Trial And Tribulation
By Mitch Berg
Chief Justice Roberts, whom President Trump has taken no pains to avoid offending, now presides over the impeachment trial. The chickens are coming home to roost.
This is an excellent opportunity for Roberts to prove how impartial and non-partisan the court system is. I doubt it will happen. My guess is he’ll be a Rino squish, ruling in favor of the Democrats every time to show how fair he is, which will prolong the agony and give the Democrat controlled media a chance to work on Squishy Republican Senators.
Remind me again, how many votes do they need to convict? And what’s our margin of safety?
Joe Doakes
Our margin of safety is going to be Joe Manchin.
I’m being facetious. But only a little.
January 20th, 2020 at 6:55 am
So, please, correct me if I’m wrong, but Democrats have 45 votes in the Senate and let’s add two for Independents, giving 47. They need (at least) 66 (two thirds of Senate – or two thirds plus 1? so, 67?). Regardless, you (both?) are presuming that the Democrats can add 19 votes, ie, that 19 Republican votes?
January 20th, 2020 at 7:43 am
Senator Susan Collins of Maine is a Republican in Name Only. Mitt Romney is still pissed at Trump for stealing the nomination from an establishment pick. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska isn’t up for re-election until 2022 so she has time to mend fences with folks back home. If the RINOs and Never-Trumpers have a chance to bring down Trump, these will be the ringleaders.
Followers will depend on events. One bad tweet, one media blow-up, one foreign mistake, and we could see defections by Bob Portman of Ohio, Ron Johnson in Wisconsin, Tim Scott in South Carolina, Marco Rubio in Florida and Lamar Alexandria in Tennessee. If the margin of safety drops, Roberts gives the Democrats wins on evidentiary rulings, and there’s enough media pressure and protests, who else might slip?
All I’m saying is: Don’t Get Cocky.
January 20th, 2020 at 8:20 am
OK, that’s eight (if I count correctly).
All I’m saying is: Don’t Get Cocky.
To be cocky presumes that I – any of us – have any direct impact on the proceedings and final result such that we might not do something, anything to ensure the rejection of the impeachment. We don’t have any direct impact (that concluded with the 2018 election).
There is nothing to do but wait (and worry, I suppose) and hope that the non-left Never-Trumpers and other RINOs avoid catching the various insanities exhibited by the left.
January 20th, 2020 at 9:28 am
Lisa Murkowski is a puppet of Diane Whinestein. There is a famous picture of her being literally cornered by the Whiner during the Kavanaugh lynching. Murkowski appears to be talking, with a defensive posture as Whinestein is in her face.
https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/dianne-feinstein-lisa-murkowski-photo-kavanaugh-13260470.php
January 20th, 2020 at 9:30 am
I expect the Chief Justice to rule on any motion objectively, as if he were hearing any other criminal trial. I expect the Republican Senate to overrule him on almost every opportunity.
I expect voters to recognize in November which party advocated the rule of law in this impeachment, and which party advocated its abandonment.
If anyone thinks the Chief Justice sees an opportunity to influence either the impeachment or the election, it is they — not the Chief — who is seeing things. He has not only his legitimacy, but that of the Supreme Court, to destroy by acting on a partisan basis.
January 20th, 2020 at 10:03 am
Wow, even Emery is predicting a shellacking for the Dems!
January 20th, 2020 at 10:17 am
Diane Whinestein
That rang no bells until I saw the link. Heh. Nice. I do remember that picture tho’.
Possible threadjack, ignore if so: Out of curiosity, what is the source of Murkowski’s strength? I (think I) know her dad was a Big Man on Campus in AK politics, but what’s the deal with her? She’s neither D nor R, she’s not really known for anything (that I know of), and yet she’s apparently unbeatable. Is AK politics sorta, kinda (left-ish and corrupt) like Da Range? I mean like the Murk “delivers” to the folks that matter and so is given the tools and votes needed to win
January 20th, 2020 at 11:31 am
jdm,
Admittedly everything I know about Alaska politics I learned while at Montana State from Alaskan MSU students.
Alaska survives entirely on oil money paid to the government while giving the residents a check if they vote in Alaskan election. (There was a push to register every dorm resident to vote EXCEPT the students from Alaska.)
January 20th, 2020 at 11:37 am
Loren: Unless Mitch McConnell wants a show, Trump will be acquitted right away. Anything more will anger the base and boot republicans out off the Senate floor come election time. That is the cynical, disgusting partisan strategy.
January 20th, 2020 at 1:18 pm
Roberts has been compromised by the left, as he proved during the Obamacare trials. They have something on him that he doesn’t want revealed, so he’s playing their game. Further, Trump referred to him as a “disaster” while he was running for POTUS. That’s why they wanted him to preside.
January 20th, 2020 at 1:44 pm
^^ Interesting comment
The president’s lawyers filed their response Saturday and the NYT article describing the content of the six-page brief describes what is just a lame recounting of the argument that Trump was acting within the scope of Trump’s authority as president. It’s a Fifth Avenue defense — the president could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not have done anything constitutionally wrong and that a sitting president cannot be indicted or otherwise charge by any authority because he is a sitting president. In short, there is no impeachment remedy from wrongdoing. The Constitution doesn’t mean what it says.
The president’s lawyers’ argument is interesting because if the president is acquitted, then the path to usurpation of authoritarian power is open. Stealing an election would be within the scope of his constitutional power since no authority could question it. (Yes, it is because the attorney general told me so!)
Trump’s lawyers also state: “the articles of impeachment as a matter of law are deficient on their face”.
Sounds nice. Utterly devoid of meaning.
The president’s strategy is to rely 100% on the loyalty of the Republican senators.
Tactic: say nothing and get on with the vote.
January 20th, 2020 at 1:52 pm
Once again I need to remind Emery that the articles of impeachment mention no criminal acts. “Rule of law”? The Democrats have their stand against it.
January 20th, 2020 at 2:36 pm
Jesus Christ on a surfboard, this paragraph is distilled nonsense. How does the human being who wrote this manage to wake up, take care of his/her personal hygeine, and hold down a frikkin’ job? The articles of impeachment cite no specific crime. Shooting a person on Fifth Avenue would be an actual crime.
The president’s lawyers filed their response Saturday and the NYT article describing the content of the six-page brief describes what is just a lame recounting of the argument that Trump was acting within the scope of Trump’s authority as president. It’s a Fifth Avenue defense — the president could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not have done anything constitutionally wrong and that a sitting president cannot be indicted or otherwise charge by any authority because he is a sitting president. In short, there is no impeachment remedy from wrongdoing. The Constitution doesn’t mean what it says.
January 20th, 2020 at 2:37 pm
What’s really disappointing to me is that there is not a majority willing to censure Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi for falsifying evidence (Schiff’s lie about the contents of the Ukraine call), refusing to allow free discovery of evidence, and refusing to allow free cross examination. Any real prosecutor does this, he’s just signed up to lose his job, his law license, and probably his freedom for a while.
Hugely, hugely disappointing that we don’t have at least the Republicans willing to do this. It’s basic law, basic law that a Harvard Law grad like Schiff ought to intuitively understand and apply.
January 20th, 2020 at 4:15 pm
The GAO stated in plain language that Trump broke the law.
Woolly responds, “So what?”
“Abuse of power, even if proved, is not an impeachable offense. That’s what the framers rejected. They didn’t want to give Congress the authority to remove a president because he abused his power.” ~ Alan Dershowitz
Wrong — I’m no expert, but it would seem to me that this would be exactly what they would have intended.
“This business of high crimes and misdemeanors goes to the question of whether or not the person serving as president of the U.S. puts their own interest, their personal interest, ahead of public service.” ~ Mike Pence 2008
Let’s not forget Pence began his political career by embezzling campaign funds to pay for his mortgage, personal credit card bills, car payments and groceries.
January 20th, 2020 at 4:52 pm
Emery on January 20, 2020 at 4:15 pm said:
The GAO stated in plain language that Trump broke the law.
Take one position and stick to it. Constantly retreating to backup arguments exposes your foolishness.
January 20th, 2020 at 5:07 pm
Emery deploys his army of strawmen!
You may care what Dershowitz thinks. I don’t.
And if you want to talk about Pence’s start in politics, let’s talk about how Obama worked for Daley’s corrupt political machine, shall we? You do understand the role that Obama, Jarrett, and Rezko played in funneling money to the Chicago democrat machine, don’t you?
January 20th, 2020 at 6:13 pm
Emery, perhaps the GAO, but what matters here is what the impeachment papers say, and they admit they could prove no violation of the law by Trump. Yes, you theoretically can do impeachment without a legal violation, but not if you want thinking people to take the process seriously, by and large.
You and the Democrats remind me of something that someone smarter than I noted; I hope that you and the Democrats aren’t skipping leg day, because if you have, you’re going to get tired moving the goalposts all the time.
January 20th, 2020 at 6:28 pm
Do you think it is acceptable for the president of the United States to ask a foreign leader to investigate a political rival, or is this not acceptable?
January 20th, 2020 at 6:45 pm
“Emery on January 20, 2020 at 6:28 pm said:
Do you think it is acceptable for the president of the United States to ask a foreign leader to investigate a political rival, or is this not acceptable?”
You don’t believe this for a minute, Emery. You voted for the woman who used foreign intelligence agencies to dig up dirt on her opponent, Donald J. Trump.
You can impeach and convict a president for not wearing the right color tie, if you like. But you have to have the people behind you, or you won’t get the votes you need in the house and senate. Schiff and Nadler are hard-core partisans, and Pelosi okayed their impeachment fiasco. Schiff, Nadler, and Pelosi represent far-left coastal districts. The Democrats lost the last election because they appealed mostly to far-left constituencies on the coasts, and openly disparaged the people who live in parts of the country that are not metropolitan.
This is not what winning looks like for them.
January 20th, 2020 at 7:35 pm
Emery, you are certifiably nuts! Either that or you are taking hallucinogenic drugs on a daily basis. We actually have Creepy Joe Biden, on tape, bragging about getting the Ukrainian prosecutor that was investigating his son and Burisma fired by threatening to withhold aid. By contrast, even the Ukrainians say that Trump didn’t threaten anything. God, you are such a freaking hypocrite!!
January 21st, 2020 at 7:41 am
People like Emery are the reason I never want to find myself in a jury trial.
Jury Foreman: The defendant is charged with A and B. We’re all agreed the prosecution didn’t prove he did A or B, right? So he’s not guilty.
Emery: But he committed C. So we must find him guilty, even if the wrong he committed is not the wrong he’s on trial for.
January 21st, 2020 at 7:51 am
My point is explained more fully in the President’s reply to impeachment, viewable here:
https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/Trial-Memorandum-of-President-Donald-J.-Trump-1-20-2020.pdf?mod=article_inline
January 21st, 2020 at 9:07 am
Do you think it is acceptable for the president of the United States to ask a foreign leader to investigate a political rival, or is this not acceptable?
Since when does being involved in politics mean you and your worthless drug addict son are insulated from investigation? Let’s be blunt here, Emery; Hunter Biden got at least two or three sweetheart deals that no other person with similar qualifications–Yale grad, drug addict, “John”, “other than honorable” discharge from the Navy–would have gotten absent political connections.
To not ask for an investigation in such an obvious fraud would have been the crime, Emery. And in this case, with corruption being such a huge issue in Ukraine, it would have been wonderful if the Bidens had been investigated; it would have signaled that in the “new” Ukraine, not even a Vice President’s son is immune from prosecution.
Shame on Joe Biden as well for this; he was obviously playing along, though it’s likely it can never be proven in a court of law, and he was doing so in such a way as to avoid what he should have done when it became apparent Hunter was a drug addict with a penchant for strip clubs and association with known bad actors; stage an intervention and cut him off from the gravy train.
January 21st, 2020 at 10:34 am
“The seriousness of the charge mandates that we investigate this.”
“Even though there is no evidence, the seriousness of the charge is what matters.”
“The nature of the evidence is irrelevant, it’s the seriousness of the charge that matters.”
Speaker of the House Tom Foley. New York Times article here:
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/06/us/inquiry-is-ordered-on-1980-campaign.html
Why should the rules change when a Democrat is accused? That’s not fair play, that’s Calvinball.
January 21st, 2020 at 11:07 am
As Joe notes, what is going on for Trump is the same thing that Clarence Thomas endured, and the same thing that Brett Kavanaugh endured. It’s called a “high tech lynching.” Ignore real crimes like Biden getting sweetheart deals for his family, clear perjury by Anita Hill’s chief character witness and some of Kavanaugh’s accusers, keep going with the unsubstantiated allegations.
January 21st, 2020 at 1:47 pm
@ JD Trump’s Chewbacca Defense is formidable.
January 21st, 2020 at 3:06 pm
Any defense if formidable when your opponents are not playing a game that they can win.
January 21st, 2020 at 4:41 pm
“Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path because it divides the country”
-Nancy Pelosi, March 2019.
And we get impeachment over a murky phone call to the president of Ukraine, leaked by a Democrat partisan, coordinated with Democrat congressmen, and the articles of impeachment cite no criminal act.
This is exhibit A in my argument that Nancy Pelosi (age 79) has become mentally infirm.
January 22nd, 2020 at 3:53 pm
Chewbacca Defense? I don’t think that phrase means what you think it means, E. Besides, think about your argument:
No Republican can seek an investigation into allegations of corruption involving a Democrat. It would be a high crime or misdemeanor, an impeachable offense.
Then who can? Another Democrat? Never happen.
So Democrats get to engage in corruption with impunity?
Idiotic.
Hey, what a coincidence, so are you, E.