Trump impeachment deserves better than Chief Justice John Roberts
February 4, 2020 (American Thinker) — Chief Justice John Roberts doesn't seem to have the judicial acumen of a traffic court judge. During the course of the impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate, Americans have now seen the chief justice have three historical strikes. Consequently, the Senate should immediately vote to have case dismissed, against President Trump. Our fairly elected president should be immediately acquitted of these most politically driven bogus charges in American constitutional history.
Strike one by John Roberts is simple, based on the conduct of his presiding over the trial. It is obvious that he has been over-the-top prejudiced against President Trump by not holding House Democrat managers accountable for their gross breach of decorum.
Early in the proceedings, Chief Justice Roberts invoked a precedent from 1905, using the word "pettifoggery," to establish decorum during the impeachment trial the Constitution makes him preside over.
Definition of pettifogger
2: one given to quibbling over trifles
"I think it is appropriate for me to admonish both the House managers and the president's counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world's greatest deliberative body," Roberts said. "One reason it has earned that title is because its members avoid speaking in a manner and using language that is not conducive to civil discourse."
Yet the chief justice of the United States allowed Chairman Nadler to call the president of the United States a dictator without a moment's hesitation or admonishment on decorum and civil discourse. That smacks of Justice Roberts being an inconstant intellectual coward against the Democrats.
"This is a determination by President Trump that he wants to be all-powerful, he does not have to respect the Congress, he does not have to respect the representatives of the people, only his will goes," said Nadler. "He is a dictator."
If Representative Nadler (D-N.Y.) had said that personal insult during a House debate his words would have been "taken down."
Rule XVII, clause 4, of the standing rules of the House of Representatives describes a parliamentary mechanism whereby a Member may call another Member to order for the use of disorderly language. Disorderly, or unparliamentary, remarks are a violation of House rules of decorum. This mechanism, which is referred to as "words taken down," may be invoked during debate on the House floor, in the Committee of the Whole, or in the standing and select committees of the House.
In addition, Members whose words are determined to be unparliamentary may not be recognized to speak for the rest of the day (even on yielded time) unless the Member is allowed to proceed in order by unanimous consent or a motion.
Strike two for Chief Justice Roberts is that he has shown so far that there is no judicial admonishment or accountability for committing perjury. We have a saying in the Marines about lying: the Democrat House managers put their back against the wall and lied like a rug. Why have a witness if the person is allowed to lie without penalty?
If the chief justice had instructed the House managers to stop committing perjury, then perhaps their posturing in calling witnesses to get at the truth may have been more credible. If there is no penalty for perjury, then why have any witnesses? So far, this entire impeachment is just more D.C. political blustering and fake news reporting theater of the absurd that Americans hate at so many levels.
Strike three, and you are called out, Mr. Chief Justice. Senator Rand Paul asked a question that was not allowed that goes to the heart of my traffic court analogy in President Trump facing his accusers.
Senator Rand Paul: My question today is about whether or not individuals who were holdovers from the Obama National Security Council and Democrat partisans conspired with Schiff staffers to plot impeaching the president before there were formal House impeachment proceedings.
As I previously pointed out:
If the person reporting the transgression is not present, then the judge will issue a verdict of not guilty. The judge, in doing so, is actually reaching back to the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment (facing one's accusers), which, with the genius of the Founding Fathers, is actually built out from English Common Law and even Roman law. The Sixth Amendment is one of the foundational stones upon which our entire edifice of a fair system of justice is built.
If the past is prologue for this entire sham process, and a witness can lie with impunity, and the president's accusers can use "disorderly language" to attack him with no consequences, and President Trump cannot face his accusers, then shame on everyone involved, and this has gone much too far. End it.
Published with permission from the American Thinker.