WaPo: Jennifer Rubin explains how Roberts could disqualify "boot licking" Lindsey Graham

[Miles Archer]

&w=1440
Don’t worry, Sen. Graham. No one thought you’d be fair.

By Jennifer Rubin
Opinion writer
Dec. 15, 2019 at 12:30 p.m. EST

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Saturday that he’s made up his mind that President Trump should be acquitted, dismissed the notion that he has to be a “fair juror” and said he doesn’t see the need for a formal trial in the Senate.

He need not have worried. Amidst his boot-licking and willful ignorance of a “quid pro quo," Graham left little doubt that he had the slightest intention of doing his job as a juror.

At the trial, Democrats should certainly appeal to the presiding judge, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., to disqualify Graham. After all, it is impossible that he could take an oath as required under the Constitution. “I solemnly swear (or affirm) that in all things appertaining to the trial of ____, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God,” is the oath Graham and others must take. He has declared not only his partiality but his determination to ignore all evidence.

The Take Care blog explains:

The Senator’s Oath in impeachment trials addresses the tension between the political and legal character of impeachment. The requirement of “impartial justice” means that every Senator must decide from behind the veil of ignorance -- that is, as if he or she did not know the party affiliation of the person impeached. This includes evaluating the evidence, and deciding whether the proven misconduct justifies removal from office. Senators violate their oath if they apply friendlier standards to Presidents of their own Party than to those of the opposing Party.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/15/dont-worry-sen-graham-no-one-thought-youd-be-fair/

[spanone]

1. K&R...

[RainCaster]

2. McTurtle must be on that list too!

[BigmanPigman]

7. Hell YES!

At the Impeach tRump protest today people were "booing" Mitch as much, if not more, than the fucking moron himself.

[tritsofme]

3. This does not explain how Roberts could exclude any senator.

While it is clear Graham intends to ignore his oath, is there any history or precedent on the chief justice ruling that a senator should be disqualified?

It would be interesting to know the Senate rules on the subject, as those would be the only basis for Roberts’ ruling, but I’ve only seen skeleton posts like this.

It seems highly unlikely that Roberts would be willing to break such new ground, especially as his ruling could be overturned by a majority of senators.

[torius]

4. Roberts is supposed to

Last edited Sun Dec 15, 2019, 07:47 PM - Edit history (1)

reside over the process in some mostly ceremonial way but perhaps he has a say.

[Sherman A1]

5. The Sun could come up in the West tomorrow too

but I suspect neither will happen.

[bluedye33139]

6. His behavior and statements meet the legal definition of bias

Bias is defined in legal terms as a state of mind in which conviction or persuasion is not possible.

[Evolve Dammit]

8. What does Drumpf have on Lindsey? He is just a lickspittle bootlicker now. Golf course chats?

[bluedye33139]

13. Graham is a duplicitous and contemptible person

I don't think he needed any incentive to be duplicitous and contemptible. I believe that it is baked into his DNA.

[kentuck]

9. Good idea!

Appeal to CJ Roberts that Graham be recused from voting in the trial.

One rotten apple...

[Perseus]

10. If Roberts can remove him from the "jury" then I wonder

Does little Lindsey know that, is that what he wants?

Maybe he wants to be removed so that he doesn't have to make a judgement, that will keep him in good terms with the creature so that he can continue with his head up his ass, and also with his constituents who may have shown some support in favour of impeachment. I wonder if that is what the sleaze is planning.

[Boomer]

11. There's no such conflict

His constituents LIKE Trump, that's why Graham has turned into boot licker. His slavish support of Trump has raised his own favorability polls within his state, not lowered them.

[Nitram]

12. What about McConnell?

[azureblue]

14. Lindsey has violated his oath of office and there are penalties

The Constitution requires that all members of Congress must take an oath of office to support the Constitution before assuming office. In order to comply with the Constitution, Congress has enacted federal laws to execute and enforce this constitutional requirement.

Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office. 5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”. The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311. One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration ... of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.” Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. It can only be “altered” by constitutional amendment. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.

Congress has never altered the Article V Convention clause by constitutional amendment. Hence, the original language written in the law by the Framers and its original intent remains undisturbed and intact. That law specifies a convention call is peremptory on Congress when the states have applied for a convention call and uses the word “shall” to state this. The states have applied. When members of Congress disobey the law of the Constitution and refuse to issue a call for an Article V Convention when peremptorily required to do so by that law, they have asserted a veto power when none exists nor was ever intended to exist in that law. This veto alters the form of our government by removing one of the methods of amendment proposal the law of the Constitution creates. Such alteration without amendment is a criminal violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 and 18 U.S.C. 1918.

In addition, the members of Congress committed a second criminal violation of their oaths of office regarding an Article V Convention call. 5 U.S.C. 7311 clearly specifies it is a criminal violation for any member of Congress to advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government. The definition of the word “advocate” is to: “defend by argument before a tribunal or the public: support or recommend publicly.”

The single intent of the federal lawsuit Walker v Members of Congress (a public record) was to compel Congress to obey the law of the Constitution and call an Article V Convention as peremptorily required by that law, the original intent of which has never altered by constitutional amendment. The lawsuit was brought because Congress has refused to obey the law of the Constitution. Such refusal obviously establishes the objective of the members of Congress to overthrow our form of government by establishing they (the members of Congress) can disobey the law of the Constitution and thus overthrow our constitutional form of government.


The word “peremptory” precludes any objection whatsoever by members of Congress to refuse to call an Article V Convention. This peremptory preclusion certainly includes joining a lawsuit to oppose obeying the law of the Constitution and it may be vetoed by members of Congress. That act not only violates the law of the Constitution but 5 U.S.C. 7311 as well. When the members of Congress joined to oppose Walker v Members of Congress their opposition became part of the court record and therefore a matter of public record. Thus, regardless of whatever arguments for such opposition were presented by their legal counsel to justify their opposition, the criminal violation of the oath of office occurred because the members of Congress joined the lawsuit to publicly declare their opposition to obeying the law of the Constitution.

[StarfishSaver]

16. Who's going to prosecute this?

[Hermit-The-Prog]

18. Barr's Dirt Services (formerly DoJ)?

[Blima]

15. That house should not send the case to the Senate

The senate has made it clear they're not and impartial judge.

[Hamlette]

17. great article title.

[onenote]

19. As Rubin notes, in the end, it's not Roberts' call.

Anything the CJ decides in the course of presiding over an impeachment trial can be reversed by a majority vote in the Senate.