The fact that Senator Warren submitted this question, and the fact that Chief Justice Roberts read it unflinchingly, highlights how well and dutifully he executes his office, and how poorly and cynically she executes hers. https://t.co/mZJhmgf8nn— Adam White (@adamjwhitedc) January 30, 2020
ADDED: Here's a longer clip, showing Adam Schiff dealing with the question:
Watching the Chief Justice a second time, I was able to see a subtle expression of feeling. If an actor could do this I'd be impressed. There's a pause at the point where he sees the disrespect in the question (as he's saying "witnesses"). There's a determination to simply move through it. When he's done, he puts the paper down with a slight throwing motion. He continues to look down and his lips are tight and almost frowning.
Posts
101 comments:
Rand Paul's behavior was a lot worse:
RAND PAUL OUTS ALLEGED WHISTLEBLOWER TO SPITE JOHN ROBERTS
As Lamar Alexander has acknowledged, everything the whistle-blower said was true. No politician should be killing the messenger when it comes to government corruption.
Senator Warren, at long last, have you left no sense of decency?
The Dems cook up a misleading meme or talking point and the Fake News pushes it out. The meme is: What’s a trial without witnesses?
But a Senate impeachment trial is not a regular trial. Four of the Dem Senators are running for President and three were until recently. They are biased. They don’t want to run against Trump. The format is not the same. Jurors don’t ask questions for sixteen hours. Questions from a juror are rare. And the House Managers spoke of inadmissible evidence frequently and that would result in a mistrial. Also, no jury instructions.
If Only the Democrats were in Charge!
President Trump, and the 63 million people that voted for him; could All be enjoying
"free education" get "actually paid a living wage"... With "conjugal visits"
You know, "for, like, re-education."
Then we could ALL AGREE, that the democrats are our protectors, and DO WHAT THEY SAY!
Well, if anyone knows a thing or two about losing credibility, it's a fake Indian who lies about being fired because she was pregnant and about whether her kids attended private school.
Chief Justice Roberts is a Democrat Party stooge, and an enabler.
Another point: It was the duty of the House to develop the evidence in the House and not in the Senate.
Warren doesn't seem to realize that there is a difference between Shrewd and Shrew.
I am Laslo.
I love all the people who think the trial court should do the police investigation. That's what their arguments for witnesses and evidence comes down to.
At least he didn't laugh.
This week we got to compare two of Harvard's best known professors. From which one would you consider taking a course?
Warren finally proves that there is a worse natural politician than Hillary.
"As Lamar Alexander has acknowledged, everything the whistle-blower said was true.”
Yeah, this is just about a perfect outcome for Democrats. You get a weasel who is not running for re-election to stick the knife in. People can pretend that the Democrats proved their case, and you keep the trial from looking into the shit the Democrats definitely do not want looked into, such as the Eric Ciaramella’s involvement in soliciting election interference from Ukraine.
Just to be clear, Eric Ciarammella is shown in WH logs, as having met with the Ukrainian politician who provided dirt on Manafort from Ukrainian intelligence files. That’s a matter of fact.
Now they are not going to let Bolton’s book be published, so Vindman’s twin brother’s account of what was in it will stand as the historical record.
It’s really the best outcome Democrats could have wished.
Could someone clarify for me? I could have sworn that I was told she used to be on the faculty for Harvard Law? But that cannot be right because then she’d realize that Roberts presides over a court that does not call witnesses, and where only lawyers testify. Perhaps, as a retired Con Law professor, Althouse can tell s when was the last time a witness testified in front of the Supreme Court?
@Aunty Trump,
It ain't over yet.
Also Yavanovich “ordered” the Ukraine prosecutor not to charge this same politician, the one who leaked to the New York Times, under Ukrainian law, when what he did was clearly illegal.
And if you defense is that the Manafort stuff was true. Fine, the emails were all authentic too, and there was never even any proof that they came from Russia.
Warren is just out to prove that everything rhhardin says about women is correct.
dbp said...
Warren finally proves that there is a worse natural politician than Hillary.
I would say equally bad, at worst. Hillary was unusually bad and she had the advantage of having Bill on her team.
OTOH, some think it shows he’s a gutless wussie.
I don't understand how Roberts can decline to read Paul's question but "has to" read Warren's question. Can someone explain this?
Roberts got a look at what he crawled into bed with.
Pin a medal on the black robe.
He read a question without flipping out.
A trial usually has witnesses. The supreme court is not a trial court, but an appellate court. Any cases that get to the supreme court will have a developed factual record already.
I dunno, his look afterwards is like he just delivered a fart.
I'm starting to wonder if the reason for Nancy's month delay was to give time for people to maybe forget just how the Democrats ran the House investigation.
Lawyers don't "testify." They present argument based on a factual record. This is what happens at the supreme court.
Rhhardin might be a good engineer and dad to his dog, but his opinions about women are asinine.
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
Rand Paul's behavior was a lot worse:
RAND PAUL OUTS ALLEGED WHISTLEBLOWER TO SPITE JOHN ROBERTS
Seriously? You learned about Eric Ciaramella just now? From Rand Paul? I find that very hard to believe.
"Rhhardin might be a good engineer and dad to his dog, but his opinions about women are asinine.”
No. In fact they are not. How else do you explain Warren’s behavor? Is it just random that she is selfish at the core [I’m a Cherokee! Give me a job at Harvard!] and has little appreciation for the consequences of her actions when she ventures outside of the instinctive, and that her “scholarship” amounted to a mashup of motivated reasoning?
"I find that very hard to believe.”
He’s playing to the margins, figuring that at least one or two people will take his shit at face value.
Paul's question had nothing to do with what the President did. The Deep State's sedition isn't on trial.
I said "women," plural. Sure, attack that woman Warren all you want. I'm not defending her.
Rand was probably intentionally triggering the Streisand effect: now we are talking about Eric Ciaramella.
tim maguire said...
I find that very hard to believe.
I usually find straw men hard to believe. The headline quite clearly references a dispute between a senator and the Chief Justice - the topic of this post.
Eric Ciaramella killed Epstein. In for a penny, in for a pound I say.
There's a reason all the democrats want Roberts to take over the trial, if you will.
I saw endless arguments last night that went like "hey, we don't mind letting Roberts decide everything".
There's a reason for that, I just can't quite pin it down.
I'm sure they'd be taking the same position if that was Thomas presiding.
alanc709 had the best analogy (which has again made me wonder what it would be like to live in a world where we have a neutral honest Press that would put forth such cogent succinct points as this):
House Impeachment = Police Investigation
Senate Trial = DA prosecution
I love that analogy! While it is true that the DA office also has investigators once the actual trial starts only evidence ALREADY IN POSSESSION of the prosecution can be used, because that is fair to the defense, i.e. DUE PROCESS. Any “new” evidence that is material would be inadmissible unless a mistrial is declared and the process starts over.
"I said "women," plural. Sure, attack that woman Warren all you want. I'm not defending her.”
And Hillary, and Merkel, who was unable to appreciate that her actions would destabilize the EU. Those two together led directly to Brexit. I don’t know how old you are Ryan, but keep your eyes open. Listen to me now, hear me later.
"Eric Ciaramella killed Epstein. In for a penny, in for a pound I say.”
No, there are emails and WH logs, trials in Ukraine, etc, that prove that Ciaramella was involved in soliciting election interference. Nobody seems to know who paid the gang that runs that prison to kill Epstein.
Circling the drain, Liz is...
Rand Paul had the best question. He didn't read it.
So the Life Long Republican is now a campaign advisor to Liz warren? You can't mistake that subtle style and delicate wording.
Looks like the Pence coup is off, or is it? If as it now appears Bolton set this impeachment coup in motion, Bolton did get farther than Rosenstein with the 25th Amendment coup.
The only witness not heard from was the ICIG at the behest of Schiff, wasn't it?
I'd love to see the pictures or tapes the Dems have on Roberts. Otherwise, why would he deny the president the right to confront his accusers?
Like the Constitution says:
In the impeachment process, the people are represented by two separate, yet equally important, groups: the House, which investigates crime; and the Senators, who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories.
The Dems have been attempting to delegitimize in advance a second Trump term. Liawatha's question is an attempt to delegitimize Chief Justice Roberts and the entire the Supreme Court under a second Trump term. These people are pure scum.
This trial had witnesses.
17, er, 18 of them.
No Dem thinks it’s relevant they be called.
I'm getting confused. Just when I think the coup is winding down another Chekhov gun shows up.
The Dems have been attempting to delegitimize in advance a second Trump term. Liawatha's question is an attempt to delegitimize Chief Justice Roberts and the entire the Supreme Court under a second Trump term. These people are pure scum.
Yes. I believe that this impeachment sham was a trial run for the impeachment of 2022 when Trump is a lame duck.
Liz Warren claims that, if elected, she will have a mentally ill child vet at least one of her cabinet nominations. (0:40)
That is Progressive.
That creepy video was the first time I'd heard her speak, and I threw up in my mouth a little bit (just a little), sorry if you're reading that while eating breakfast but that's what you get for reading about people like Liz Warren while eating breakfast.
The Washington Redskin is desperate.
Roberts already knows that the people don’t like DC. Maybe he can ask Congress to move the Supreme Court to Wichita.
I am very disappointed at Roberts not reading Ron Paul’s question...
Following his "tax/penalty" re-write of the law, Roberts had zero credibility anyway.
So who cares if he's offended?
"Looks like the Pence coup is off, or is it?”
You tell us, it was all in your head to begin with. Or do you go someplace to read nonsense like that?
And yeah, it does look like Bolton started it. But I think that the Dems really shit their pants when it looked like Trump was going to look into Ukraine.
“Rand Paul's behavior was a lot worse”
Sure was.
“I don't understand how Roberts can decline to read Paul's question but "has to" read Warren's question. Can someone explain this?”
Because he respects the law that protects the whistleblower.
"Now they are not going to let Bolton’s book be published,"
Says who? I missed that.
The the identity of the WB was not revealed by Sen. Paul's question.
I agree with the re-Tweeter. An awful question from Warren. I pray that she doesn’t win anybody’s nomination.
Of course some of the most vicious and unfair defamation of the Chief Justice comes from the right. And it is regularly seen on these comments pages.
At last our gracious hostess was able to enjoy a moment of entertaining theater well acted as though it wasn't acting at all
Can you have a trial without a crime? When they cite the statue the President violated, they can have their trial. Otherwise, the Senate, like the House, can make up whatever process they want.
Unfortunately, the President didn't pressure Ukraine enough to look into the shady dealings of Joe and his boy. He should have never given the aid until we know what the boy was getting paid for (answer: influence of the VP). Who cares if Ukraine had to wait a few extra weeks for the welfare check I'm paying for. Kleptocrats in Ukraine had to wait a few days before they could skim off the top of the foreign aid and didn't get their new Mercedes and yacht when they expected. I'm supposed to care about that? Screw 'em.
Yeah, let's waist our money so Ukraine and not Russian can corrupt Crimea. Why does it matter to U.S. citizens who occupies Crimea? Did anyone feel threatened as the slept last night because of situation in Crimea? If you do, I can show you a dozen other border disputes around the world you can feel all scared about.
Almost none of it is our business or makes any difference to US citizens. How about we choose sides in the border dispute between Camaroon and Ambazonia. Let's go waste a few million on that and maybe throw in a few US Army deaths. From top to bottom, this whole thing is a fraud.
Impeaching the impeachment!!
How fucking stupid can Warren be??
I have casually looked but don’t understand which law provides for anonymity for the whistleblower. Seems like the law protects whistleblower from retribution. Searching the internet only provides conflicting viewpoints. I am not a lawyer.
I fail to grasp the wisdom of taking a tomahawk to a judge in the effort to lift a scalp. It defies reason to think for a second that a decision on any particular crucial case will not be influenced by sharp and painful memories of leftie abuse in the minds of folks like Kavanaugh, Thomas, and now Roberts.
Paybacks are always a mf’er.
- Krumhorn
Ps. Shrewd/Shrew......good ‘un, Laslo
Fortunately for Democrats, Warren has been scalping herself lately. She can't find her way to the happy hunting grounds fast enough.
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
Rand Paul's behavior was a lot worse:
RAND PAUL OUTS ALLEGED WHISTLEBLOWER TO SPITE JOHN ROBERTS
Hold on a ding-dang second... Are you telling us that Eric Ciarramella is the whistleblower? Who knew?
Tight lips and raised eyebrow at the end.
Since there is widespread censorship of the name Eric Ciaramello, everyone needs to replace his name with Nikolai Yezhov.
From one chief to another.
- Krumhorn
Because he respects the law that protects the whistleblower.
Can anyone cite that statute?
There is a competing interest that far outweighs the phony whistleblower claim. Can you guess what that is?
Hint: It is a centerpiece of American jurisprudence.
Give up? It is the right to face your accuser
These secret charges, secret accusers and secret Schiff basement hearings are an affront to democracy. They are completely totalitarian.
What's going on with the whistleblower? The Democrats desperately needed a hero to push their cause, someone like Oliver North or Christine Ford. And this was Eric Ciaramella's role to fill. I'm sure Mr. Ciaremella's twitter and facebook accounts were full of vile, vicious rage towards Trump (and his "trash supporters"), but that stuff has been erased!!! So why are the Dems hiding this guy? Is this guy a fruit or a left-wing zealot or what? We need to know what the heck is going on.
Also, I don't like the nonsense about White supremacists (or Putin!!!) killing Mr. Ciaramella. This man would get round the clock protection because his death would be a savage blow to Mr. Trump's campaign.
Because he respects the law that protects the whistleblower.
Then he should have read the question. The question doesn't even mention a whistleblower. It is two individuals in the Executive Branch.
By not reading the question and claiming it is to protect the whistleblower; you have identified that you know who the whistleblower is and that it is one of those two people. Please tell us how you protected the whistleblower and how do you know who the whistleblower is, since the law says the IG (member of the Executive Branch) can't tell you (member of the Supreme Court) or Congress who it is?
That ridiculous question by Warren should disqualify her as President. She's a rabid partisan.
Star Chamber Bullshit.
That ridiculous question by Warren should disqualify her as President.
She already disqualified herself by virtue of her shrill manner and pandering to the most inane leftists.
She will never be the nominee. There are not enough Inga's, ARMs and Lil' Chuckles in the party to get her to the nomination.
I was thinking about Ollie. It would have been more exciting if someone stuffed forbidden whistleblower papers down pants or in a bra.
Inga said...
“I don't understand how Roberts can decline to read Paul's question but "has to" read Warren's question. Can someone explain this?”
Because he respects the law that protects the whistleblower.
Please, cite for us the law that says a whistleblower is granted anonymity.
This is step 1. Step 2 is "ask the chief justice to recuse himself from any case in which Sen. Warren or other democrats are concerned, on the basis that the chief justice is biased because they insulted him."
Roberts got a look at what he crawled into bed with.
That's a good one, Aunty!
not that's why the summoned the good colonel, who wasn't actually a witness to anything,
"How...stupid can Warren be??"
I think she threw a Hail Mary to revive her flagging presidential campaign.
That look at the end was priceless. Was he looking directly at Warren?
Someone should ask Thin Lizzie if she can show us on this doll where the creepy clown touched her.
@h
That would imply that that Warren is crafty and intelligent. Facts not in evidence.
I love the irony. Warren's only path to the nomination is to take Biden out by the knee caps. What better way then to set in motion Hunter having to testify and (almost certainly) be forced to plead the fifth amendment. Just like Trump, she is wielding her power for her own personal political ambition. And Biden is in the cross hairs (again).
I'm looking through the farmhouse window trying to tell the difference between the farmers and the pigs.
I interpreted Roberts's expression as, "If this question wasn't so stupid I might be offended."
He continues to look down and his lips are tight and almost frowning.
Ain't no "almost" about that expression.
So many stupid, ill-informed, illogical people commenting on that twitter thread. SMH.
Here is another dumbfuck comment from ARM:
"RAND PAUL OUTS ALLEGED WHISTLEBLOWER TO SPITE JOHN ROBERTS"
No, you dumbfuck- Roberts outed the whistleblower as DumbSchiff had already done in the House inquiry- by censoring the name ERIC CIARMELLA, they confirmed the identity themselves. To not understand this, or to actively lie when you know it is true makes you a dumbfuck, ARM.
The only way to "conceal" the identity from Schiff's and Roberts point of view is to allow the question to be read without edit. Of course, this all beside the fucking point- everyone already knows the identity except for clueless dumbfucks like you.
Inga said...
“I don't understand how Roberts can decline to read Paul's question but "has to" read Warren's question. Can someone explain this?”
Because he respects the law that protects the whistleblower.
Inga loves secret courts and prosecutions without crimes or accusers.
She loves to cite laws that don't exist.
Becuase she is a stalinist.
Have you apologized to Steven Scalise, General Flynn, Carter Page, or Justice Kavanaugh yet you piece of shit?
The people complaining that there were no witnesses simply don't understand the proceeding they've been watching. All of the testimony gathered in the House hearings is in the record of the Senate trial, by agreement. That witness testimony is in evidence exactly as if it had been given live in Senate chamber. That's why both sides' managers, during their presentations, were able to put up video clips of folks testifying.
To claim there were "no witnesses" in the Senate trial because nobody testified live in the Senate chamber is ludicrous. If the testimony that only came in via videotape/transcripts doesn't count because it didn't come from "witnesses," then the Dems literally failed to present ANY evidence at trial. You can't have it both ways. You can't say there were no witnesses unless you're prepared to concede the Dems failed to introduce any evidence in support of the articles of impeachment.
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
Rand Paul's behavior was a lot worse:
RAND PAUL OUTS ALLEGED WHISTLEBLOWER TO SPITE JOHN ROBERTS
As Lamar Alexander has acknowledged, everything the whistle-blower said was true.
Bullsh!t.
If what he said was true, the Trump transcript would have sound't like Schiff's claims. it didn't.
As it is, i really hope Roberts felt totally humiliated by the question, because his BS about Rand Paul's utterly legitimate question means Roberts deserves to be crushed and humiliated.
What a pathetic little suckup.
Here's the question, it's entirely legitimate:
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.
Don't many trials not have witness statements especially if no claim or standing or harm is found?
Does this affect your opinion of Warren as a legal thinker or professor?
Yancey
A rare occasion where I think you are wrong. ARM is not dumb, he is lying. This is the latest lie du jour.
He's not looking down. He is staring at Warren.
You guys need to grow a pair. Quoting a magazine article is not lying. It is a source of information. You may not agree with that source but argue the facts don't rely on childish name calling.
You are one who needs to grow a pair ARM. When called out you say “I was just quoting”.
Browndog 9:55
Bravo for the disappearing commissar reference.
You are not 'calling' anyone out, You have no authority to do so. You are reacting emotionally with name calling. You should not be threatened by a variety of new sources and have the ability to argue the facts.
I’d say Roberts is the most political of all of them. He reads Paul’s question silently and declines, but doesn’t do the same with Warren’s? C’mon. He knew exactly what he was doing and I’d say he is his own best actor. He’s fooled a lot of people and apparently keeps doing it. Bravo CJ!
Post a Comment