Image 01 Image 03

Roberts Rejects Rand Paul’s Question Again Since it Supposedly Names the Whistleblower

Roberts Rejects Rand Paul’s Question Again Since it Supposedly Names the Whistleblower

So do people know the whistleblower’s identification? If not then let Paul ask his question.

Chief Justice John Roberts once again rejected a question from Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) since it supposedly names the impeachment whistleblower…even though supposedly NOBODY knows the identification of the whistleblower.

He asked: “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.”

OK I thought C-SPAN deleted the tweet, but now I can’t see the video. Is anyone else having problems? Maybe it’s getting overloaded.

Here is Roberts rejecting the question.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


No surprise, weasel John Roberts is making up NEW LAWS! So typical of the deep state.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to rdmdawg. | January 30, 2020 at 3:27 pm

    Get a load of this.

    BREAKING: Chief Justice Roberts Censors Questions From Rand Paul. Paul Releases It.


    Replying to

    So Chief Justice Roberts knows who the whistleblower is?

    Chris Cote

    Exactly! He didn’t say whistle blower in his question.


    Halcyon Daze in reply to rdmdawg. | January 30, 2020 at 4:44 pm

    Anyone still think Roberts is not a Democrat employee?

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Halcyon Daze. | January 30, 2020 at 4:49 pm

      Was thinking more yesterday – after posting how the Democrat blog sites had lots of people (DEM/Deep State Trolls?) posting that Roberts was probably gay or bi – when he was up for nomination….

      Why would the DEM/Deep State Troll that unless he was a “Known Quantity” to DEM/Deep State? They must have been doing that to less opo and ensure their Blackmailed Supreme was erected dishonestly….

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to rdmdawg. | January 30, 2020 at 8:43 pm

    Rand Paul’s response……

    Senator Paul Compares Strzok and Page FBI Plot to Misko and Ciaramella NSC Plot – by sundance (Video of Rand Paul’s press conference about this included in linked article.)

    “After having his question denied by Chief Justice John Roberts, Senator Rand Paul held a brief press conference to discuss the reason and intent behind his question. Senator Paul wants to know if Eric Ciaramella and Sean Misko coordinated a plot to construct an impeachment issue from within the National Security Council.

    CIA operative Ciaramella and current HPSCI staff member Sean Misko were on the National Security Council (NSC) together. Currently back in the CIA, Mr. Eric Ciaramella has been identified as the “whistleblower.”

Funny how “no one” knows who the non-Whistle Blower Whistle Blower is, yet they see his name, or have a question which goes to who Lt. Col. Vindman leaked classified information to illegally, and it gets shut down.
How can Roberts know the name if it is so well protected?
I’m sorry, but I am disgusted with treating this CIA plant who had information given to him which was illegally done through Vindman, being treated as if he is a real whistle blower whose name can never be mentioned.
The CIA plant, a Brennan disciple, a man who worked with Biden’s campaign, a man who had nothing but hearsay, yet works with Schiff’s office to craft a report should be outed for the seditionist he is.
Roberts as usual is acting the corrupt POS he usually portrays. He needs to be investigated and impeached once the blackmail cause and source are found.

I am repeating a comment that I made in a prior thread – irrespective of being pro or anti impeachment – I dont think the Chief Justice has the power to make any ruling. He may not even have the power to make the Senate follow their own rules.

“Just an observation – Roberts seems to be wielding far more power than section 6 provides.
All he is allowed to do is preside, not to make rulings of any sort. Apparantly he has exercised the authority to keep the whistler blowers name secret. I doubt that he has such a power.

“Article 1 section 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.””

    rdmdawg in reply to Joe-dallas. | January 30, 2020 at 3:48 pm

    I wonder to what authority he would appeal to in order to justify this ruling? I’m not a lawyer, but it sounds like this guy is actually weaker on legal issues than I am.

    Milhouse in reply to Joe-dallas. | January 30, 2020 at 4:25 pm

    All he is allowed to do is preside, not to make rulings of any sort.

    That is what presiding means.

    I doubt that he has such a power.

    Like the chairman of any meeting, he has that power unless a majority of the meeting overrules him.

      txvet2 in reply to Milhouse. | January 30, 2020 at 4:37 pm

      I seem to remember reading earlier in this process that the Senate could overrule him by a 51 vote majority, but I haven’t seen that mentioned lately.

        Milhouse in reply to txvet2. | January 30, 2020 at 7:40 pm

        It doesn’t have to be mentioned all the time; it goes without saying. 51 senators can vote for whatever they like. The only thing they can’t do is replace him as chairman, but they can overrule every ruling he makes.

I applaud Rand Paul for what he is doing. Regarding the Clinton impeachment, Chief Justice Rehnquist said famously, “I did nothing in particular, and I did it very well.”

Sadly, one cannot say the same thing about Chief Justice Roberts doing nothing and doing it well. First, he admonished both sides about using language that is not conducive to civil discourse, referring foolishly to “the world’s greatest deliberative body.” Are you kidding me? Are you watching the lies spewing out of Shiff’s mouth in front of the world’s greatest deliberative body?

Then he intervenes regarding Rand Paul’s questions regarding the whistleblower (who just may be corrupt as well).

I CANNOT believe that those clowns in the Senate Chamber let him get away with both interventions. If the Senate doesn’t like the tonality of the rhetoric, make a motion, pass it, and move on based on the vote.

If the Senate votes NOT to talk about the whistleblower, then so be it. But the Chief Justice has no right to premept the will of the Senate and interject his view of the thing.

Roberts surely hasn’t paid one iota of attention to Rehnquist; no surprise there.

What I find so amazing about all this is that Roberts unilaterally interferes with the trial—in areas where he has no right to intervene—yet has been sound of crickets with regard to the corruption in the FISA Court. Hey boys and girls, the FISA Court’s judges are appointed solely by the Chief Justice of the United States without confirmation or oversight by the U.S. Congress.

Hey Justice Roberts! Don’t be a weasel; stay in your lane.

That is all.

Rand’s next question should be:

Rumor has it that you, Justice Roberts, participated in an illegal adoption of your children, and that you are being blackmailed. Who blackmailed you, and when were you blackmailed?

And Chief Justice John “ObamaCare” Roberts says that there are no “Obama’ Judges.

Subotai Bahadur | January 30, 2020 at 4:04 pm

If the “whistleblower” is openly named [Eric Ciaramella] and it become unavoidable for his contacts to be traced, then the fraudulent nature of the impeachment cannot be avoided, nor the conspirators remain unnamed. Roberts is under the control of the Left and he will do anything to avoid the truth coming out. Something to never forget.

Subotai Bahadur

“I wonder to what authority he would appeal to in order to justify this ruling? ”



Decisions of the Chair are subject to appeal by any
Senator. Note the following portion of Rule VII:
And the Presiding Officer on the trial may rule on
all questions of evidence including, but not limited
to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy
of evidence and incidental questions, which ruling
shall stand as the judgment of the Senate, unless some
member of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be
taken thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to
the Senate for decision without debate; or he may at
his option, in the first instance, submit any such
question to a vote of the members of the Senate. Upon
all such questions the vote shall be taken in
accordance with the Standing Rules of the Senate.
Only a Senator may appeal a decision of the Presiding

I think Dr Jacobsen has made the observation before that in matters important to the DC establishment Roberts will side with them. The swamp is deep and it’s roots reach into every level of the government, even the SCOTUS.

Have people forgotten Schiff published the name Eric Ciaramella last November in a transcript – rather – neglected to redact his name?

And so to the battle cry “we must protect the identity of the whistle blower” Schiff & co. re-redacted the transcript which apparently we’re all just supposed to forget and/or play dumb? Are we expected to unsee that?

Seems to me like Rand Paul (et al) could point to that transcript and the unredacted name … and if shushed again claim “I didn’t get the memo” …

The reasonable conclusion is the answer to the question is embarrassing to Schiff.

Censorship is information.

So we now have a secret accuser involved in the most severe, important political process (impeachment) contained in our Constitution. First we get one-sided, secret testimony. Then fake articles of impeachment. One “witness” transcript remains hidden. Now the head of the FISC makes an actual ruling in a case in which his FISC was at the very least tangentially involved (FISA warrants to spy on PDJT’s campaign and administration). This is beyond farce. It’s a tragedy, an absolute schiff-show of epic proportions.

    Milhouse in reply to CKYoung. | January 30, 2020 at 7:43 pm

    Um, Roberts is not head of the FISC.

      CKYoung in reply to Milhouse. | January 30, 2020 at 10:14 pm

      I’ll type this very slowly so you can follow along. Chief Justice john roberts hand picked every single judge currently on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, including rudy contreras. You remember rudy and his good buddies peter strzok and lisa page, right? The same rudy contreras who got yanked off the General Flynn case. I was imprecise with my language, my apologies. CJ roberts is not the “Presiding Judge” of the FISC, but the guy puts it together by hand picking and appointing every judge on the court.

    Q-Ship in reply to CKYoung. | January 31, 2020 at 12:20 pm

    I guess my understanding of a “whistleblower” seems different than most commenters here. Isn’t the whole idea of a whistleblower is they ARE AND SHOULD REMAIN anonymous? If Justice Roberts where to be a part of “outing” the alleged whistleblower, isn’t that illegal (and also a bit risky, since Rand Paul is not certain the whistleblower is who he thinks it is, in which case he is putting that person in possible danger)

    This impeachment doesn’t actually hinge on any evidence the whistleblower brought forth, which is usually the case, right? The whistleblower’s “job” is to get attention aka blow a whistle and wave arms and point at something and say ‘hey look at this, something is rotten here’. Then investigators can start asking questions.

    I just don’t understand the angst towards this whistleblower? If the government starts systematically outing whistleblowers guess what? No one is going to out any wrong doings by our government, is that what people want? How are we ever going to get to the bottom of the “deep state” if now one from the inside is willing to call it out?

Permitting a question about the individual who started this whole sham is clearly too taxing to Julia Roberts, even though Schiff would refuse to answer on the basis that revealing his staffing and their connection to getting rid of President Trump and the Burisma scandal would subject them to the vaunted Republican ANTIFA hit squad. RUFKM?

NPR propagandists talked about this story for ten minutes yet never read the unabridged version of Sen. Paul’s question.

Roberts must not know that the millions of readers of the New York Post know the whistleblower’s name, thanks to the New York Post editorial board, which twice identified Ciaramella by name as the whistleblower in December 2019:

I wasn’t aware that the Senate had voted to conceal the name of this individual. House rules are non-existent in the Senate. Roberts is pulling rulings out of his ass.

After finding the right of the government to fine individuals for not purchasing products they don’t want, Roberts’ has discovered the 6th amendment does not apply to the president.

    Milhouse in reply to ghost dog. | February 2, 2020 at 1:59 am

    You are a liar. Roberts found that the government has no right to fine individuals for not purchasing products they don’t want. As a result, that principle is now established law.

“It doesn’t have to be mentioned all the time; it goes without saying. 51 senators can vote for whatever they like. ”
That’s my understanding from reading (Judge) Nixon v. United States. Senate can make whatever rules they want and there is no judicial review. Only exception would be what is listed in Constitution, ie. 2/3 vote for conviction, maximum penalty after conviction. IIRC, Senate decided that penalty should be imposed by majority vote rather than 2/3, in 1937.

AuburnGirl on twitter suggested since no one knows who the whistle blower is then Trump can fire eric ciaramella and can’t be accused of anything nefarious. After all, no one knows who the whistle blower is…Right? lol.

John Roberts is actually outing the fact that Ciaramella is the whistleblower by his action here.

Paul’s question makes no mention of it, and has multiple legitimate reasons for naming Ciaramella without even getting into a suspicion that he was the whistleblower.

Roberts sole reason for blocking the question can only be that he is protecting the whistleblower. So, he’s actually outing him as the whistleblower.

And, of course, Roberts is dead wrong to be doing this: there’s precisely one statute that could conceivably shield his name, and it only prohibits the IG from naming him. No one else is limited in any way.

And, of course, Schiff already outed him – more than once. First, the NY Times published details on him (without naming him) that could only have come from Schiff or his staffers – who the “whistleblower” contacted to start this coup. Real Clear Politics then took that information and narrowed down the person it could possibly be to just one guy: Ciaramella. Then, Schiff actually names Ciaramella in a published transcript from his impeachment inquiry. One presumes it was an oversight and Schiff would have wanted the name redacted – but there it is for all the world to see.

    Q-Ship in reply to Aarradin. | January 31, 2020 at 12:33 pm

    I don’t think that is necessarily true. If Justice Roberts does not know for certain who the Whistleblower is. Reading the name of some one who may or may not be the actual whistleblower could put Justice Roberts in some legal jeopardy, right?

    Even President Trump has refrained from “outing” the whistleblower. Certainly he must know. Does that make him part of the Deep State as well?

      Milhouse in reply to Q-Ship. | February 2, 2020 at 2:00 am

      Reading the name of some one who may or may not be the actual whistleblower could put Justice Roberts in some legal jeopardy, right?

      No, it could not.

Rand Paul’s question names him as a conspirator, but doesn’t say he is the whistleblower, even though everyone who isn’t willfully ignorant knows or should know that he is the gossiper of 2nd hand information that is now called a whistleblower, because some bureaucrat expanded the definition to allow heresay information.