Seriously? Elizabeth Warren Submits Shocking Impeachment Question…Chief John Roberts Is Not Amused!

(Tea Party PAC) – Chief Justice John Roberts gave Sen. Elizabeth Warren a very uncomfortable stare during the Senate impeachment trial on Thursday after reading aloud a question she’d submitted questioning his own legitimacy on the Supreme Court.

How did she expect this to go?

The 2020 contender was criticized immediately, even by members of the left-wing media, for her bizarre attempt to take a swipe at Republicans by undercutting the Chief Justice presiding over the impeachment proceedings.

On Thursday, amid the question-and-answer portion during which Senators submitted written questions for Justice Roberts to ask the Democrat impeachment managers and the president’s legal defense team, he read this question aloud from Warren:

“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?”

He punctuated this with an ice-cold glare at Warren as he awaited the response from Rep. Adam Schiff. At least he could maintain professional decorum, while I don’t think anyone would have blamed him for rebuking her sharply.

“I would not say that it contributes to a loss of confidence in the chief justice,” Schiff replied, playing it smart for once. “I think the chief justice has presided admirably.”

“I don’t think a trial without witnesses reflects adversely on the chief justice; I do think it reflects adversely on us. I think it diminishes the power of this example to the rest of the world,” he continued.

“I think a fair trial matters,” he concluded. “And yes senator, if they don’t get that fair trial, it will just further a cynicism that is corrosive to this institution and to our democracy.”

CNN’s Erin Burnett, never one to question a Democrat, accused Warren of crossing a line by unfairly using Roberts a “vehicle” on her program “Erin Burnett OutFront.”

“There was that extra moment when he was done reading that question that I thought was just significant. Hard to tell. He doesn’t — he doesn’t let anything show on his face, but it seemed meaningful to him,” Burnett said.

“I would think that it would and in some ways, he is being used as a vehicle because he has no choice but to read the words,” Ryan Goodman, NYU School of Law professor and co-editor-in-chief of Just Security, commented. “So it made for that moment. So I thought it was right for what Adam Schiff did to try to then bolster him in a certain sense because I don’t think that’s necessarily playing fair for him to be put into that situation.”

He continued that, if Roberts were to have had to decide on a potential tie vote over witnesses, Warren’s question n “didn’t play well and the real question is like now what will his role otherwise be because we shouldn’t put him into that kind of a position.”

CNN political commentator Scott Jennings also criticized Warren’s question as “ridiculous.”

“That was a question written by someone who’s running for president who doesn’t know any other way except to sort of be, you know, I thought rather vicious in the way she was raising the specter of his illegitimacy,” he said. “I agree with the way Schiff answered it, by the way. I thought he handled it perfectly and I thought that question was out of bounds.”

It just kept coming.

“I agree. I don’t think — I think it put him in a very tough position, and it didn’t do the Democrats any favors by putting him in that position,” liberal commentator John Lockhart said of Roberts. “He’s going to make up his mind based on what he thinks.”

Twitter also weighed in, putting the icing on the cake:


  1. When it becomes hard to tell a bizarre and inane stance from a reasoned one, it might be time to rethink. When “Democrats” question the posture of another left-wing “Democrat”, pay attention. They want to win at all costs,their drive for a Utopian America where they have total and exclusisve power. So what does it mean if one of their own goes over the cuckoo’s nest and appears to interfere with this goal?

  2. Maybe someone found some of those once legal experimental substances in a Harvard store room and slipped it in her beer – and it wiped her cerebral cortex clean, reassembling it with some Special K. Her reasoning ability, whatever it once was, is totally shot on every level, on every topic. And she senses it. And she’s panicking. So she’s lashing out at the world. She will need commitment to some secure facility within the next five years.

  3. Why should this ignorant question surprise anyone. She is an idiot libriturd and has lied and run her mouth showing her educated stupidity for a long time now.

  4. My question is did he refuse to read Paul’s question about the whistleblower who wasn’t mentioned by name before or after her question? If after did that influence why he wouldn’t let the question in? Any answers?

  5. Warren is a Socialist nitwit. How dare her say that about our chief justice. Can you imagine that piece of crap being our President? Wow!

  6. Because ” Shifty” is such an As_ Hole, I’ll bet you dollars to doughnuts, He had the shit beat out of him as a school boy ~ So now he is in good standings with all Liars and Thieves within the Demon Crap Party, He needs another Tune Up~ Hope he gets it soon !!!!

    • You left such an The Senate is different from the court of law rules you uneducated people insist on using. The House presents the case, including witnesses and evidence. The Senate is the jury who hears the evidence presented by the House. They base their decision on what has been transmitted to them via the House. It is not the job of the jury to call witnesses or subpoena more evidence, not even in a court of law. Warren, the law professor, knows this. Her only goal was to confuse the uneducated so they would ignorantly support her lies and bad for America agenda to unseat a duly elected president based on lies created by her fellow conspirators. Warren should have recused herself as she is running against the president and is influencing the 2020 election every time she opens her mouth during the trial. A fair democrat led House impeachment inquiry would have made this trial unnecessary as a fair inquiry would have resulted in more NO votes to impeach an innocent president. But then we all know the inquiry was purely political, purely biased and the democrats would have voted YES even with the proof he was innocent. No one with a brain should be listening to the democrats. Go get a brain.

    • Right, I was trying to edit my reply to you but it posted before I could finish. I was saying, you left such an open ended comment that I could only assume you were trying to defend Liawatha.

  7. And Warren is a professor of law at Harvard???????? She is better suited for the position of boiler room maintenance chief. I am sure that her fellow professors are not exactly happy either as it reflects on them also to some extent.

  8. This woman just keeps publicly proving that she is not Presidential material. Even the degan vegan was horrified. She is pathetic.

  9. Warren is now and will always be a goofy character and as a senator proof of how damn far this country has fallen. So much for diversity

  10. And Lizzy (Borden) is probably thinking- and if I’m president/ dictator/ czar – I’m going to do away with this silly SCOTUS , won’t be any need for you then !!!! she said with a dastardly cheesy grin while twisting her/it’s manly mustache Mmmmwahaha !!!!!!!

  11. Good call if she is referring to the free pass he gave Obamacare even though he very accurately called it “ANOTHER TAX” actually a tax levied without adequate representation-and I quote Pelosi “we need to pass it to find out what’s in it” ergo John Q Public was NOT adequately represented since none of them apparently had read it before they voted to pass it.

  12. We can all hope that she just collapsed and her campaign is over, She is her own PERFECT EXAMPLE of why she is not presidential material and should not even be considered in fact they dont have any candidate running that is presidential material, They have SLEEPY JOE, CRAZY OLE BERNIE, DIZZY LIZZY, AND THE SODA JERK FROM NEW YORK WHAT A CREW. For Republicans, it just dont get any better.Democrats want to take guns away from American citizens, Maybe they should take them away from their presidential candidates every time they open their mouths they keep shooting themselves in the foot.

  13. Roberts should have returned the question with a question of his own;

    “Since you are running for the office that you demand be vacated, shouldn’t YOU RECUSE YOURSELF?”

  14. Face it, Warren is just incompetent. She wants to be President? Only people without a clue just like her would want that to happen.
    The real question is about whether or not the Senate needs to hear more witnesses before they decide to remove the President from office. Such a move is or should be at least, very seriously considered. But the decision is for the Super majority of them to agree. The majority of the Senators agree that they have seen enough to decide that the burden of proof against the President has not been met. Therefore, calling any further witnesses would be useless, and if they heard one they would have to hear a bunch more.
    Now they think they have a winner in John Bolton’s testimony – they don’t. Even if what Mr Bolton says about the President is true, the facts are that his and his administrations actions did not follow that course. The President decided he wanted no quid pro quo and gave that action order to the only actual witness that the Democrats produced. Oh they coerced the people into saying things that they did not mean, but in the final analysis, they were allowed to say in the House hearing that they were told ‘no quid pro quo’. Couple that with the fact that the transcripts which were subsequently agreed upon as being essentially correct by all of the people who testified (since all but one of them had no firsthand knowledge) and the transcripts show that the discussion was far afield from this subject and never once mentioned that the money had a hold placed on it. In addition, the reference to the Bidens’ situation was made obliquely – the President asked Ukraine to look into what happened regarding their actions with respect to the US 2016 elections and of the Bidens’ he said that there were some reports of what the Bidens’ were involved with that was indicating need for investigation and he hoped that they would look into it. He also gave them two points of contact within his administration, his personal attorney and the Attorney General.
    It is true that the AG was a bit upset that the President mentioned his name to a foreign leader, I don’t understand his objection because the President’s power to cause things to happen is not restricted by the AG who works for him – and they both work for the USA, but the President is the AG’s boss.

  15. Reminds me of an SNL skit “Jane you ignorant slut”. It seems it is almost the same as standing up in court while pleading your case and asking the jury if anyone else thinks the Judge is still an imbecile.

  16. Wow! Who would want someone that vicious running the country!
    Words matter. That came from a Washington Snake Pit of vipers and it actually went lower than Shifty Shift!

  17. Elizabeth Warren has gone off the deep end and committed political suicide by slitting her own throat! Such a question should give each and every American political observer and spectator a solid clue as to just how mentally deranged she actually is, and how dangerous she is and would be to this country if elected!

  18. Their ego and quest for power brings out the total stupidity in them. She’s a known liar and has even alienated her own brother with her lies. I can only imagine what Chief Justice Roberts was thinking. His face said it all without uttering a word.

  19. She’s not “stupid”, or she wouldnt have gotten where she is. She IS, however, deeply dishonest and of poor judgment on important issues. Par for the course for almost all dems.

    • It doesn’t take brains to be dishonest. It doesn’t take brains to get elected. You need finances, people who are ignorant and willing to vote for those who can fool them. Unfortunately our country has about 40 percent of those people.

    • I wish Roberts had said something like “The loss of respect for the Chief Justice and Supreme Court, is just another lie by “Pocahontas”; so please don’t believe that part of her question.

      Of course he would never say that; as he knows she would sue him for election interference, defamation, or something. But in the end he didn’t; because he knows she won’t win the Presidency in 2020; she will most likely lose her Senate Seat; and she will for sure never get hired back to being a Law Professor at Harvard or any other University. Also pretty positive, she won’t be hired to give speeches at any Wall Street Corporations, in her future.

      I would say poor “Pocahontas”, but in the end she has created this future for her self.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here