Elizabeth Warren Brilliantly Trolls Chief Justice Roberts

dublinbay z6 (KS)

Wow--I missed this moment of the TV coverage. Knowing how sensitive Justice Roberts is about his high court legacy, we might indeed wonder what his thoughts are.


------------------------

"While other senators were throwing questions at the opponents, Warren decided to ask whether the chief justice has hurt the credibility of the Supreme Court by participating in a trial with no witnesses or evidence.

Per the rules of the Senate trial, Roberts had to read Warren’s question out loud:
“At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court and the Constitution?”

As one Twitter user noted, the look on his face after he read it was priceless.

[. . .]

Many Twitter users were impressed that the Massachusetts senator went there, though some joked that it could have consequences.

Others thought the question was very savvy on Warren’s part since Roberts takes the image of the Supreme Court very seriously.

Ron Waxman@RonWaxman

It was a terrific question by Elizabeth Warren. Maybe it will serve to make Chief Justice Roberts think if the vote for witnesses is 50-50."


https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/elizabeth-warren-chief-justice-roberts-impeachment-004352025.html

---------------------------


Just heard on TV that Murkowski decided to vote against hearing witnesses.

I really don't think the Supreme Court Justice will "rescue" the vote.

Kate

SaveComment54Like3
Comments (54)
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
paprikash

Rude

10 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chipotle

A very legitimate question. Will he, should he, lose credibility for presiding over a trial without witnesses or evidence?

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Del Phinium

Adam Schiff and Co. are the ones who should, will, and DID lose credibility when they showed up to class, in a big hurry, with only half of their homework done, then asked the teacher to finish it and grade it for them, lol

11 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

For me, it all comes down to a trial without witnesses or evidence--because of Repub. objections.

Kate

11 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chipotle

For me it all comes down to a cover-up. And now it looks like the president's own counsel is guilty of same.

15 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (stillmissesSophie,chase,others)(8a)

paprikash

9 minutes ago

Rude

———

So?

I thought “uncouth straight shooter who tells it like it is with no holds barred” is to be admired now.

Roberts is no “snowflake,” he’ll be just fine.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
numbersjunkie


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
foodonastump

Holy carp I “liked” a paprikash post. I’ll add disrespectful.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Del Phinium

For the record, "Cover up" is going to be the hot new buzzword/talking point/"I automatically win the debate" phrase/excuse for the Left for next year or two, just like "collusion" was a year or two ago.

We'd better try to get used to it now, lol

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
foodonastump

Wow, NJ, talk about a stunt backfiring. Actually referenced it in her decision.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
numbersjunkie

Warren is disrespectful? LOL. Maybe, but she's got nothing on Trump. Or on many of those here who continuously post meme's degrading our Congressional leaders. Its the new normal.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

It was a terrific question by Elizabeth Warren. Maybe it will serve to make Chief Justice Roberts think if the vote for witnesses is 50-50."

She'd better hope it doesn't. What a thing to say.

ETA: Kate, you do realize that your OP title is an oxymoron?

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

numbersjunkie

Warren is disrespectful? LOL. Maybe, but she's got nothing on Trump

So Trump is your new standard for honorable behavior. Interesting.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
bleusblue2

numbersjunkie

Warren is disrespectful? LOL. Maybe, but she's got nothing on Trump. Or on many of those here who continuously post meme's degrading our Congressional leaders. Its the new normal.

~~~~\

"disrespectful" is the President of the United States giving ugly nicknames to the Representatives of the People, including the Speaker of the house.

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
foodonastump

Absolutely, bleusblue, there isn’t an ounce of respect in Trump but that has nothing to do with this topic.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

Here's rude -- Cipollone, witness to discussions on Trump's pressure campaign, defending the extortionist-in-chief.

Some big onion there.

*

EXCLUSIVE: Bolton book contains new, earlier, allegation of Trump's involvement in pressure campaign. Trump asked Bolton to call Zelensky to ensure he would meet w/Giuliani. Cipollone and Mulvaney were in room. w/@maggieNYT

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/31/us/politics/trump-bolton-ukraine.html

*

https://www.justsecurity.org/68264/impeachment-trial-and-legal-ethics-pat-cipollone-should-be-a-witness-not-a-trump-lawyer/

Pat A. Cipollone, White House Counsel, participated in the events leading up to the impeachment of Donald J. Trump. That makes him a witness, whom the House managers might want to call to testify. But Cipollone is also heading the Trump defense. A legal ethics rule – the “advocate-witness rule” — says that when a lawyer should be a witness at trial, she cannot also be an advocate in the courtroom. The Senate chamber is not, of course, an ordinary courtroom, but that should make no difference. The goal is the same – to get the facts and find the truth.

Citing the advocate-witness rule and abundant legal authority, the House managers wrote to Cipollone on January 21 demanding that “at a minimum, you must disclose all facts and information as to which you have first-hand knowledge that will be at issue in connection with evidence you present or arguments you make in your role as the President’s legal advocate so that the Senate and Chief Justice can be apprised of any potential ethical issues, conflicts, or biases.” The House managers are right.

The advocate-witness rule tells us that it is more important for a lawyer with first-hand information about the events on trial to testify than to work as an advocate. That will mean that a client will not be able to get the lawyer he wants to represent him in court. But when the client’s interests and the court’s interest clash in this way, the rule says quite clearly that the court wins.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

Warren posed a legitimate question.

7 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
foodonastump

Warren posed a legitimate question.


Arguable. What’s not arguable is the effect it had on one undecided senator. For those who didn’t read the statement:


“It has also become clear some of my colleagues intend to further politicize this process, and drag the Supreme Court into the fray, while attacking the Chief Justice. I will not stand for nor support that effort. We have already degraded this institution for partisan political benefit, and I will not enable those who wish to pull down another.“

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

Warren has horrible political instincts. I mean, appallingly bad. Her convoluted insult to the Senate, by way of abusing Chief Justice Roberts who goes from SCOTUS to the Senate, well into the night, was perhaps the biggest rake stepping I've ever seen.

She's a disaster and thank God will join Hillary in the "Will NEVER Be President" club.

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chisue

Ah, the unquestioning (!) loyalty of the Cult of Trump.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

IF Roberts needs to weigh in, does anyone truly believe Warren did the Dems a solid with her sideswiping SCOTUS?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

We have already degraded this institution for partisan political benefit . . .

But pointing out the degrading effect of the politically-inspired no-witness trial is a no-no?

Warren posed a legitimate question -- this fact remains -- and Justice Roberts has to be aware of the incongruity of a no-witness trial as revelations from Bolton and Parnas pour in every day.

*

Reports that I read said Alexander convinced the previously undecided senator.


2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Warren has horrible political instinct. I mean, appallingly bad. Her convoluted insult to the Senate, by way of insulting Chief Justice Roberts who goes from SCOTUS to the Senate, well into the night, was perhaps the biggest rake stepping I've ever seen.

Accurate summary, HU885.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

Warren is a faux intellect. When pressed, behind or losing, she plays the victim card. But this? Maligning the man presiding over the Senate trial was a whole new low.

That is only eclipsed by the lack of self awareness Warren displays! Our lack of trust in our institutions stems not from Chief Justice Roberts, but from Warren's ilk; too long in office and living in a partisan, entitled, elitist bubble of self importance.

Warren and her Democrat partisan hacks decry any sincere questioning of the motives and actions of Col. Vindman and Ms. Yovanovich. But they remain totally silent as Chief Roberts and his colleagues were attacked out of puerile political expediency.


5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Joaniepoanie

What a sanctimonious statement from Murkowski. Roberts is a mere mortal, not above being questioned, as is Trump.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

It was a testament to Chief Roberts sense of duty and his dignity, that he read that question without flinching.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

I have to admit I didn't see Chief Justice Roberts getting in Democrats' cross hairs, but here were are. The desperation has reached Chernobyl level.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Her question, such as it was, was disrespectful and rude. I thought she was brighter than that, obviously not.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
patriciae_gw(07)

Since when is the truth disrespectful? Are we now to show respect to political intransigence? Since when are evidence and witnesses some sort of illicit unnecessary part of a trial?

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
foodonastump

Is it his job to overrule the Senate? Apparently Schiff doesn’t think so. “I think the chief justice has presided admirably.”

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

Since when are evidence and witnesses some sort of illicit unnecessary part of a trial?

Since when are they some sort of illicit, unnecessary part of impeachment by the House, which is the investigatory body?

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

Schiff and Pelosi were doing clean up after Warren's "brilliant trolling".

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

Warren did not "malign" the man presiding over the Senate trial; she did not "insult" or "attack" the Chief Justice; nor was she "disrespectful" or "rude."

Since some of you didn't bother to read what Warren said (or lack the necessary comprehension skills), here is the pertinent passage:

" does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice. . . . "

The question is directed at the attitudes and motives of the Republican senators who will cause the chief justice to lose some legitimacy due to the Repub. insistence on a trial with no witnesses or evidence.

Kate


2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

A trial with no witnesses. How is that even a trial?

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Kate, I was one of the ones who called it disrespectful and rude and I both heard and read her comment I have no issues with comprehension . It is simply my opinion on the appropriateness of her comments.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
foodonastump

Roberts is only there because Pence can’t be. If the suggestion is that the Republicans’ obstruction reflects badly on the Chief Justice, then the implication is that he’s taking part in the obstruction.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chipotle

What’s not arguable is the effect it had on one undecided senator.

Yeah, that was the straw. Give me a break.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

Warren brilliantly sealed the deal for Murkowski.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
patriciae_gw(07)

When the imperial Whitehouse orders the entire staff to not respond to any requests by the House then what are they to do? Eventually trust to the integrity of the Senate to demand those witness and documents they are not able to get. Pressured to be expedient in their quest for truth in order to not affect the coming election what are they to do? This is truth and the rest is quibbling about process.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

patriciae_gw(07) When the imperial Whitehouse orders the entire staff to not respond to any requests by the House then what are they to do?

This can't be the first time you're hearing this, but here goes...What are they to do? Hmm...How about call a vote on impeachment? Get subpoena power WITH the poena part?

Oh, and affecting the election is the sole purpose of this goat rodeo. Who ya kiddin'?

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

This is truth and the rest is quibbling about process.

Yes....darn those pesky laws. And rights for the accused? Rubbish, I tell you!

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
patriciae_gw(07)

Hu-2, there are plenty to say otherwise as to the correctness of process but you have to ask yourself why a not guilty President and co would not simply lay the whole "goat rodeo" to rest by simply answering a few questions? Why ever not explain the inconsistencies and glaring omissions in their tweet storms? If they have the truth then why not speak? What is holding them back. Most Americans would like to know so why not indulge them? They are The People after all.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Joaniepoanie

Patriciae——-three guesses why Trump has fought anyone testifying and refused to turn over documents—-wink wink.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (stillmissesSophie,chase,others)(8a)

“And rights for the accused?”

Such as...

-a trial by a jury of his peers (aka senators)

-facing his accuser (the House) in court (aka his impeachment trial)

-a defense (aka evidence/presenting witnesses showing that the accusation levied by the prosecution is untrue)

Arguing process isn’t defending oneself. Arguing that Americans have the right to choose their president isn’t defending oneself. Saying “I could show you all the things and all the people could say all the words but I don’t have to nah nah nah boo boo” isn’t defending oneself.

He can choose not to mount a defense but it is his choice, no one is stripping him of his rights.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
patriciae_gw(07)

I do not understand why any thinking person would want this outcome.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
floodwaters

Oh yeh, she is just brilliant!!!!

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

It looks like Warren outsmarted herself.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

Most Americans would like to know so why not indulge them?

Democrats have raised your expectations with their lies...it's just cruel.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Anna

Gotta love Liz. She made Roberts think how his party has ruined the country for decades to come.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
bleusblue2

queenmargo

This is who will get the last laugh;)

~~~~

ha ha -- he may be laughing -- you may be laughing --

our grandchildren? Probably not.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Oh man, just saw this thread and, thus, just learned of this as I didn't see it real time. Wow - that's some nerve of Warren (stupid nerve IMO).

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
queenmargo

LOL

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

Nana, if you are still reading what has turned out to be a rather ugly thread, I responded to your earlier question, but someone evidently saw fit to flag it. At any rate, it is "disappeared."

I told you that my earlier comment was not directed to any one particular poster, but was a general statement further explaining my point.

Why that upset someone enough to flag my post is beyond me.

Kate

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Stan Areted

"Brilliant trolling? " The fact that anyone would find Elizabeth Warren's most disrespectful and disgusting suggestion to and about the Chief Justice just trying to do his job "brilliant trolling" is disgusting.

Her "question" tells me she isn't only not half as smart as she thinks she is but she is right out stupid. Warren is on a roll for political suicide this week now potificating about making internet "disinformation" a crime. Maybe she should call Putin and the KGB to set up that new government bureau so we will pass Liz's approval less we wind up behind bars.



Save    
Browse Gardening and Landscaping Stories on Houzz See all Stories
Most Popular Photo Flip: Good Dog! Cute Pooches at Home
The dogs of Houzz take you on a tour of their homes and show you where they lounge, eat, play, bathe and nap
Full Story