Tom Fitton: Justice Roberts ‘bullied’ by Dems, protecting ‘deep state’ by refusing Rand Paul’s question

(Video screenshots from The Washington Post/Fox News)

Chief Justice John Roberts’ decision Thursday to refuse to read a question from Sen. Rand Paul that reportedly contained the partisan whistleblower’s name was, according to Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton, an example of the highest-ranking officer of the U.S. federal judiciary being “bullied” by Democrats into doing the bidding of the “deep state.”

That was an extraordinary example of the deep state protecting itself,” he argued later that evening to Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

“You have the Chief Justice of the United States making a political decision, arguably in his discretion, to keep out the name of the alleged whistleblower.”

Why, though? Slightly later in the discussion, Fitton attributed the decision to pressure from House Intelligence Committee chair turned impeachment manager Adam Schiff.

Schiff has bullied the Chief Justice and the full Senate to keep his name private because it would expose the corrupt formation [of the Democrats’ impeachment case],” he said.

Listen to the full discussion below:

During day two of the “question-and-answer phase” of President Donald Trump’s Senate trial, Sen. Paul attempted to ask the House impeachment managers a question that not only named the partisan whistleblower but also accused him of having once conspired with a current House Intelligence Committee staffer to remove Trump from office.

“Manager Schiff and counselors for the president, are you aware that House Intelligence Committee staffer Sean Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella when at the National Security Council together?” Paul’s original question read.

“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?”

But when Roberts, who’s been tasked with presiding over the trial, received the question, he promptly declined to read it, saying, “The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted.”


During a press conference afterward, the senator went ahead and read the question in its entirety to the public and pointed out that, though it contained the alleged whistleblower’s name, it didn’t explicitly identify the named individual as the whistleblower.


But even if it had explicitly identified the whistleblower, what exactly would have been the problem? Nothing, or so Fitton argued later that evening.

“And who by the way — because we’ve sued for records about him — he was assigned by the CIA on the Ukraine issue to both the Obama and Trump White House, allegedly worked with Joe Biden,” he said.

So irrespective of whether he’s the whistleblower, what he’s doing is of intense public interest. And we’re not even allowed to mention his name? If I mentioned his name and you posted this on YouTube, YouTube would take it down.”

Fact-check: TRUE.

Left-wing tech giants have reportedly gone to great lengths to censor the whistleblower’s name and thus appease the left’s demands. In a way, one could reasonably argue that it’s not just Roberts who’s been “bullied” by Schiff but rather the entire world. Literally.

When asked by Carlson whether saying the whistleblower’s name constitutes a crime, Fitton replied with an empathetic “no.”

“No, he’s not a whistleblower legally. Morally he’s not a whistleblower. There’s nothing to protect him rather than buying into this political narrative,” he said.

Even journalist and commentator Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone, the far-left magazine that once glorified one of the Boston Marathon bombers, agrees with this assertion.

“It’s an insult to real whistleblowers to use the term with the Ukrainegate protagonist,” he bluntly wrote last October.

“Actual whistleblowers are alone,” he added. “The Ukraine complaint seems to be the work of a group of people, supported by significant institutional power, not only in the intelligence community, but in the Democratic Party and the commercial press.”

Including Schiff, who’s described Paul’s question as “disgraceful.”

Was it, though? Not necessarily, especially if you factor in the evidence.

“The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistle-blower complaint, according to a spokesman and current and former American officials,” The New York Times reported in October.

Around that same time, The Washington Post awarded Schiff with four “Pinocchios” for having falsely claimed in an interview a month earlier that his staff members (which include Sean Misko) “have not spoken directly” with the whistleblower.

His staff members, including possibly Misko, did in fact speak with the whistleblower. Moreover, it’s now known that Schiff and his team had been aware of the partisan whistleblower’s complaint before it was even formally filed.

Yet when Paul tried to ask Schiff whether he’s aware of allegations that one of his staff members once conspired with the whistleblower to remove the president from office, the question was inexplicably deemed inappropriate by Roberts.


Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.
Vivek Saxena


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

PLEASE JOIN OUR NEW COMMENT SYSTEM! We love hearing from our readers and invite you to join us for feedback and great conversation. If you've commented with us before, we'll need you to re-input your email address for this. The public will not see it and we do not share it.

Latest Articles