Seems reasonable.

I'm all for witnesses. I just oppose the idea that the prosecution is somehow entitled to pick all of them, or veto defense witnesses.
 

I'm skeptical of this "rule", since the US has never followed it. Vice-Presidents have frequently used their casting vote to pass legislation.

As for Brett's comment, it's premature given the premise of the OP. The first vote is whether to call witnesses at all. Only after that will there be debate on *which* witnesses to call.
 

I've stated before I think witnesses are unlikely, (Though I'd like to see some.) and I stand by that.

But for any Republican Senator to vote for prosecution witnesses, and against defense witnesses, would be politically suicidal. So, if there are witnesses, Trump's defense team is going to pick some of them.
 

The House managers, defending a motion rejected by the Republicans, offered to submit the question of relevancy to the Chief Justice. They did not assert some unilateral power to veto the other side's witnesses.

The precedent of the rule cited is from another system. It isn't the Chase precedent where he broke a tie to advance things in one direction. On the merits, it seems reasonable but I'm not sure where Roberts would assert the power to choose it.
 

To repeat something cited in another post, again, if Roberts thinks asking a question that somehow threatens to out the name of the whistleblower is inappropriate, he should clearly in "open court" so to speak explain what he is doing.

I gather from the news coverage cited, e.g., that Sen. Paul went against the wishes of his own party to ask a question. It apparently clashes with what both sides agreed was off limits. But, this is supposition. It should be clearly stated that such and such question violates the rules and that is why it is not being asked.
 

By the way, has anyone heard from Shag, anywhere? I'm starting to think maybe he's gone.
 

Does he actually live in Brookline?
 

Everyone is assuming that the motion will be to have witnesses. Are there existing Senate rules that permit witnesses and might require a motion to not have witnesses?
 

After a bit of research, I see the Senate passed rules for this trial that require a motion to have witnesses.
 

I found an old comment of his that provided an email address and doing a search found a match to a lawyer in Brookline with the name of "Arshag A. Mazmanian." Shag from Brookline. https://www.whataboutclients.com/archives/2006/06/the_7_habits_of.html

Unfortunately, yes, it does appear that he has died:

https://brookline.wickedlocal.com/news/20191128/brooklines-arshag-archie-mazmanian-passes-away-at-89


 

The House managers, defending a motion rejected by the Republicans, offered to submit the question of relevancy to the Chief Justice. They did not assert some unilateral power to veto the other side's witnesses.



The Senate can do whatever it wants, so I will preface this with that.

But if we are analogizing to trials, there's no such thing as "relevancy of a witness" in the law. Questions and evidence are judged by a relevance standard (minimally probative, under FRE 401, and then, in certain instances, probative evidence that is highly prejudicial, a waste of time, or cumulative can be excluded under FRE 403).

But to exclude a WITNESS under valid subpoena, you need to get a protective order. Which requires a very strong showing of cause. You can almost never exclude a witness entirely on the grounds of relevance; there needs to be absolutely nothing that a party could ask that would be relevant.

Instead, when witnesses are marginal, they sometimes get to do things like sit for depositions, answer written questions, etc.

The point being, the way witnesses play out here is that the Senate votes for witnesses, then the Republicans vote for the Bidens and 4 Republicans + the Democrats vote for Bolton and some others, and then the subpoenas will issue.

At that point, the Bidens are going to have to show up. They can object to questions, at which point, the CJ can rule, and if he rules against the questions, the Republicans can overrule him. We have precedents where this has happened and even lawyer-client privilege objections were overruled in previous impeachment trials.

In other words, if the Senate does call witnesses, the Bidens will be two of them and they will be required to answer everything. Mark my words.
 

I found an old comment of his that provided an email address and doing a search found a match to a lawyer in Brookline with the name of "Arshag A. Mazmanian." Shag from Brookline. https://www.whataboutclients.com/archives/2006/06/the_7_habits_of.html

Unfortunately, yes, it does appear that he has died:

https://brookline.wickedlocal.com/news/20191128/brooklines-arshag-archie-mazmanian-passes-away-at-89

Oh no. May he rest in peace.
 

Not shocking, but sad all the same.
 

I'm very sad to hear this. My condolences to his family.
 

RIP Shag.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Don't see the Senate or the Chief Justice playing any of Gerard's proposed games. Both parties directly and through their media surrogates all say four Rs and no Ds need to defect and none think it will happen.

In fact, I suspect McConnell cut deals with both his caucus and the Ds before the trial began to gain a majority vote against witnesses.

The Democrat establishment does not want witnesses, they want a "cover up" talking point for their voters. The last thing the Dems want are the POTUS attorneys cross examining the Bidens on national television about their pay to play operations or "whistleblower" (sic) Ciaramella about his coordination with Schiff and the Democrat media to lay the groundwork for this circus.

Indeed, you can make a strong argument the Democrat impeachment circus without witnesses has harmed Biden and helped Trump. Last night's contrast between the Trump mega rally in Des Moines and Biden speaking to a nearly empty shop could not be more stark.

I suspect the Democrats want to wrap this up as much as the Republicans.
 

538's prediction, (And they're no hotbed of conservatism.) is that every Republican will vote to acquit, and one or more Democrats, too.

They'll try, but there's no way to successfully spin that as anything but Trump being cleared.
 

It is not exactly reading entrails to think every Republican will vote to acquit. As to the Dem, yes, the top options appears to be Manchin (the one Democrat who voted for Kavanaugh and the most conservative), Jones (who will have tough race in Alabama) and Sinema (from Arizona, a conservative leaning state in various ways).

It isn't hard here. First, for the first time ever, no witnesses, even when the Trump team repeatedly challenged the facts to cause doubt, doubt that witnesses and documents would help address. An objective observer would find that problematic. Then there was appeals to polling. Well, the public very clearly wants witnesses and "they will try," but Republicans will have a somewhat hard time to make them forget. Again, people have short attention spans. Super Bowl Sunday and all.

Second, Republicans and a couple spare Democrats voting to acquit does not really "clear" anyone. Was OJ Simpson "cleared" of murder in the public's opinion? That isn't really how it works. Not having witnesses and documents in fact will hurt there though the Republicans and Trump (whose lead the "impartial" senators are following) on balance has determined net it is worth it.

The acts are still out there and the stuff suddenly will stop coming. Bolton will have his book. In March, the Supreme Court will hear a case about Trump financial documents and eventually some of them will come out. Other stuff will come out. People like Lamar Alexander will talk about how what is did is (to quote) "inappropriate and wrong" (doesn't really sound like "cleared" to me) etc.
 

We've been down this road.

Was Clinton "cleared," full stop, after his impeachment?

Nope. In fact, it probably hurt Gore some in the 2000 election, including a desire to have a clean charming sort to move on from all of that in Bush.

Was Johnson "cleared"? History is at best mixed there.

The very process taints. A person who is put on trial is often not simply "cleared" because of a hung jury or something.

We will have people arguing he is "cleared" surely. That's how it works. But, actually being so is quite another matter. When even one or more Republicans (and probably any Democrat if they vote to acquit) saying he did something wrong, but it doesn't warrant removal, that is particularly the case.
 

I think your last point is key. Alexander admitted that Trump did it and just said it wasn't cause for removal. That's intellectually coherent (unlike most cultists' arguments) but morally indefensible. If any Dems vote to acquit (and shame on them), I'm guessing they'll take that line also.
 

What mostly hurt Gore in 2000 was his stance on gun control; It lost him his home state, and several others; With the EC votes of Tennessee, he wouldn't have needed Florida.

But Democrats are reluctant to admit that gun control is political poison in America, except for short periods after major defeats. Then they quickly rationalize that they lost for some other reason, and return to their first love: Rendering as many people as possible unfree.

 

What mostly hurt Gore in 2000 was his stance on gun control;

It probably did hurt him, but it takes seriously NRA-tinged glasses to say it was the main thing. Your Salon link certainly doesn't establish that.
 

Murkowski will vote "no" on witnesses, so as expected Roberts won't have to break any tie.
 

Yes as to what Mark said. For instance, here's Rubio: “That is why six weeks ago I announced that, for me, the question would not just be whether the President’s actions were wrong, but ultimately whether what he did was removable,” he wrote.

==

The election was very close, so various things factored in, though he lost Tennessee by four percent. But, it is probable that one factor that hurt Gore, who in Florida and New Hampshire had no margin of error, was that Bush seemed a pleasant clean family man type, someone you could have a beer with. Along with actual punishment (such as giving up his law license), Clinton was not "cleared" with the Senate vote.

The public supports a range of gun regulation as seen when Republicans filibustered a very popular background check bill sponsored by the most conservative Democrat and a NRA supporting Republican senator. Democrats and Republicans, gun owners and non-gun owners, have supported many gun regulations in the states.
 

Didn't figure McConnell and the Trump team he promised to support 100% wanted Roberts to have to deal with a tie. As Sen. Warren flagged in a question, many of the public already think he has been tainted some for presiding over this thing.
 

The Democrat establishment does not want witnesses

I don't buy that for a minute. I think they feel that there is at least some possibility that presentation of additional evidence on the Senate floor could help them convince a few more Americans that what the President did was wrong.

538's prediction, (And they're no hotbed of conservatism.) is that every Republican will vote to acquit, and one or more Democrats, too.

Seems correct. MAYBE an outside chance that Romney votes to convict.

Was Clinton "cleared," full stop, after his impeachment?

Agreed. As Joe is sick of me saying, this is a political process. And that means an acquittal isn't necessarily an acquittal on the facts or the law. It can be and often is an acquittal on the politics.


 

As Sen. Warren flagged in a question, many of the public already think he has been tainted some for presiding over this thing.

Just about the entire appellate law community is appalled at Warren for asking that question. Chief Justice Roberts isn't responsible for what the Senate does or doesn't do.

Schiff, to his GREAT credit, pointed that out in his response to the question and defended Roberts.
 

It's fine to call it a political process. A lot of things are political processes. Just what that means, however, is the debate.

This being a political process, the presiding officer will be to the general public be somewhat tainted if the process is seen as unjust. So, e.g., the public at large by large numbers say they want witnesses. They are not aware of the nuances of constitutional law here regarding what a "presiding officer" means. They see the Chief Justice presiding and the process is tainted. There is a risk that they will find him tainted. As I have seen people say.

Eric Segall, a law professor, at Dorf on Law earlier this week argued that we need an amendment to change the impeachment process to some degree including removing the Chief Justice. In part, because it is a political process and he doesn't think the Chief Justice should preside (he suggests a retired federal judge).

Schiff's response was political and polite. Warren was like the person who noted the king has no clothes. That's embarrassing. But, the question was honest even if the entire appellate law community (were they polled?) thinks the public are dim sorts who are not aware of how things work.
 

" Your Salon link certainly doesn't establish that. "

Yes, Salon being so famously in bed with the NRA and all. Democrats are only capable of admitting the electoral downsides of gun control for a short while after a major defeat; Inevitably their bandaged fingers go wabbling back to the fire.

"The Democrat establishment does not want witnesses.

I don't buy that for a minute."

Nor should you. It would be more accurate to say that the Democrat establishment doesn't want defense witnesses. If they could get prosecution witnesses without defense witnesses, they'd love that.
 

Of course, per Brett, there are no defense witnesses. Nobody who was privy to the actual dealings was invited -- or even allowed to give testimony.

And so the effort ends up tainting the Senate, and it becomes ever so slightly less safe to walk down 5th avenue if Trump is in town.

 

This being a political process, the presiding officer will be to the general public be somewhat tainted if the process is seen as unjust.

Honestly, the public isn't even watching. The ratings are very low. You wouldn't know this if you go on twitter or political blogs, but this is a big nothingburger even to many of the people who support removal.

But also, if you want to just argue, "well, people will connect Roberts with the proceedings", maybe they will. But Elizabeth Warren knows better and decided to smear Roberts anyways. As I said, I heard a lot about that crappy question from people who actually have to practice in the federal courts. Nobody liked it, and everyone liked Schiff for shooting her down.

Eric Segall, a law professor, at Dorf on Law earlier this week argued that we need an amendment to change the impeachment process to some degree including removing the Chief Justice. In part, because it is a political process and he doesn't think the Chief Justice should preside (he suggests a retired federal judge).

He's ignoring the reason the CJ is there. The Vice President is an interested party in immpeachments. He gets to be President if the removal happens. So the Veep can't preside.

So the CJ is a reasonable alternative.

Warren was like the person who noted the king has no clothes

No, Warren was like the person who smeared a public servant because she's running for President. All's fair in running for President, of course, but it's really a bad thing to say about the judicial system.
 

Nor should you. It would be more accurate to say that the Democrat establishment doesn't want defense witnesses. If they could get prosecution witnesses without defense witnesses, they'd love that.

I get what you are saying, but I wouldn't put it that way.

I think that the Democrats drank some of their own Kool-Aid on defense witnesses.

One of the things that has happened here is that as we all must know the legal academy leans very much to the left. Which means there are a ton of law professors who jump at the chance to claim that whatever arguments the Dems are making are legally correct and whatever arguments the Republicans are making aren't.

So in the case of defense witnesses, you have a bunch of law professors- especially ex-prosecutors (which is kind of important)- who jumped in to say "the Bidens are totally irrelevant and their testimony can be excluded!".

And I think a lot of Democrats heard all that and figured "OK, that's fine then- we'll be able to keep them out because they are totally irrelevant and can be excluded".

There's both an obvious and a less obvious problem here. The obvious problem is at the end of the day, the Republicans control the Senate, and if they issued a subpoena to Joe Biden and overruled his objections, he would have to testify. By the way, this is ironclad law- in the 19th Century, the Senate ruled on lawyer-client privilege objections in impeachment proceedings, and overruled them. The Senate clearly has the power to overrule whatever objections Joe Biden or the Democrats make.

The less obvious problem is that the lefty ex-prosecutor commentators were being more than a little hackish about how criminal defense actually works. In reality, witnesses like Joe and Hunter Biden get heard all the time in criminal trials. The reason is that FRE 401 is very, very weak, and courts are very loath to prevent defendants from putting on their case, whatever their case happens to be. Arguing that the defendant acted with some justification because the prosecution's "story" is an overly sanitized version of reality is just a super-common criminal defense.

And the ex-prosecutor commentators are more saying what prosecutors would LIKE to believe is true- that all that matters in a criminal case is the facts as the prosecution lays them out and how dare the defense lawyers try and introduce extraneous things.

I mean, think about the most famous criminal trial of the last half century. Did anything about Mark Fuhrman's racism really refute anything in the prosecution's case? How about all the testimony from Simpson's family members? Did that prove anything relevant? How about Henry Lee's testimony that there was a second shoe print at the crime scene? Did that prove anything? How about all of Johnnie Cochran's cross-examination about how Nicole Simpson was friends with Faye Resnick? Did that prove anything relevant?

And yet all that stuff came in, and other than the Fuhrman ruling, you really aren't going to find very many cases where a judge excluded that stuff. The defendant gets to put on a defense, and deflection is a common defense.
 

It's okay. He's moving to Florida. They are used to gun play as noted by Dave Barry.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

The Democrat impeachment circus ringmasters are flailing now.

Schiff made up a couple more completely fictional Trump telephone calls. But for the Westfall Act providing Congress critters with legal immunity for any wrongdoing they perpetrate while on duty, Trump would have a very strong defamation claim against the head ringmaster.

Just before the impeachment circus big tent opened, the NY Times posted a story claiming Trump told Bolton in a private meeting to call President Zelensky and ask him meet with Mr. Giuliani, then spun this as Trump "direct[ing] John R. Bolton, then his national security adviser, to help with his pressure campaign to extract damaging information on Democrats." A few minutes later, the Democrat impeachment circus ringmasters trotted into the Senate with charts and slides referring to the NY Times article.

It was almost as if the Democrat ringmasters and the media are coordinating their attacks on Trump. That couldn't be true. After all, Mr W constantly assures us that there is no such thing as a Democrat media.
 

Schiff made up a couple more completely fictional Trump telephone calls. But for the Westfall Act providing Congress critters with legal immunity for any wrongdoing they perpetrate while on duty, Trump would have a very strong defamation claim against the head ringmaster.

Schiff doesn't need the Westfall Act. He's got the Speech and Debate Clause, and the First Amendment, and the litigation privilege.

Bart, this is really a super-bad, super-hackish point. You can't sue prosecutors acting pursuant to lawful indictments for defamation. That's true in any court in America. The only cause of action you can bring is for malicious prosecution if there was no probable cause (and of course, that doesn't apply in impeachment trials either).

It was almost as if the Democrat ringmasters and the media are coordinating their attacks on Trump. That couldn't be true.

Or it's almost as if whatever did or didn't happen with respect to the President and the aid to Ukraine is a big story that the media is still reporting, and because this is a political proceeding and not an actual trial, Schiff is entitled to bring it into the Senate and argue it.

This goes both ways, too. If the New York Times, for instance, reported that a new link was found between Joe Biden and the corruption in Ukraine, the President's defense lawyers would have every right to bring that up as well.
 

Yeah, that's my reaction; The Speech and Debate clause is self-enforcing, Schiff doesn't need any "act". And he continually demonstrates he knows he's immune from defamation or perjury, too.

But I think you're missing Bart's point on coordination: Absent coordination the impeachment managers wouldn't have had their materials all ready to go when it published. At a minimum they got advance notice.
 

I'm curious. What will Republicans who proclaim "Trump was cleared" say when presented with tape of Republican senators like Lamar Alexander saying stuff like this:

"Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, said late Thursday that although he believed that Democrats have proved their case that President Trump had acted “inappropriately” in his dealings with Ukraine, he did not think the president’s actions were impeachable [...] “The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did,” he said in a statement.

That's a funny kind of "cleared", isn't it?
 

It was almost as if the Democrat ringmasters and the media are coordinating their attacks on Trump. That couldn't be true.

You should freely assume that each side is backed by a large number of people volunteering their services in various ways. And I bet the managers, specifically, have an operation to get any new stuff reported in the press into the proceedings.

A presidential impeachment is considered basically the highest stakes political proceeding imaginable. Bigger than even the biggest Supreme Court case. Unlimited resources are available.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Dilan: Schiff doesn't need the Westfall Act. He's got the Speech and Debate Clause, and the First Amendment, and the litigation privilege.

Perhaps. However, the D.C. Circuit granted Rep. John Murtha immunity from a defamation suit brought by Marine Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich pursuant to the Westfall Act, rather than the Speech and Debate Clause as Murtha urged.

You can't sue prosecutors acting pursuant to lawful indictments for defamation.

I was not hypothesizing a suit against a prosecutor alleging an indictment issued by a grand jury is defamatory. Schiff is making completely false statements about a political opponent for obvious purpose of defaming him. If a criminal prosecutor did this during a public trial, I am unsure whether prosecutorial immunity would protect him.

BD: It was almost as if the Democrat ringmasters and the media are coordinating their attacks on Trump. That couldn't be true.

Dilan: Or it's almost as if whatever did or didn't happen with respect to the President and the aid to Ukraine is a big story that the media is still reporting...

Please.

Either Bolton or the bureaucrats reviewing his book manuscript (one of whom happens to be LTC Vindman's twin brother) leaked this information to the NY Times and likely Schiff days ago when the story first broke. Please don't insult our intelligence by claiming the NYT and Schiff just happened to release this latest "bombshell" within minutes of one another at the start of the last day of the trial.
 

I was not hypothesizing a suit against a prosecutor alleging an indictment issued by a grand jury is defamatory. Schiff is making completely false statements about a political opponent for obvious purpose of defaming him. If a criminal prosecutor did this during a public trial, I am unsure whether prosecutorial immunity would protect him.

Well it does. Here, for instance, is Burns v. Reed, a not so long ago US Supreme Court case:

Like witnesses, prosecutors and other lawyers were absolutely immune from damages liability at common law for making false or defamatory statements in judicial proceedings (at least so long as the statements were related to the proceeding), and also for eliciting false and defamatory testimony from witnesses. See, e.g., Yaselli v. Goff, 12 F.2d 396, 401-402 (CA2 1926), summarily aff'd, 275 U.S. 503, 48 S.Ct. 155, 72 L.Ed. 395 (1927); Youmans v. Smith, 153 N.Y. 214, 219-220, 47 N.E. 265 (1897); Griffith v. Slinkard, 146 Ind. 117, 122, 44 N.E. 1001, 1002 (1896); Marsh v. Ellsworth, 50 N.Y. 309, 312-313 (1872); Jennings v. Paine, 4 Wis. 358 (1855); Hoar v. Wood, 44 Mass. 193, 197-198 (1841). See also King v. Skinner, Lofft 55, 56, 98 Eng. Rep. 529, 530 (K.B.1772), where Lord Mansfield observed that "neither party, witness, counsel, jury, or Judge can be put to answer, civilly or criminally, for words spoken in office."

This immunity extended to "any hearing before a tribunal which performed a judicial function." W. Prosser, Law of Torts § 94, pp. 826-827 (1941); see also Veeder, Absolute Immunity in Defamation, 9 Colum.L.Rev. 463, 487-488 (1909). In Yaselli v. Goff, 275 U.S. 503, 48 S.Ct. 155, 72 L.Ed. 395 (1927), for example, this Court affirmed a decision by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in which that court had held that the common-law immunity extended to a prosecutor's conduct before a grand jury. See also, e.g., Griffith, supra, 146 Ind. at 122, 44 N.E., at 1002; Schultz v. Strauss, 127 Wis. 325, 106 N.W. 1066 (1906).

Please don't our intelligence by claiming the NYT and Schiff just happened to release this latest "bombshell" within minutes of one another at the start of the last day of the trial.

I'm afraid I am going to insult your intelligence. The media is continuing to get information about the Ukraine stuff as the trial goes on. The Bolton thing is clearly a developing story. In addition to keeping an eye on what is going on at the Times, the managers are also likely receiving some of the same tips the media is, because after all, the same people who want Bolton's manuscript to run in the Times probably also want the managers to have it.
 

I think it would be naïve to believe that Warren's question came out of the blue. I'm sure it was discussed with the House managers and that Schiff knew it was coming. He likely approved it.
 

I think it would be naïve to believe that Warren's question came out of the blue. I'm sure it was discussed with the House managers and that Schiff knew it was coming. He likely approved it.

I suppose anything's possible, but if that's the case, it would likely mean that Schiff doesn't want Warren to be President. :)
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

I think it would be naïve to believe that Warren's question came out of the blue. I'm sure it was discussed with the House managers and that Schiff knew it was coming. He likely approved it.

Since what she said wasn't just somehow out of left field as a reflection of reality & it allowed Schiff to say some comfortable bromides, it's possible.

He showed concern that Nadler had the last word last night. Nadler's comments were more blunt than his would have been, but they weren't really wrong. Schiff sent him out that first time to send out some red meat [ironic given Schiff is a vegan] and then the next day everyone played nice.
 

Since what she said wasn't just somehow out of left field as a reflection of reality & it allowed Schiff to say some comfortable bromides, it's possible.

What Schiff said wasn't merely comfortable bromides.

I will say this very clear. Any Democrat who blames Chief Justice Roberts for their complaints about the impeachment trial (lack of witnesses, Republicans bloc voting acquittal, etc.), is either completely full of crap or is an idiot who doesn't know who is controlling the trial.

It's perfectly obvious that the Republicans are responsible for what happened here. Chief Justice Roberts not only couldn't have stopped them, but had no role in stopping them. Where he could act- such as to protect the whistleblower's identity- he did. But the trial is the way it is because of the Senate, not Roberts.

And because of this, Warren's statement is irresponsible, and Schiff's statement was a needed rebuke.

And further, if Warren thought that it would be good to ask her question and get rebuked get Schiff, she's nuts. The entire exchange made her look terrible.

I think it is much more likely that Schiff had no knowledge of the precise question, heard it, knew that Warren was completely full of s**t, and found the nicest way possible to tell her that in reply.
 

He's ignoring the reason the CJ is there.

"The Chief Justice should not preside. Our nomination and confirmation process for Supreme Court Justices is political all the way down, and most Justices have clear partisan loyalties. In addition, as current events clearly show, the Chief Justice should neither be an ornament nor in charge of an inherently political process."

Since the VP is self-interested, as he well knows and noted on Twitter recently, he offers the alternative of a retired federal judge. As a portion of my comment you quoted said. Again, many people in the public see him as a symbol and if he presides over a process they think is unfair, they find him tainted too. Especially to the degree they are not aware of the nuances of what a presiding officer does. He's the Chief Justice! They think he has some agency. Wrong they might basically be.

If no one much is paying attention, Warren's comment is going into the void anyway. But, that is on some level overblown "realism" anyhow.
 

Since the VP is self-interested, as he well knows and noted on Twitter recently, he offers the alternative of a retired federal judge.

Good luck with that! The Chief Justice is an actual position, which saves us a partisan crazytown process of picking someone.


If no one much is paying attention, Warren's comment is going into the void anyway. But, that is on some level overblown "realism" anyhow.

Warren's comment did go into the void. The only things it did were: piss off a bunch of appellate lawyers, who know she was lying... oh, and one other thing.

You see, there's a lot of Extremely Online People, who are part of the small group watching impeachment, and many of whom love and respect Warren, who have adopted, without having read a single federal court case, this Hipster Hot Take legal realism attitude where every federal court decision is political and politicized and the law and legal system means absolutely nothing.

So when Warren said that, it gave rise to the danger that those types of people would believe her.

And that's part of why Schiff's takedown was so important. Because that same crowd also admires Schiff.
 

Roberts just stated that it would be "inappropriate" for him to break ties. He apparently failed to consider that "inappropriate" behavior is not grounds for impeachment.
 

He is right.

JFC the Senate controls the impeachment trial. The Chief Justice isn't some deus ex machina that can swoop in and counteract the partisan composition of the Senate.

And even if he could, it wouldn't change a thing. Your problem is you can't persuade Republican Senators that the President can be removed. Which means the President will be acquitted. Roberts can't do anything to change that fact.
 

should be removed, not can be
 

Predictions:

1. The impeachment will have some deterrent effect on future Presidents- they actually don't like being impeached.

2. Democracy will survive just fine, and Democrats who predicted its end will look as ridiculous hackish and stupid as Republicans who predicted gay marriage would result in the end of America.

3. There will be almost no discussion of Ukraine in the general election, and will be a blip in the exit polls.

4. There will be at least one more impeachment, and no removals, in the next 25 years.

5. Partisan polarization will eventually subside a little bit, not because of the party line impeachment votes but because of a realization that the federal government is getting very little done.

6. Outside of a few Extremely Online precincts, the Supreme Court will continue to command very high respect and will remain at 9 members.
 

Yes, Salon being so famously in bed with the NRA and all.

Hey Brett. WTF are you talking about? You're the one who linked to Salon to support his claim. Turns out the article you chose to link to doesn't support it at all. So now you criticize Salon?

That's seriously silly.
 

Dilan:

Opposition Houses have impeached two of the past four POTUSes.

Unless the Democrats pay a political price by losing or coming close to losing the House this November, I suspect impeachment will become a common political weapon during our cold civil war.