Rand Paul is aware of the genesis of the sham impeachment effort and he’s intent on making sure everyone else knows, as well.
The still unidentified “whistleblower,” former Obama NSC member Shawn Misko now working with the House impeachment team, and the lead impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff (Marxist-CA) are, according to Rand Paul and other investigators working to defend President Trump, three key conspirators in the genesis of the charges against the president.
(Breitbart) Supreme Court Justice John Roberts on Wednesday blocked an attempt by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) to pose questions regarding the so-called “whistleblower” — the individual who sparked the House Democrats’ partisan impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump — according to reports.
Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-SD) spoke for other RINO’s when he backed the Chief Justice’s play even though neither offered any legal basis for maintaining the anonymity of the so-called “whistleblower.
CNN, the New York Times, National Public Radio (NPR), and Reuters have all admitted that there is no law prohibiting President Donald Trump, or members of Congress, from disclosing the name of the “whistleblower” who sparked the impeachment inquiry.
Rep. Jackie Speier (Marxist-CA) read a passage from the Washington Post in response to a question about any laws written to protect whistleblowers. Only the ICIG is barred, under law, from revealing the identity of the whistleblower:
“That appears to be the lone statutory restriction on disclosing a whistleblower’s identity, applicable only to the inspector general’s office. We found no court rulings on whether whistleblowers have a right to anonymity under the ICWPA or related statutes.”
The ICIG? He is Michael Atkinson, the 18th witness in the secretive House inquiry hearings whose testimony has been blocked by Schiff. This is the same ICIG who changed the whistleblower complaint form to allow for second and third hand testimony that would be inadmissible in court.
But Chief Justice Roberts somehow thinks the whistleblower has a right to accuse the POTUS, send the U.S. government into a frenzy, and walk away without testifying or even being identified.
How deep does this conspiracy run?
Then there’s this troublesome law that the Chief Justice somehow managed to sidestep:
After having his question shut down by Roberts last night, Senator Paul became more determined than ever to get the truth out to the general public and came back with this question today.
Roberts, again shutdown Rand Paul’s inquiry, refusing to read his question.
WHY??? Here’s what is already known but banned from being discussed on social media… and apparently at the trial of President Donald Trump.
(Sharyl Attkisson via Real Clear Investigations) Barely two weeks after Donald Trump took office, Eric Ciaramella – the CIA analyst whose name was recently linked in a tweet by the president and mentioned by lawmakers as the anonymous “whistleblower” who touched off Trump’s impeachment – was overheard in the White House discussing with another staffer how to remove the newly elected president from office, according to former colleagues.
Sources told RealClearInvestigations the staffer with whom Ciaramella was speaking was Sean Misko. Both were Obama administration holdovers working in the Trump White House on foreign policy and national security issues. And both expressed anger over Trump’s new “America First” foreign policy, a sea change from President Obama’s approach to international affairs.
“Just days after he was sworn in they were already talking about trying to get rid of him,” said a White House colleague who overheard their conversation.
Misko left the White House last summer to join House impeachment manager Adam Schiff’s committee, where sources say he offered “guidance” to the whistleblower, who has been officially identified only as an intelligence officer in a complaint against Trump filed under whistleblower laws. Misko then helped run the impeachment inquiry based on that complaint as a top investigator for congressional Democrats.
Why did Chief Justice Roberts, for the second time in two days, think it violative of the search for truth to ask;
“…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?
Considering how Democrat impeachment managers have been allowed to explore President Trump’s potential motives, why does Roberts think it lacking judicial merit to ask the same questions about the president’s accusers?
I’ve always wondered about Roberts’ compromise ever since his twisted Obamacare ruling. Now that question resurfaces.
The lawyer, reputed to represent the “whistleblower,” Mark Zaid tweeted this 10 days after Trump’s inauguration:
It may be time to put Roberts under oath and ask him why he’s putting his thumb on the scales of justice.
How deep does this conspiracy run?