Posted on 11/22/2019 6:36:42 AM PST by LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget
The target of Democrat zealots in the House of Representatives lead by Speaker Pelosi and Adam Schiff is to impeach and remove President Donald Trump. Sadly for him the person they have a much higher probability of removing from his lofty perch is Chief Justice John Roberts. The famous cliché; the law of unintended consequences is fast approaching.
...
Since the Constitution definitely states it must be the “Chief Justice” by title that presides over a Senate trail it can easily be understood and fully accepted that provision (b) of serving in government employment is not an ABA ethical disqualification. However, provision “c” cannot be ignored, and thus the law of unintended consequences will kick in.
The Constitution requires specifically that the Chief Justice must be the Judge for the Senate Trial. According to ABA ethics if Chief Justice Roberts is a material witness he cannot and should not fulfill his constitutional role and must step aside. He will have one of the biggest conflicts of interest in American history.
The constitution does not say “acting” Chief Justice so if he must recuse himself and another Justice legally and ethically steps into the Impeachment proceedings that Justice must become the Chief Justice... If the replacement Justice does not become the legal Chief Justice the Senate trial is fatally flawed from the opening gavel.
So the question for this article is simple;
Madam Speaker are you prepared to see Chief Justice Roberts step aside to become just an associate Justice while a new Chief Justice is selected and given the oath of office?
It is that serious you ignorant zealots.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
How did he become a material witness?
Clarence Thomas. He knows about high tech lynchings.
read the article at the link. Lays it out there.
It is a nice trap to get that liberal out his office.
Chief Justice Clarence Thomas does have a nice ring to it.
I didn’t know he’d have to relinquish his Chief Justice status to preside over an impeachment. So who would become Chief Justice and how? I’m having trouble opening the link.
the deep state OWNS CJ Roberts.
Just ask his children, or the 350 million
screwed by him FOREVER for his imposition
of ObamaCARE/RomneyCARE.
His association with the FISA court.
Under what demented insane lying dream world does Roberts have any such need to recuse?
Wow!
EVERYTHING
IS GOING
ACCORDING TO PLAN!
Enjoy the show.
7
The Chief Justice has just become a fact witness in the Impeachment process because of Fiona Hill’s testimony. It is Chairman Schiff’s hearing his witness and he is responsible for building the evidence to Impeach President Trump. Consequently when Fiona Hill testified about her relationship with Christopher Steel’s work product a public connection was made between the impeachment process and the fraudulent document used in the FISC process to unmask innocent Americans and target political opponents.
YouTube screen grab, cropped
Hill testified that Strobe Talbott, the former president of the Brookings Institution, shared the salacious document with her on Jan. 9, 2017. At the time, Hill was a director at Brookings, a left-of-center foreign policy think tank. She joined the Trump White House in early 2017 as senior director fore European and Russian affairs on the National Security Council.
It makes zero difference if the subject is Russia or Ukraine in the Democrat end game to remove President Trump the “salacious document” was just raised in the House Impeachment process no one can unring that bell.
One just has to look at the ABA published “Moral Code of Judicial Conduct.”
Rule 2.11: Disqualification of a Judge:
6) The judge:
(a) served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or was associated with a lawyer who participated substantially as a lawyer in the matter during such association;
(b) served in governmental employment, and in such capacity participated personally and substantially as a lawyer or public official concerning the proceeding, or has publicly expressed in such capacity an opinion concerning the merits of the particular matter in controversy;
(c) was a material witness concerning the matter; or
(d) previously presided as a judge over the matter in another court.
Since the Constitution definitely states it must be the “Chief Justice” by title that presides over a Senate trail it can easily be understood and fully accepted that provision (b) of serving in government employment is not an ABA ethical disqualification. However, provision “c” cannot be ignored, and thus the law of unintended consequences will kick in.
The Senate ‘trial’ need not follow normal judicial guidelines. This is a ‘what if’ observation from Eric Forman’s basement.
Impeachment and Senate trial are both political processes with only as much normal legal procedures as required by perceived public opinion.
Chief Justice Clarence Thomas!
That would cause some heads to spin.
On the other hand, if Roberts were threatened, might he ally himself with the corrupt in order to protect himself and his privileges?
LOL, you'd think the NAACP folks would cheer that.
Fiona looks like a guy.
It is the article. relates to Fional Hill - FISA - etc.
Alan Dershowitz discusses that in his book. You have the Chief Justice presiding over the trial and the senators are the jurors.
Managers appointed by the House are prosecutors and the President has his own defense team.
If we go by the Clinton precedent, it will be a short trial. Since Democrats don’t have a case, its entirely possible Trump may just rest his case.
If he decides to call witnesses, it could be a long trial.
Based on what I read in the article, when Fiona Hill mentioned the Steel document in her testimony, it raised the connection of that document with the FISC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court), which Chief Justice Roberts is connected with (I think he appointed those judges). Apparently that makes him a material witness and he would have to recuse himself.
Disclaimer: IANAL, so my summary could be incorrect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.