Impeach Trump????

[Baruch]

Apparently Bolton's allegations are having an effect -- Senator Yertle admitted to his caucus that he hasn't the votes to prevent witnesses being called.

In which case, the Senate will have to sit all the way thru early November ;-)

[Baruch]

Without witnesses there is no "trial" - just Kabuki theater.

Kabuki is in Japanese.  US politics is in gibberish.

[Baruch]

Me either,  but seeing cracks appear in the Stepford Wives is interesting.

Unbeliever is Dr Robotnik … he wants to robotize everyone, not just women.  Even Sonic!

[trdsf]

I think it's Roberts with an impeachment, though all other times it would be the VP.

That appears to be the historical precedent, according to Roll Call.  Then-Chief Justice Chase, presiding over the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, not only asserted the power to cast a tie-breaking vote, he even did so when the Senate split on a procedural question, and the motion that his vote was out of order (as the Senate can override the Chief Justice's decisions by a simple majority) was subsequently defeated.

So the precedent is that Roberts has the authority to cast a tie-breaking vote if necessary.  Rehnquist never needed to while presiding over the trial of Bill Clinton, and actively tried to avoid getting involved as much as possible, deferring to the Senate whenever he could.  In a later interview, he said of his role during the trial, "I did nothing in particular, and I did it very well."

The real question is now: will he?  His primary interest has long been to protect the independence (real or imagined) of the Court and avoid getting into retail politics, and I suspect that any tie vote is his personal nightmare scenario.  Any tie breaking vote he might have to make will be judged in terms of the politics of the moment and warped into casting him as pro- or anti-Trump, rather than of the actual legal reasoning behind it -- especially if it's on a matter like calling witnesses, which could easily go 50-50.  There are enough squeamish Republicans to make that a realistic possibility.

As a judge, I suspect Roberts' instincts would be for maximal information -- hear the witness(es).  As a Supreme Court Chief Justice, the political blowback from that is something I think he genuinely fears, or at least is desperate to avoid.

Even if not called on to break a tie on a vote on witnesses, there are other dangers for him.  If Bolton is subpoenaed to testify and the defense team objects on the grounds of executive privilege, he's going to be forced to make a ruling on a topic that's given the Supreme Court fits for almost as long as the Republic has existed.  United States v Nixon is clear that claims of executive privilege are not absolute, but also recognizes that executive privilege exists even though it's not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

As they say, stay tuned.

[trdsf]

Here's another little goodie. Unsurprisingly, there's blowback from the White House against Bolton and his book.

Surprisingly, the one thing they haven't called it is *inaccurate*.  Only that it contains classified material.  Say, perhaps, that El Flippo did exactly what he's accused of....

[Hydra009]

"Only far-left lunatics support impeachment!" - guy who gets his news exclusively from Fox News

[Unbeliever]

As a judge, I suspect Roberts' instincts would be for maximal information -- hear the witness(es).  As a Supreme Court Chief Justice, the political blowback from that is something I think he genuinely fears, or at least is desperate to avoid.

I don't understand what Rpberts would be afraid of, since he's on the SCOTUS for life. What does he have to fear? What difference would "political blowback" make?

[Unbeliever]

Here's another little goodie. Unsurprisingly, there's blowback from the White House against Bolton and his book.

Surprisingly, the one thing they haven't called it is *inaccurate*.  Only that it contains classified material.  Say, perhaps, that El Flippo did exactly what he's accused of....

So, should we believe the lying president or the lying war monger?

[trdsf]

I don't understand what Rpberts would be afraid of, since he's on the SCOTUS for life. What does he have to fear? What difference would "political blowback" make?

Impeachment applies to Supreme Court Justices, not just the president.  If he makes a few decisions that the Orange Disaster Area doesn't like, then on the currently-unlikely chance of a Republican sweep this fall, there's nothing to prevent a Republican majority in the House from impeaching on any charge they like, even if removal in the Senate is unlikely.  And I think if Roberts is in the dock, then the senior Associate Justice presides... which would be Clarence Thomas.

Additionally, if there's one thing Roberts is interested in, it's maintaining the reputation of the Court in general and his legacy in specific, and the appearance of impartiality (the reality of it being an unrealistic goal).  He does not want to be cast in a political role, so presiding over the trial right now is torture enough.  Worse from his standpoint, any decision he makes that isn't completely non-controversial will be labeled (most likely inaccurately) as serving one party or the other rather than being a simple legal decision based on precedent and analysis of the Constitution.

I've studied Roberts, and I think he would desperately prefer to be anywhere else right now.

[Unbeliever]

I found this somewhat amusing:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Uya1k9j5JU

[trdsf]

I have just sent the following email to my Republican senator (the other one has his head screwed on right):

I would bring to your attention that the current White House response to the allegations by Ambassador Bolton has been only to assert there is classified material in his manuscript.  They have *not* questioned the veracity of it -- please see Senior Director Knight's letter to the ambassador's attorney here: https://www.scribd.com/embeds/444786869/content?start_page=1

Ambassador Bolton must be called as a witness so that his allegation may be judged relative to the President's defense.  This cannot be called a fair trial in the absence of hearing such directly relevant evidence, regardless of whether you are ultimately convinced by it.

Thank you.

I have zero hope of a sensible reply, of course.

[Baruch]

hahah … we don't even know for sure yet, if they will call witnesses.  D and R both already know the future result!

The classified stuff in Bolton' book was reviewed by the Vindeman brother of the same Vindeman that the Ukes wanted to make their Defense Minister.  Y'all can't even spell Machiavelli, let alone think of politics in proper Italian terms.

Deep State says things Ds like … Good doggy
Deep State says things Ds don't like … Bad doggy

[trdsf]

Susan Collins has announced she will vote in favor of subpoenaing additional witnesses and documents.  All eyes on Romney, Murkowski, McSally and Gardner now.  Any two makes a tie; three (and assuming no Democratic defections) means witnesses.

[Hydra009]

Ukraine aid tied to digging up dirt on the Bidens after all

[Unbeliever]

Susan Collins has announced she will vote in favor of subpoenaing additional witnesses and documents.  All eyes on Romney, Murkowski, McSally and Gardner now.  Any two makes a tie; three (and assuming no Democratic defections) means witnesses.

I don't believe Collins any more than I believe any other Republican. Watch her vote right along with the rest of her traitor party.