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 post, 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, 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 publicly 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, and his witness, and he is responsible for building the evidence to impeach President Trump. Consequently, when Fiona Hill testified about her relationship with Christopher Steele'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 endgame to remove President Trump. The "salacious document" was just raised in the House impeachment process, and no one can un-ring 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 that it must be the "chief justice," by title, who 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 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, then 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.