"Just hours after President Trump called for the impeachment of a judge who sought to pause the removal of more than 200 migrants to El Salvador, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. issued a rare public statement."

"'For more than two centuries,' the chief justice said, 'it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.' Mr. Trump had called the judge, James E. Boasberg, a 'Radical Left Lunatic' in a social media post and said he should be impeached."

Writes Adam Liptak, at the NYT.

Liptak was reminded of something the Chief said in 2018, "after Mr. Trump called a judge who had ruled against his administration’s asylum policy 'an Obama judge'": "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.... What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for."

Of course, that doesn't stop the NYT from telling us the name of the President who appointed the federal judges whose names arise in the news.

"But the charges against [Mayorkas] broke with history by failing to identify any [personal corruption and other wrongdoing]..."

"... instead effectively declaring the policy choices Mr. Mayorkas has carried out a constitutional crime. The approach threatened to lower the bar for impeachments — which already has fallen in recent years — reducing what was once Congress’s most potent tool to remove despots from power to a weapon to be deployed in political fights...."

From "House Republicans Impeach Mayorkas for Border Policies/In a redo of their first failed attempt, Republicans pushed through the charges over solid Democratic opposition, making the homeland security secretary the first sitting cabinet member to be impeached" (NYT).

"Wouldn’t it be wiser to stop the madness now and just jam that Silly Putty right back under Ms. Greene’s sofa?"

That's the last sentence of "Impeach Him! No, Him! And Him, Too!" by Michelle Cottle in the NYT.

I made a free access link, in case you feel motivated to decode the quote. I find the metaphoric violence unsettling. 

Using the impeachment process "as a political weapon" is a "dangerous precedent," a "pointless sideshow."

I'm reading "The GOP’s ridiculous move to impeach Mayorkas" (CNN).

While our broken immigration system is a serious matter, this impeachment push is not. There is no legitimate basis for impeaching [Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro] Mayorkas, and House Republicans have not presented any evidence that he has violated the law. Instead, they are on the verge of abusing one of the most powerful mechanisms of government to score political points, potentially setting a dangerous precedent.... Any proceedings against him will only be a distraction from the humanitarian crisis at our doorstep and the lack of leadership in Congress.... The impeachment process is not intended to be used as a political weapon. The move to impeach Mayorkas is a pointless sideshow and deserves to fail.

"House Republicans on Sunday released two articles of impeachment against Alejandro N. Mayorkas, the homeland security secretary..."

"... charging President Biden’s top immigration official with refusing to uphold the law and breaching the public trust in his handling of a surge of migration at the U.S. border with Mexico.... The charges against Mr. Mayorkas... are all but certain to fizzle in the Democratic-led Senate.... But the process would yield a remarkable election-year political spectacle...."

The NYT reports.

What's the "high crime"/"misdemeanor" bringing this policy disagreement within the constitutional power to impeach?

"The bargain a staffer strikes has always been this: You get to influence the decisions of the most powerful government in the history of the world."

"In exchange for that influence, you agree to back the final decision even if it goes against your advice. If confronted with a decision that crosses one’s ethical, moral, social, political lines, the choice is clear: Shut up and support it, or resign."

Said Paul Begala, quoted in "Bosses in the Biden admin are pressed over young staffers’ anonymous letters/Protest letters, like those over Israel, were rare in past administrations. White House veterans can barely contain their disdain over how times have changed" (Politico).

In the Trump presidency, unauthorized leaks became a form of political currency, with anonymous officials writing op-eds, and wild bits of drama routinely finding their way into the news. Inside the current White House, there’s a feeling that the culture has now irrevocably changed....

So... it didn't work to change the culture temporarily, to deal with Trump, that horribly abnormal President. The old culture didn't just pop back into place when Trump was gone. You have to take care of a culture and maintain its values in good times and bad.

RELATED: "Impeachment frenzy hits Capitol Hill" (WaPo)(noting "impeachment projects centering on President Biden, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin"). 

"With a formal House vote on an impeachment inquiry expected next week, President Joe Biden was confronted this week about his knowledge and involvement..."

"... in alleged influence peddling by his son and brothers. An irate Biden seemed to morph into Bill Clinton and — echoing his predecessor’s 'I did not have sex with that woman' denial of an earlier scandal — effectively declared that he did not have relations with 'those people.' As with Clinton, the denial was absurd, even insulting. Roughly 70% of voters (including 40% of Democrats) believe Biden has acted either unlawfully or unethically in the overseas business dealings of his family. More importantly, the House has interviews, documents, photos and even audiotapes contradicting Biden's continuing denial of having any knowledge of his son's financial dealings.... Bill Clinton eventually gave a redemptive-sinner speech and effectively confessed to being a cad. Yet for Biden, after years of categorical denials, it will be a bit more difficult to reveal himself or his family as being corrupt.... Influence peddling... involves the selling of access to or influence on one's public office. Even if you claim the money did not influence your decisions, knowledge of or interaction with such corruption undermines both the office and the public trust...."

Writes Jonathan Turley, in "'Bunch of Lies': Biden’s Clintonesque Denial Before a House Impeachment Inquiry Vote" (The Messenger).

By the way, the famous Clinton quote is not "I did not have sex with that woman." It is "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Does it matter? Substantively, it depends. Formally, yes. The material within quotation marks must be exact, and later in the column, Turley does get the quote right.

If Clinton hadn't lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky — and maybe he didn't (if "sexual relations" meant penis-in-vagina sex) — there would have been no "high crimes and misdemeanors" to accuse him of committing. He just lied about sex. But what Biden is lying about — if he is lying — are distinct crimes that undermine his fitness for office.

"This could become a fireball that eats all of them up throughout 2024."

"The longer they push this forward, the more political price we want to build for Republicans in the Legislature and the whole G.O.P. machinery."

Said Ben Wikler, chair of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, quoted in "Why Republicans Could Impeach a Liberal Judge Before She’s Heard a Case/Republicans in Wisconsin have floated impeaching a newly seated liberal State Supreme Court justice who is threatening conservatives’ grip on state politics" (NYT).

"My brother, who is 12 years my senior, witnessed my mother repeatedly slapping infant me, not stopping til my father restrained her."

"He told me some 30 years later, with visible guilt. I was appreciative. I had always felt fearful and alienated by my mother from an early age, but without knowing about that incident, thought it was due to some defect in my own character. Truth is a disinfectant, even if it hurts, initially."

That's the highest-rated comment on a NYT advice column, "My Sibling Was Abused as a Baby. Should I Share What I Saw? The magazine’s Ethicist columnist on the disclosure of a horrific event in a family’s past."

The columnist, Kwame Anthony Appiah, concludes "To insist on disclosure when the knowledge would only cause long-term distress would be acting on that old maxim fiat justitia, ruat caelum — let there be justice, though the heavens fall. That, I fear, would be a kind of moral fanaticism."

There's a Wikipedia article on fiat justitia, ruat caelum. I'll just quote some of the famous examples of the use of the Latin phrase, which The Ethicist used to warn against doing something for the sake of justice. Is that the way it always goes, or is it often — more often? — used to mean put justice first and let the chips fall where they may?

"[T]here is a feeling that the conservative Justices could make a landmark ruling out of almost any case."

"Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, the first case of the term, may seem to address a narrow question—the definition of 'navigable waters'—but it could become a vehicle for dismantling a wide range of regulations.... The Court will also adjudicate a suit, brought by Texas and Louisiana, claiming that the Biden Administration has, in effect, broken the law by focussing its border-enforcement efforts only on certain categories of migrants, such as those deemed a 'threat to public safety.' Notably, some Republicans have raised the possibility that, if the G.O.P. takes control of the House after the midterms, they may impeach President Biden on similar grounds...."

Writes Amy Davidson Sorkin, in "The Supreme Court’s Big New Term/There is a feeling with this Court that the conservative Justices could make a landmark ruling out of almost any case" (The New Yorker). 

"Powerful people are more likely to interrupt others, not look at people when they are speaking, and to be rude, hostile, and humiliating."

"They are more self-centered, losing the capacity to even guess what others feel or want; power seems to take away not only compassion but the ability to even see other people’s needs. Not to put too fine a point on it, but people who are given power in psychology experiments are more likely to touch others inappropriately. New York’s current constitutional structure, in other words, sets up the state for abuse.... New York needs some constitutional restructuring, as a matter of both culture and law. The Legislature, not the executive branch, should be leading on the budget..... [Cuomo] never acted as a governor who thought about the real needs of the people of New York, never worried about those hurt by crumbling infrastructure, or what it was like to be a child in an overcrowded classroom—or how it felt to have your loved one’s death in a nursing home covered up. As his pathetic final performance made clear, for him it was always about his small, selfish, soul. Like Richard Nixon, he resigned whining. What we should learn from Andrew Cuomo’s tenure is that no one should ever be given such power to play with people’s lives. The first step toward that transformation is for the Legislature to proceed with his impeachment. Cuomo wants to resign so the facts won’t all be laid out—and so he can run for office again. He doesn’t deserve that kindness...."

Writes Zephyr Teachout, in "The Real Question Is Why Andrew Cuomo Took So Long to Fall/New York hasn’t had a governor leave in dignity in years—and that is not a fluke" (The Nation). 

Cuomo said he'd leave in 2 weeks, but remember that Trump was impeached when he had only 1 week left in his term. The proceedings continued after his term ended, until February 13th. It was stressed at the time that impeachment was not merely to remove a person from office. There was the same idea that Teachout stresses — laying out the facts and preventing running for office again.

On the subject of Cuomo's running for office again, here's something in the NYT this morning, "Cuomo Has $18 Million in Campaign Cash. What Can He Do With It?/The huge war chest is the most money retained by a departing New York politician in recent memory."

"While a close call, I am persuaded that impeachments are a tool primarily of removal and we therefore lack jurisdiction."

"The Constitution makes perfectly clear that presidential criminal misconduct while in office can be prosecuted after the president has left office, which in my view alleviates the otherwise troubling 'January exception' argument raised by the House."

Wrote Mitch McConnell, quoted in "Hours before the verdict, McConnell tells Republicans he plans to vote to acquit Trump, calling it ‘a close call’" (NYT).

To say "close call" is to hedge his political bet. To rely on the jurisdictional ground avoids the question on the merits. Who knows if he'd consider that a "close call" too?

The NYT seems to know, because it has this:

The leader had let it be known that he believed Mr. Trump committed impeachable offenses and told advisers and colleagues he was open to conviction as the best way of purging Mr. Trump from the Republican Party. He even said publicly that Mr. Trump had “provoked the attack.” 

"President Trump was reportedly 'delighted' by the mayhem he had unleashed, because it was preventing Congress from affirming his election loss."

"This dereliction of duty—this failure to take charge of a decisive security response and to quell the riotous mob— persisted late into the day. In fact, when Congressional leaders begged President Trump to send help, or to urge his supporters to stand down, he instead renewed his attacks on the Vice President and focused on lobbying Senators to challenge the election results. Only hours after his mob first breached the Capitol did President Trump release a video statement calling for peace—and even then, he told the insurrectionists (who were at that very moment rampaging through the Capitol) 'we love you' and 'you’re very special.' President Trump then doubled down at 6:01pm, issuing a tweet that blamed Congress for not surrendering to his demand that the election results be overturned: 'These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!'" 

From the trial memorandum of the House Managers — PDF. 

It's this stage of the event — what Trump did after we know he knew the crowd had breached the Capitol — that has the most power to convince me that he deserves to be convicted. I can't see the evidence that there was an advance plan to storm the Capitol, and that, if there was, Trump knew about it, and, therefore, that we should read the language of his rally speech in that light. But at some point, we can see that Trump knew the mayhem was in progress, and clearly he ought to have done what he could to stop what his supporters were doing in his name. 

I hope we open up Pandora's Box!

I'm reading "Lindsey Graham Warns Democrats Against Calling Witnesses In Trump Impeachment Trial/'You open up Pandora’s box if you call one witness,' cautioned the Trump ally, who claimed a lengthy trial of the former president would be 'bad for the country'" (HuffPo). 

“If you open up that can of worms (by calling witnesses), we’ll want the FBI to come in and tell us about how people actually pre-planned these attacks and what happened with the security footprint at the Capitol,” the South Carolina Republican continued, parroting a right-wing talking point that the attack was planned well before Trump urged his supporters at a pre-riot rally to march to the Capitol.

Graham did not mention that Trump ― even before the election ― whipped his supporters into a lie-fueled frenzy about voter fraud. “You open up Pandora’s box if you call one witness,” Graham said. “I hope we don’t call any and we vote and get this trial over next week when it starts.”

It's hard to parse these "warnings." I assume that if a politico warns the other side not to do something, he's worried about damage to his own side. But that's so obvious that the warning should backfire. Does Graham actually want the Democrats to call witnesses and open the door to weeks or months of testimony that might serve the interests of Republicans? If so, wouldn't the Democrats know that and resist the temptation to call witnesses... or does Graham know that and hope to con the Democrats into not calling witnesses? Infinite layers of potential interpretation. 

I don't know what Graham is really up to, but I suspect both parties would like to get this over quickly and avoid a long public trial. But I would love to hear testimony about what really happened. How planned was the break in? Did Trump know of the plan? To me, Trump's guilt depends on whether he knew there was a plan to break into the Capitol. He never directly exhorts the crowd to do anything more than peacefully protest, but there are words that I would see as a signal to violence if there was a specific and widespread plan to break into the Capitol and Trump knew about it. 

Now, back to Graham's warning. I think that if there are no sworn witnesses, it is much easier to vote against conviction. Unanswered questions of fact leave guilt unproved. In that light, I'd read Graham's warning in the most obvious way, as an indication of his awareness that witnesses will increase the chances of conviction and therefore an effort to get Democrats to help Trump's cause.

But I don't know how much evidence there is that the break in was planned and that Trump knew about it. Why don't I know? Did I miss a news report? Is it being suppressed? The easiest guess is that there is no such evidence. But I'm tired of the coyness. Open the Pandora's Box!

ADDED: The House Managers of the impeachment have released their trial memorandum — this 80-page PDF. I've only read the headings, but I'll post separately if I see references to the evidence I'm looking for, which is certainly something more than that Trump encouraged the belief that he had won the election, drew a big crowd to Washington, and cranked up the crowd to march to the Capitol in protest. 

Pro-se Trump?

I'm reading "Trump Names Two Members of Impeachment Defense Team/The announcement came a day after he parted ways with five lawyers, and with his trial looming next week" (NYT):

Mr. Trump has told advisers he wants the defense to focus on his baseless claims about election fraud, a person familiar with the discussions said. A person close to the former president disputed that that was the case, but conceded that Mr. Trump had dismissively said the case was so simple that he could try it himself and save money.

Just to save money? Or does he think he's the one best able to put the case in the form that seems right to him: simple!

I wouldn't put it past him. After all, he decided that he could do the whole President-of-the-United-States job. The weirdest thing that's happened in my lifetime is Trump becoming President. I can totally see the Senate doors opening and Trump strutting in, with just a page of notes tucked into his jacket pocket. 

I floated the pro-se Trump theory yesterday, here.

Is Trump pathetically lawyerless or is he planning the power move of all time — representing himself on the Senate floor?

The conventional wisdom is, of course, that you never want to represent yourself — but that's in reference to the conventional setting, where you are in court and it's a law-based affair. Trump faces a trial in the midst of 100 Senators, with no Chief Justice presiding — no separate decision-makers of law and fact — and a complete tangle of law and politics, with politics taking precedence over law. 

Think about the stakes: What does Trump risk if he loses? Disqualification from running for office again? The real stakes are history — who writes it and whether Trump, in this next chapter, is a has-been holed up in Florida or the biggest, ballsiest man in American history, fighting 100 pompous politicos on the floor of the Senate. What a wildly entertaining movie! You say he's a narcissist? A reality-show star who somehow burst into the highest level of politics, where he boldly, recklessly proceeds on instinct and optimism? 

I'm sketching out these thoughts after seeing this glaring headline at Drudge this morning:

That links to a milder headline I'd seen yesterday: "First on CNN: Trump's impeachment defense team leaves less than two weeks before trial" (CNN).

Why do you think he's using these lawyers, then sending them on their way? Do you think they are abandoning him because he wants them to do things that they can't ethically do?

Former President Donald Trump's five impeachment defense attorneys have left a little more than a week before his trial is set to begin, according to people familiar with the case, amid a disagreement over his legal strategy. It was a dramatic development in the second impeachment trial for Trump, who has struggled to find lawyers willing to take his case.... 

He's down. His enemies see him as already defeated. Pathetic. Even his lawyers won't touch him. The 100 Senators are setting up to destroy his reputation, to write him down in history as The Worst President....

"There is no authority granted to Congress to impeach and convict persons who are not 'civil officers of the United States.' It’s as simple as that."

"But simplicity doesn’t mean unimportance. Limiting Congress to its specified powers is a crucial element in the central idea of the U.S. Constitution: putting the state under law.... The interpretation that persons are subject to impeachment and conviction even if they are not civil officers would greatly expand the Senate’s ability to prevent future office-holding.... [If] removal is irrelevant, any person who was once a civil officer might be impeached and convicted and by this means disqualified from any future office. Is it really compatible with the system of democratic representation...?... [P]runing the disqualification penalty away from its basis in removal creates a bill of attainder, a punishment levied by a legislative body without a criminal trial. An impeachable offense, it is well established, does not have to be a statutory crime. Thus disqualification standing alone and not as appurtenant to removal is precisely the sort of attainder envisaged by the Framers. Is it consistent with the American system of laws, to say nothing of the prohibition on attainders in Article I, Section 9, to allow Congress to impose such draconian penalties without a jury trial—in the absence of the removal of the officer by the Senate...?"

Writes lawprof Philip Bobbitt in "Why the Senate Shouldn’t Hold a Late Impeachment Trial" (Lawfare).

Do you believe that Donald Trump intended to incite an insurrection?

That's the question I'd like to see polled. 

I think that the "yes" answer needs to be quite high — at least above 50% — for the impeachment trial to make sense.

But the question has 2 words in it that I think most people could not define accurately. Maybe the pollsters could insert a definition. Something like this:

1. An insurrection is "a violent uprising against an authority or government." Do you believe what happened at the Capitol on January 6th was an insurrection? 

2. "To incite" is to "encourage or stir up." Do you believe that Donald Trump intended to incite an insurrection?

Do you think there would be big "yes" answer on question 2?

"My Democratic colleagues would have rightfully objected to Republicans – when they controlled Congress – using the impeachment power to disqualify former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from running for president in 2016 because of her email controversy."

Said Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), voting against tabling a motion to dismiss the articles of impeachment. 

Here's the full statement — a press release, which I received as email:

On January 6, I said voting to reject the states’ electors was a dangerous precedent we should not set. Likewise, impeaching a former President who is now a private citizen would be equally unwise. The impeachment power can be turned into a political weapon, especially if it is primarily used to disqualify an individual citizen from running for public office. My Democratic colleagues would have rightfully objected to Republicans – when they controlled Congress – using the impeachment power to disqualify former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from running for president in 2016 because of her email controversy. The great hallmark of our Democratic Republic is self-government, and I have faith in the American people to assess the qualifications of presidential candidates and make an informed decision themselves, just as they have done every four years since George Washington was elected as our first president. Congress should not dictate to the American people who they can and cannot vote for.

In support of that argument, it's extremely important to remember that there is a "fundamental principle of our representative democracy . . . 'that the people should choose whom they please to govern them.'" I'm quoting the Supreme Court case rejecting term limits for members of Congress, which was quoting a case about Congress's power to exclude someone the people have elected. The internal quote — "the people should choose whom they please to govern them" — comes from Alexander Hamilton, arguing in favor of ratifying the Constitution:

45 Senators just voted that the impeachment trial is unconstitutional, so it seems that acquittal is inevitable.

Rand Paul’s motion was defeated 55 to 45, but a 2/3 vote is needed to convict, so it seems the outcome is preordained and the substantive merits of the case don’t matter. The 45 who believe it’s unconstitutional shouldn’t change their mind based on anything to be presented at trial.

ADDED: A TV commentator said that only 34 votes were expected on Paul’s motion. 45 is a much stronger showing. McConnell voted with Paul. Only 5 Republicans voted with the Democrats: Romney, Collins, Murkowski, Toomey, and Sasse. It will be difficult to generate any momentum for this dismal trial.