Chief Justice John Roberts isn’t merely a disappointment. He is part of the cabalist infrastructure.
Roberts, who is presiding over President Trump’s Senate impeachment trial, has rejected questions from Sen. Rand Paul on a few occasions and gone to the Democrats and asked theirs. Paul let it be known he wanted to know about the whistleblower and if that individual would ever be called as a witness, but Roberts has decided to shelve that opportunity.
Why do you think Justice Roberts denies the president the opportunity to confront his accuser? Why does he deny the Senator’s right to freedom of speech? There is no legal nor constitutional guarantee or even offer of anonymity for a whistleblower. There is no credible fear of death or physical harm; after all, he did not blow the whistle on a Clinton.
Beginning but not ending with his handling of the FISA court and the appointments thereto, the next impeachment should be his. Justice Roberts’ behavior saddens me, but not surprised. He has been suspect since the Obamacare trial.
None of this corruption in Washington would ever have seen the light of day if it were not for Donald Trump. The exposure of the fraud and treasonous behavior within the government itself and the complicit media will make him the single most important person in American history if the country is to go forward as it was founded.
There are some things we need to keep in mind?
First, Chief Justice Roberts is the reason Obamacare initially survived in the Supreme Court when during the eleventh hour and 59th minute, he switched sides. It was so late in the process that Justice Ginsburg’s concurring opinion ends with the following words: “I respectfully dissent.” The only problem is that when you file a concurring opinion, you are not dissenting. What happened? Justice Ginsburg wrote her opinion when she thought she would be in a 5-4 minority.
Second, in my opinion, there is absolutely no legal basis for Chief Justice Roberts to refuse Paul’s question. The question is far more relevant than other questions that have been posited by the Chief Justice. Also, there was nothing in the question that identified the whistleblower as Eric Ciaramella or any other person.
Third, even if somebody wants to argue that the question “outs” the whistleblower, that is not a basis for Chief Justice Roberts to not read the question. Nowhere in the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended (“ICWPA”), which amended the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 and the Inspector General Act of 1978, is anonymity even mentioned. On October 10, 2012, President Barack Obama issued Presidential Policy Directive 19, which provided specific whistleblower protections. Nothing in this directive provided anonymity for an intelligence community whistleblower; the directive prohibited retaliation against a whistleblower.
The Inspector General Act of 1978 prohibits the inspector general from releasing the name of a complainant, but this applies to no one else. Under the statutory framework, whistleblowers are granted certain rights against retaliation or reprisal in the workplace. In other words, they cannot be demoted, transferred, fired, or otherwise penalized for filing a complaint that meets the statutory whistleblower requirements. However, identity protection is neither provided for nor contemplated, anywhere in the statutory language.
Senator Paul should submit another question about Ciaramella, and when Roberts refuses to read it, object, and demand a count of Senators willing to overrule Roberts. It’s time to find out how many Senators believe that the accused has the right to face his accuser!
Sections 7(B) of the Inspector General Act of 1978 “provides for the identity of an employee making a complaint, such as a whistleblower, to remain undisclosed to the extent practicable: “The Inspector General shall not, after receipt of a complaint or information from an employee, disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the Inspector General determines such disclosure is unavoidable during the investigation,” according to FactCheck.org.
Since Senator Paul is not the Inspector General (and neither am I), he is not precluded (and neither am I) from releasing the name of Ciaramella as the whistleblower.
More Stories From WayneDupree.com
Hillary Clinton made one of her more deplorable comments this past weekend, comparing former President…
Democrat fears of losing an even larger segment of the Hispanic and Latino voting bloc…
Minneapolis, the home of the "defund the police" movement following the murder of George Floyd…
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is back in the news again with allegations of thuggery…
By Dr. Derek Ellerman It's become cliche at this point, but modern American leftism appears…
Since President Joe Biden's fire and brimstone speech in Pennsylvania, where he claimed "MAGA Republicans"…