My Authors
Read all threads
Several people have DM's me this article over the past few days. Some just pointing it out some asking for an opinion. I've kinda stayed away from it because it's an ongoing thing, but I'll give an opinion and leave it at that.…
First off full disclosure I have a slight bias against Supreme Court Chief justice John Roberts because of some his rulings and mainly because of his total lack of action during this whole FISA fiasco, in the light of what is known publicly.
IMHO he should have called for a moratorium of the FISC and a full blown audit over the FISC and not just the sectional audit that was done by Judge Rosemary Collyer where she looked into NSA access abuses and illegal surveillance.
A full moratorium and a select non congressional third party committee should have gone through the FISC stem to stern. Something similar to the Warren Commission to look hard at the rubber stamping that's been going on in the FISC.
That being said let's look at this American thinker article and the premise that Robert will have to recuse himself. I will make as objective look at it as I can, regardless of my personal contempt of Roberts himself.
In this American thinker article he asks..........

" Mr. Chief Justice, what did you do about the fraud on your Court?"............

I think I addressed that pretty well already in my first few tweets.
Now for the legal argument. Ed Timperlake in this piece is calling for Roberts to recuse himself pretty much solely based on the fact that Fiona Hill in her testimony where she mentions her relationship with Christopher Steele.
She testifies about her opinion of the dossier, and explains how she was first exposed to it before it became public.
Timperlake lays the claim that this makes John Roberts a fact witness, simply because she talked about the dossier, then Timperlake makes the giant leap to tie it to Roberts because the dossier was used in the FISC that Roberts oversees. That's a huge leap legally.
Now here's my reasoning to reject that leap and I will try to explain why. First off, Donald Trump isn't being impeached for anything to do with the so called Steele Dossier or Christopher Steele in any way, none whatsoever.
Not having yet seen the actual Articles of Impeachment, it's tough to be exact, but I'm guessing Steele or the dossier isn't in any of them.
I'm pretty confident of that assumption, but can't be 100% certain until the Articles are handed down, but I'll go on the belief that I'm 95% sure of it.
So here's the bridge to nowhere IMHO Timperlake is trying to crossover to tie Roberts to being a fact witness, in the impeachment proceedings.
Fiona Hill just mentioning Steele and his work product during the hearing, totally unrelated to the actual hearing, she was just trying to justify her opening statement against the minority members narrative that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election.
In fact Hill misrepresented what the minority members were actually saying when it came to the Russians vs the Ukrainians involvement, and Mike Turner along with Nunes set the record straight on her claims that the minority though Ukraine "instead" of Russia interfered.
Their view wasn't "instead" it was "as well as" maybe even more countries like China, Estonia, etc. Bottom line it wasn't just Russia.
So back to the Timperlake claim. So based on Fiona Hill mentioning Steele by name and his work product during this hearing on impeachment, that has nothing to do with Steele, is frivolous in making John Roberts a "fact witness" in the Senate Trial if it comes to be.
It's just as frivolous as the left screaming Barr is a fact witness in the phone call because his name is mentioned on the call. It's just a crazy leap of faith that you cannot justify legally.
If Roberts has conflict, then so does Barr, it just doesn't fly, especially regarding Rule 2.11.
Honestly the argument that the so called "salacious document" was raised in the hearing is as big a reach as if Hill would have raised and issue with Chevy Trucks and because Roberts drove a Chevy he's in conflict.
Here's another thing, as of to date, there has yet to be a legal proceeding regarding the Steele Dossier in any US Court, challenging its use in the FISC application for a Title 1 warrant to spy on Carter Page, not yet anyway.
Even then it's not before the Supreme Court and won't be if ever for a long time. So where is the conflict there? There is no conflict and John Roberts won't ever be a fact witness in any proceeding about the Steele work product regardless.
As I said before my contempt for Roberts lack of response to possible fraud going on in the FISC and or their common rubberstamp practices have no bearing legally.
Most of the republicans I know despise Roberts for various reasons, but that holds no water n a court or legal proceeding.
So IMHO the rest of the argument in the Timperlake article is a moot point as far as who replaces Roberts and the delays of getting the new appointed Chief confirmed and so on and so forth.
I just do not see the legal conflict based on a statement made by Fiona Hill in unrelated content.
It's just my opinion and it won't get you a cup of coffee and the local Waffle House.
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh.

Enjoying this thread?

Keep Current with Roscoe B Davis🎖⭐️⭐️⭐️

Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!