Chief Justice Roberts now dragged into Democrat impeachment process

American Thinker ^ | November 22, 2019 | Ed Timperlake

[gunnut]

It is a huge stretch to say that Roberts is a fact witness because he oversees the FISA court.

[RoseofTexas]

Oh boy! : /

[ryderann]

The dems will be rattling the skeletons in Robert’s closet to keep him in line.

[LoveMyFreedom]

I agree! Believe the RATS through Soros has something on him!

[NTHockey]

How about bias against President Trump? If I’m the President’s lawyers, I start hammering this line of attack. The coup leaders got Sessions to recuse himself. Why can’t we do the same to Little Johnny.

[davidb56]

Thomas is probably the most Constitutional Conservative Justice to ever serve in the last century. Only his age would be a draw back.

[AAABEST]

If he decides to call witnesses, it could be a long trial.

"If" nothing. The entire advantage of the fraud impeachment would be to call witnesses at a senate trial.

That's where they get buried and the house of Biden falls, as the houses of Bush, Clinton and Obama.

[Redwood71]

Okay, goose/gander.

Since the witnesses were called into a closed hearing by the liberal committee, and that information was not released to the public by the panel to include who said it, then any of their statements used on the inquiry as evidence becomes testimony.

Testimony is defined as evidence or proof provided by the existence or appearance of something. To be proven, it has to be publicly presented. Therefore, the information in that evidence is considered here say until it is made public. In that case, the existence of it must be witnessed which makes everyone on the inquiry panel a witness. And since they have been providing their own “opinion” throughout the procedure based not upon the evidence but conjecture, then they have to disqualify themselves as part of the judging panel due to conflict of interest and bias. It is not a one way street.

rwood

[Don Corleone]

“O what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.” Wash, rinse, repeat ^2

[Chaguito]

He would be a material witness if there were legal proceedings in progress. To my knowledge, there aren’t, just an investigation. And if previous actions are a guide the IG will not recommend prosecution of anyone.

Seems to me the author got ahead of himself.

[Lopeover]

Fiona Hill is connected to the Dossier. Chief Justice Roberts is in charge of the FISA Court.

[BunnySlippers]

Bookmark

[Bratch]

Complete article for clarity.

---

November 22, 2019

Chief Justice Roberts now dragged into Democrat impeachment process

By Ed Timperlake

The target of Democrat zealots in the House of Representatives led 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.

In an earlier American Thinker blog I asked a very simple question of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts:  Mr. Chief Justice what did you do about the fraud on your Court?

He and he alone “owns” the FISC court so he must be held accountable for any court actions. However, even if he has acted to clear up the egregious frauds, so far only a few publically reported with probably more to come, he has a significant problem if the Democrat Leaders of the House vote out Articles of Impeachment for a senate trial of our President.

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 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.

[Lopeover]

I think Chief Justice Clarence Thomas has a great ring to it and it is time for the justice for Justice Thomas.

[ClayinVA]

He was in charge of the FISA court that authorized the wiretapping of Trump. It’s a good way to change switch Chief Justices.

[Political Junkie Too]

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?

The original article suggests that Chief Justice Roberts would step down as Chief and continue as an Associate Justice. I don't think that's possible. Roberts was originally nominated as an Associate Justice; when Chief Justice Rehnquist died, President Bush resubmitted Roberts as his Chief Justice nomination. I don't think someone can "demote" and remain on the court, just as they cannot "promote" without being re-nominated and reconfirmed.

This was earlier discussed her on FR in a vanity on October 29, Jumping the Gun: If CJ Roberts Recuses, Would Clarence Thomas Preside Over A Senate Trial? [vanity] by Freeper Hebrews 11:6

While the original poster suggested that Roberts would recuse and an Associate Justice would preside, I said that there was no other option than for Roberts to resign.

---

But if he is unavailable for any reason, there must be a successor.

Since the Constitution says that the Chief Justice must preside, Constitutionally, I would suggest this:

1. If the Chief Justice is compromised, he should resign as unfit to fulfill his Constitutionally mandated duties.
2. If the Chief Justice is vacant, the President must nominate, and the Senate must confirm, a new Chief Justice before the impeachment trial may begin.
3. The President, in order to expedite such a case, ought to nominate a sitting Associate Justice to be the new Chief Justice (on the assumption that such person was already vetted and confirmed once), and leave the remaining nomination vacant until after the impeachment trial concludes.
4. If the President chooses to nominate a new person as Chief Justice, this would only delay matters indefinitely, as the Democrats would become enraged, and squishy Republicans might see this as the straw that breaks their backs once and for all. The feckless Republicans might just choose to convict and remove the President after the new Chief Justice is seated, if he's seen to try to game the SCOTUS when the Senate was under the gun.

I see no other way that doesn't violate the Constitution.

---

But resignation in lieu of recusal? Seems overly harsh.

It's not harsh. He's the head of one of the three branches of the federal government. The man either can do the job or not.

Why make excuses or lower the standards for the highest offices in the land, when there are others waiting to take the job who can do it? He's not owed any favors just because he currently holds the office.

“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Recusal is not an option. If he cannot fulfill his Constitutional duties, then he is no longer qualified for the job. He either presides over the Senate trial with all his baggage exposed, or he steps down and lets someone else take over.

---

-PJ

[pnut22]

Kavanaugh. Younger and would be there longer.

[offduty]

This is so beyond the pale.

Every court has a presiding judge who acts as the court administrator. Just because the Chief Justice determines the justices on the FISA court, doesn’t mean he is privy to any case that is presented.

Using that logic, I want Nancy Pelosi recused from anything to do with the impeachment process since she is the one who determines what majority congressman sits on the individual committees.

What a crock.

[Verginius Rufus]

Clarence Thomas is 71 (born June 23, 1948).

[Sgt_Schultze]

He will not recuse and nobody will ask him to. After all, Associate Justice Elena Kagan did not consider recusing from the obamacare suit, even as her job in the last administration was to shepherd the program along and to prepare to tamp down objections. Kagan ruled it constitutional.