]

Yeah, Trump is not allowed to know his accuser. . . The Deep State is in charge of the nation now, the Constitution is just a damn piece of paper that is meaningless.


"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Impeachment isn't a criminal prosecution. There are laws that protect whistleblowers.

But he's not a true whistleblower. It's just what they've been calling him. And even if he was, there is no law that protects his anonymity.

In what way is he not a true whistleblower?

 

[Crepitus]

John Roberts blocks Rand Paul's question on whistleblower


John Roberts blocks Rand Paul's question on whistleblower

Sen. Rand Paul's (R-Ky.) attempt to ask about the whistleblower whose report helped spark the impeachment inquiry is running into a roadblock in the form of Chief Justice John Roberts.

A source confirmed that Roberts has indicated he would not read a question from Paul regarding the whistleblower at the center of the House impeachment inquiry.

Roberts is the worst republican appointment to the SC since eisenhower picked earl warren

Lol, now the chief justice is a RINO!

Lmao!!

 

[B. Kidd]

It is a sleazy act by Paul in an attempt to intimidate and punish whistleblowers

Yep, and he wants the wistleblower's head on a pike so as to make future, would-be whistleblowers, who might report on the Mob Boss's criminality, think twice.

If only Republicans showed the interest in investigating the President that they do in outing the whistleblower

He's been investigated since before even entering the White House, and they are probably still investigating him. How much more investigation do you want?

They want Trump to undergo a public colonoscopy and find Constitutional grounds for impeaching him for polyps!

 

[Mac-7]

John Roberts blocks Rand Paul's question on whistleblower


John Roberts blocks Rand Paul's question on whistleblower

Sen. Rand Paul's (R-Ky.) attempt to ask about the whistleblower whose report helped spark the impeachment inquiry is running into a roadblock in the form of Chief Justice John Roberts.

A source confirmed that Roberts has indicated he would not read a question from Paul regarding the whistleblower at the center of the House impeachment inquiry.

Roberts is the worst republican appointment to the SC since eisenhower picked earl warren

Are whistleblower protections imaginary? Or is Rand Paul just that big of a douche?

I dont think whistleblowers are entitled to absolute immunity

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Seems strange, the people on this board talking bad about conservative,Chief Justice John Roberts, who was nominated by George W. Bush, approved 78 to 22 in the Republican controlled Senate with 78 Republic votes and 1 independent. Makes you guys sound like whiny cry babies. I guess the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court sides with protection of the anonymity of the whistle-blower, where he presides. Get over it.

We will get over it, with the next two or three picks for the SC that Trump makes in the next couple of years.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It is a sleazy act by Paul in an attempt to intimidate and punish whistleblowers

Yep, and he wants the wistleblower's head on a pike so as to make future, would-be whistleblowers, who might report on the Mob Boss's criminality, think twice.

Exactly. And, depending on how this turns out, it might make it so nobody will ever report criminal behavior by politicians ever again.

That will be the day democracy dies.

Nobody reported criminal behavior this time. He's nothing more than a spy for the deep state, and it would be a good thing to get rid of any spy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why would you want to know who the whistleblower is?

Don’t you understand whistleblowers?

WTF is that supposed to mean?

It means whistleblower has protections
One of those protections is remaining anonymous and protection against retribution

Now, other than to harass, what reason do you have to know his name?

The reason is that it’s the law and that does Trump your suspicions iof unverifiable mal intent

What makes content?

He reported what he had heard to the IG, as he should.
The IG affirmed what he had reported and so did Trump

Now, other than harassment, what is the reason you need to question the whistleblower?

Why is Rand Paul such a douche?

Because we the people need to see who and how our government is running. The commies impeached our President, and we should have the right to know who the two people are that are involved.

 

[Crepitus]

So the right to confront your accuser is superseded by your right to say shit and hide over it????

So does Biden gets to confront his accuser and have him hauled in to testify under oath about the allegations he made against Good Old Joe?

Joes not on trial
Jesus

Well yeah, Joe was never accused of coercing a foreign nation into announcing investigations into his political rivals by denying them the funds Congress appropriated for their defense either. All the witnesses on the call willing to testify are known and have been confronted. The law is there to protect against vindictive people like President "Sonny"!

What they testified to is that the transcript was sound and accurate. In the transcript, Trump didn't say anything about the US military aid. The Democrats made that up.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It means whistleblower has protections
One of those protections is remaining anonymous and protection against retribution

Wrong.

ANALYSIS: Despite Schiff’s claims, whistleblower has no 'statutory right' to anonymity

 

[Crepitus]

What law did Paul attempt to break
The “Run your mouth and then hide about it” Law?

He tried to out the whistleblower in violation of the protection act

There is no such law. Whistleblowers have workplace protection, they do not have legal protection from being accountable for their accusations.

Whistleblowers don't make accusations, they alert authorities.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So the right to confront your accuser is superseded by your right to say shit and hide over it????

So does Biden gets to confront his accuser and have him hauled in to testify under oath about the allegations he made against Good Old Joe?

Joes not on trial
Jesus

Well yeah, Joe was never accused of coercing a foreign nation into announcing investigations into his political rivals by denying them the funds Congress appropriated for their defense either. All the witnesses on the call willing to testify are known and have been confronted. The law is there to protect against vindictive people like President "Sonny"!

What they testified to is that the transcript was sound and accurate. In the transcript, Trump didn't say anything about the US military aid. The Democrats made that up.

The call was merely evidence of the larger plot to which other witnesses have testified. Vindictively confronting them is not enough for the man-child or what?

Oh, that Democrats crystal ball again, huh? Well if they knew it was part of a larger plot, why didn't they wait until Trump carried it out, or at the very least, wait until he completed his quid pro quo?

 

[Crepitus]

Why would you want to know who the whistleblower is?

Don’t you understand whistleblowers?

WTF is that supposed to mean?

It means whistleblower has protections
One of those protections is remaining anonymous and protection against retribution

Now, other than to harass, what reason do you have to know his name?

Why would you want to know who the whistleblower is?

Don’t you understand whistleblowers?

WTF is that supposed to mean?

It means whistleblower has protections
One of those protections is remaining anonymous and protection against retribution

Now, other than to harass, what reason do you have to know his name?

ya, it was hearsay. They had to make up a special law to protect hearsay of a whistleblower
The whole thing stinks.

The above is a lie.

 

[The Original Tree]

Senator Rand Paul
@RandPaul

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?

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?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It is a sleazy act by Paul in an attempt to intimidate and punish whistleblowers

Yep, and he wants the wistleblower's head on a pike so as to make future, would-be whistleblowers, who might report on the Mob Boss's criminality, think twice.

If only Republicans showed the interest in investigating the President that they do in outing the whistleblower

He's been investigated since before even entering the White House, and they are probably still investigating him. How much more investigation do you want?

They want Trump to undergo a public colonoscopy and find Constitutional grounds for impeaching him for polyps!

They never had any constitutional grounds. Dershowitz made that very clear. It's why they wanted to continue their witch hunt via the Senate.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yeah, Trump is not allowed to know his accuser. . . The Deep State is in charge of the nation now, the Constitution is just a damn piece of paper that is meaningless.


"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Impeachment isn't a criminal prosecution. There are laws that protect whistleblowers.

But he's not a true whistleblower. It's just what they've been calling him. And even if he was, there is no law that protects his anonymity.

In what way is he not a true whistleblower?

For one, a whistleblower has to be somebody that directly heard or read something and outed a person. This spy got second hand information. He's not a whistleblower.

 

[Muhammed]

Why would you want to know who the whistleblower is?

Don’t you understand whistleblowers?

Actually, there was no whistleblower in the first place. For there to be a whistleblower there necessarily must be some sort of illegal activity to blow the whistle on in the first place. And in this case, there is none.

When Trump declassified the transcript to the call it proved with 100% certitude that the so-called whistleblower was merely a leaker.

After 8 years of Obama, the Democrats never even considered that transparency could ever be a whitehouse policy.

 

[B. Kidd]

No one said that 'draining the swamp' was gonna be purty.

 

[Crepitus]

Yeah, Trump is not allowed to know his accuser. . . The Deep State is in charge of the nation now, the Constitution is just a damn piece of paper that is meaningless.


"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Impeachment isn't a criminal prosecution. There are laws that protect whistleblowers.

But he's not a true whistleblower. It's just what they've been calling him. And even if he was, there is no law that protects his anonymity.

In what way is he not a true whistleblower?

For one, a whistleblower has to be somebody that directly heard or read something and outed a person. This spy got second hand information. He's not a whistleblower.

Manifestly untrue.

 

[rightwinger]

No F'in wonder the Dimms want RINO Roberts' to have the final say on witnesses!

But too bad, it don't work dat'z way....

Roberts was one of Bush’s proudest achievements