I've tried to refrain from commenting much about American politics because it is, well, both laughable and wearisome. And hence, today's blog is not really about politics, but rather about another one of those strange connections of people to Jeffrey Epstein. As I blogged earlier this week, there's even a tenuous Epstein connection to the corona virus outbreak story via Epstein's connections to Harvard chemistry professors.
If you've been following the impeachment circus you might recall Chief Justice John Roberts' censoring of a question by Kentucky's junior U.S. Senator Rand Paul. It's that strange episode that drew my attention in this story shared by D.M.:
Here's the question which Senator Paul submitted, and which Chief Justice Roberts would not permit - twice - to be read:
On Thursday Chief Justice John Roberts disallowed this question from Senator Rand Paul at the Senate Impeachment hearings:
To the Manager Schiff and counsel for the President:
Manager Schiff and Counsel for the President, are you aware that House Intelligence Committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with ... when at the National Security Council together, and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that ... and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings?”
Why is that question NOT relevant to the proceedings?
I don't know about you, but personally, I don't see how that question is irrelevant, and presumably both sides would want to clear up the matter, which as of this writing, does not appear that it will be.
But as the article continues, it points out that Justice Roberts, like many on "the Supremes," has turned out to be for many people a bit of an abysmal disappointment, flip-flopping on key issues such as Obamacare, leaving some mystified as to his legal reasoning, if any:
Roberts’ moves behind the scenes were as extraordinary as his ruling. He changed course multiple times. He was part of the majority of justices who initially voted in a private conference to strike down the individual insurance mandate — the heart of the law — but he also voted to uphold an expansion of Medicaid for people near the poverty line.
Two months later, Roberts had shifted on both.
Like many, I myself wondered just why Roberts had suddenly reversed himself, and like many, I entertained the suspicion that Justice Roberts had somehow been coerced into the decision. But now, in the light of Senator Paul's question, a piece of information has emerged - in 2019 - that might corroborate that suspicion:
Since that time a very interesting document surfaced and Chief Justice Roberts was quick to deny it was, in fact, him listed on that document.
There is no question that there are many men named John Roberts in this world, so there is no way to prove it was our Chief Justice.
He, of course, denied that he flew on The Lolita Express.
What you're looking at in the image is the flight logs for Jeffrey Epstein's infamous Lolita express flights to his "island." Justice Roberts has, of course, denied that it's him, but as the article also notes,
There is zero proof that Chief Justice John Roberts did, in fact, fly on The Lolita Express.
But keeping in mind that Epstein allegedly catered to VIP types (like Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Joe Biden, John McCain, Prince Andrew and Jeff Bezos) would anyone be able to say WITH 100% CERTAINTY that it was not our Chief Justice on that flight?
No, says the Chief Justice: it's some other John Roberts, and granted, there's probably a lot of John Robertses around, just as there are a lot of Supreme Court justices lying around, for sale, cheap. Humor aside, however, I cannot help but think of those documents from the JFK assassination mentioning a "George Bush" that was contacting the government to warn about attempts on President Kennedy's life. When asked about that curiosity, President G.H.W. Bush responded that it must be referring to some other George Bush than he, and granted, there's regrettably probably a lot of George Bushes lying around (emphasis added). But matters weren't helped that in some of those references, it was "George Bush of the CIA." Well then, it must be some other George Bush of the CIA, after all, there's probably a lot of George Bushes lying around, not to mention a lot of CIAs lying around, and self-evidently, a lot of Georges Bushes of a lot of CIAs. Alas, circumstances didn't help the president's attempts to distance himself from the matter, such as his Nixon-like inability to remember exactly where he was and what he was doing when President Kennedy was murdered, nor were they helped much when researchers uncovered some damning circumstantial evidence about operation Zapata, and Bush's background role in the Bay of Pigs fiasco. But that must have been some other George Bush of some other Bay of Pigs fiasco of some other CIA in some other universe.
So, yes, it must be some other John Roberts, perhaps known to some other George Bush ... nothing to see here, move along...
...Ok... I'm better now...
...Bridge in Brooklyn for sale, cheap. Have your people contact my people... cash and carry only...
Now, an interesting question that has not been asked with respect to this entry, is was it before, or after, Roberts' nomination to the Court?
See you on the flip side...