Survivalist Forum banner

1 - 20 of 47 Posts
Joined
·
14,436 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Be prepared for fireworks this afternoon. It should be fun to watch.

As I understand from other media reports, the "whistleblower" is a registered Democrat with ties to a prominent Washington DC Democrat politician.

Justice Roberts blocks Sen. Paul from naming whistleblower, source says – and Paul may force the issue

Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts blocked Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul from posing a question during the Senate impeachment trial Wednesday that would have named the alleged whistleblower at the center of the case, Fox News is told — and Paul may try to force the issue during the question-and-answer session that begins Thursday afternoon.
 

·
Dog Lives Matter
Joined
·
6,453 Posts
That judge moderating this doesnt seem very partial.
It's Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. He has proven to be unreliable and inconsistent in the past. It may depend upon how he feels about Trump.

Whistleblowers have no right to anonymity. They are also supposed to have first-hand knowledge, which he admittedly does not have. For all we know, the whistleblower could be a figment of Schiff for Brain's imagination.

On top of that, Trump does have a right to face his accuser.

Rand Paul does have the right to reveal the whistleblower's identity. Whatever deal Schiff's team made with the whistleblower is irrelevant. The Senate made no such deal.

If they are going to have witnesses, the whistleblower needs to be one of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,183 Posts
the "whistleblower" is a registered Democrat with ties to a prominent Washington DC Democrat politician.
No doubt, everyone already knows that for sure;)

It's why they have secretly hidden the whistleblower from the beginning in this Hoax the democrats have been cooking up since day #1
 
Joined
·
14,436 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
It's Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. He has proven to be unreliable and inconsistent in the past. It may depend upon how he feels about Trump.

Whistleblowers have no right to anonymity. They are also supposed to have first-hand knowledge, which he admittedly does not have. For all we know, the whistleblower could be a figment of Schiff for Brain's imagination.

On top of that, Trump does have a right to face his accuser.

Rand Paul does have the right to reveal the whistleblower's identity. Whatever deal Schiff's team made with the whistleblower is irrelevant. The Senate made no such deal.

If they are going to have witnesses, the whistleblower needs to be one of them.
Paul has already revealed the identity of the "whistleblower," and his name is Eric Ciaramellia.

From Senator Paul's radio interview on WMAL, on 13 November 2019:
"I think [alleged Ukraine whistleblower] Eric Ciaramella needs to be pulled in for testimony... he is a person of interest in the sense that he was at the Ukraine desk when Joe Biden was there and Hunter Biden was working for Ukrainian oligarchs. Simply for that, I think he is a material witness and needs to be brought in, the other question is, while the whistleblower is protected from being fired or from retaliation in court proceedings, the whistleblower is not protected from being asked who gave him the information, because we can't have a country where the private contents of the president's phone calls are leaked to people who are not supposed to be in that loop...
The following link provides a bit more information upon this "whistleblowing" schmuck:

Whistleblower Was Overheard in '17 Discussing With Ally How to Remove Trump
 

·
Retired *****
Joined
·
18,270 Posts
Adam Schiff is a bold faced liar.

Justice Roberts is a crooked judge presiding over a kangaroo court. The Constitution is not worth the crumbling parchment it's written on.

Now what?

Do we need MORE evidence?
 

·
Bad Moon Rising
Joined
·
8,895 Posts
The very idea that the President of the US is not allowed to face his accusers in a public trial is an outrage! Long Live The Deep State - not!!
Imagine it happening to you.

You get told that a guy has accused you of treason.

The guy writes a letter which either is factual but the 'facts' are twisted to mean something different than was intended, or out of context to the point they imply things that didn't occur, or some other circumstance involving both fact and non-fact.

You are indignant and want to confront your accuser.

But you are prevented from confronting your accuser because the accuser can describe him/herself as a "whistleblower", and thereby hid behind anonymity.

They remain anonymous, while you are tried in the court of public MSM and cyber social media.

Wouldn't that twist the knife in the wound?

Not only have you been falsely accused, but you've been falsely accused anonymously -- and your enemies are steadfast in piously declaring that your accuser's anonymity be protected lest s/he be identified to their detriment.

What about YOUR detriment?

What about the fact that any American, from the President down to any of us on this forum, have a right to face our accusers in a court of law?

What is happening is a travesty of justice - and someone (like Rand Paul) deserves a chance to point this out to the Senate.

Its disgusting. This isn't a trial. It's a Kabuki-court designed to either overthrow a previous election, or fatally bias a future election.

And it's working.

If there are to be witnesses, the "whistle-blower" deserves to be foremost among them. If the whistle-blower cannot be allowed to testify, then no one should be able to testify.

Every American has the right to face their accusers in a court. Even Trump.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,502 Posts
President Trump screwed up by having people like him in the White House to begin with. He was well aware that all of the Dems and at least a quarter of the GOP wanted him gone. No one should have been in that White House that wasn't properly vetted. I wonder if Ciarmellia is still showing up to the White House every day. President Trump needs to get his house in order.
 

·
Rom 14:1, 13; Jam 4:11-12
Joined
·
20,271 Posts
Imagine it happening to you. You are indignant and want to confront your accuser.

But you are prevented from confronting your accuser because the accuser can describe him/herself as a "whistleblower", and thereby hid behind anonymity.
Whistleblowers do not have a legal right to anonymity. Special protections are a right of the accused.
 

·
Retired *****
Joined
·
18,270 Posts
The question Roberts would not allow

Senator Rand Paul: 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.

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.”

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.

See how this works?

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ment-trial-question-censored-by-john-roberts/
 

·
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Joined
·
9,614 Posts
President Trump screwed up by having people like him in the White House to begin with. He was well aware that all of the Dems and at least a quarter of the GOP wanted him gone. No one should have been in that White House that wasn't properly vetted. I wonder if Ciarmellia is still showing up to the White House every day. President Trump needs to get his house in order.
I think that when this is all said and done and Trump is found innocent that Ciarmella should face charges at the very least for perjury and actually should go on trial himself for treason for trying to overthrow a legitimate government office.
 

·
Super Moderator
Trash Remover
Joined
·
3,917 Posts
It seems to me (at least) the ROL is in dire jeopardy; Rights are totally ignored for some party folks ; appears they're made up out of thin air for other party folks.
 

·
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Joined
·
9,614 Posts
Be prepared for fireworks this afternoon. It should be fun to watch.

As I understand from other media reports, the "whistleblower" is a registered Democrat with ties to a prominent Washington DC Democrat politician.

Justice Roberts blocks Sen. Paul from naming whistleblower, source says – and Paul may force the issue
Mr. Sockpuppet, for the most part I agree with almost everything you say and believe. I do however disagree with you on the meaning of the 2A. But my point here is to say thank you for showing me that you are not the type of person I thought you were in the beginning. And thank yo for being a patriot. You are extremely smart and that is something patriots need. We need to be smart about things if we are ever to change the way things are back to what they were meant to be.
 

·
reluctant sinner
Joined
·
17,458 Posts
Don't forget Chief Jurktice Roberts is the POS that gave us Obozo care. Why is he covering for Ruth BS Gasbag - she is too feeble to do the job and should be forced to resign.

Less than supreme court is what we have now and for a good long while. They need to get their health care at the VA along with CONgress.

House - we ain't got time for witness or for Trump to address any of the BS charges. But we can wait a month to walk the paper over to to the senate and demand witnesses and other procedures not done in the other impeachments.
 

·
Retired *****
Joined
·
18,270 Posts
It seems to me (at least) the ROL is in dire jeopardy; Rights are totally ignored for some party folks ; appears they're made up out of thin air for other party folks.
Once Rule Of Law is dead, it's dead for all sides. Our side needs to realize that and stop playing by the left's rules.
 
Joined
·
14,436 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Mr. Sockpuppet, for the most part I agree with almost everything you say and believe. I do however disagree with you on the meaning of the 2A. But my point here is to say thank you for showing me that you are not the type of person I thought you were in the beginning. And thank yo for being a patriot. You are extremely smart and that is something patriots need. We need to be smart about things if we are ever to change the way things are back to what they were meant to be.
You're welcome, and thank you for your kind words.

With respect to our differing opinions of 2A, circa 230 year ago, there was significantly more of a propensity to execute a criminal for his or her serious crimes, rather than today's punishment of imprisonment and the removal of one's 2A rights for the same crimes.

The Framers also maintained a view of a "civil death" upon conviction of a felony, that removed one's ability to vote, serve on a jury, hold public office, etc. The only reason why a felony conviction didn't remove one's 2A rights, is because firearms were in fact a necessity of and for life, due to the lack of supermarkets for food, police for protection, and so on and so forth.

As such, the Framers correctly recognized that people are the reason, and not firearms, for criminal behaviors. Unfortunately, that view has largely disappeared today, and marginally necessary because the criminal justice system has been corrupted by leftist politicians and judges with respect to real punishment to serious crimes.
 
Joined
·
14,436 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Don't forget Chief Jurktice Roberts is the POS that gave us Obozo care. Why is he covering for Ruth BS Gasbag - she is too feeble to do the job and should be forced to resign.

Less than supreme court is what we have now and for a good long while. They need to get their health care at the VA along with CONgress.

House - we ain't got time for witness or for Trump to address any of the BS charges. But we can wait a month to walk the paper over to to the senate and demand witnesses and other procedures not done in the other impeachments.
The AHA was rightly recognized as a tax. Unfortunately, Congress has the sole authority to levy tax under the Constitution, and that was the basis for the law being upheld.

I don't like it, but agree with the logic of it.
 
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
Top