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 his witness and he is responsible for building the evidence to Impeach President Trump. Consequently when Fiona Hill testified about her relationship with Christopher Steel’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 end game to remove President Trump the “salacious document” was just raised in the House Impeachment process no one can unring 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 it must be the “Chief Justice” by title that 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.
This is so beyond the pale.
Every court has a presiding judge who acts as the court administrator. Just because the Chief Justice determines the justices on the FISA court, doesn’t mean he is privy to any case that is presented.
Using that logic, I want Nancy Pelosi recused from anything to do with the impeachment process since she is the one who determines what majority congressman sits on the individual committees.
What a crock.
So who do we get?
As I recall, Kagan fulfilled (a) and (b) but did not recuse herself.
It’s up to the judge to recuse him- or herself.
No penalty will arise if he doesn’t recuse himself.
It would be up to Congress to impeach Roberts for not recusing.