A top former Wall Street executive said that Elizabeth Warren is “very different” in private conversations than she is on the campaign trail, when she’s agitating against income inequality.
Behold this paragraph buried in a Warren New York Times profile Tuesday morning:
“I think Senator Warren’s views are more pragmatic; I think she is very different in a conversation than when she’s on the stump,” said Robert Wolf, the former UBS executive who hosted Ms. Warren and other Senate Democrats for a fund-raiser on Martha’s Vineyard this summer.
The Times also reported that Warren convened a private meeting with top brass at JPMorgan Chase:
“Maybe even more striking than invoking Scripture, the scourge of Wall Street is spending some time with bankers: She attended a party fund-raiser in July at the summer residence of a former UBS executive, and earlier this summer she met privately in Washington with JPMorgan Chase’s chief executive, Jamie Dimon.”
What Happens If John Roberts Decides Not to Preside Over Trump’s Post-Presidency Impeachment Trial?
Trying to make sense of a messy situation.
Several Republicans and Democrats familiar with the negotiations over Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial have said that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts does not want to preside.
A Politico report that broke the news reads as follows: “We’re hearing that Roberts, who for years has sought to keep the courts apolitical, was not happy he became a top target of the left during Trump’s first impeachment trial. ‘He wants no further part of this,’ one of our Hill sources says. A spokesperson for the chief justice declined to comment.”
As if it weren’t unprecedented enough for a president to have been impeached twice, Democratic lawmakers are hell-bent on holding an impeachment trial for a man who is no longer president. And it sounds like they’re going to get their wish: Senate leaders agreed Friday that the trial would begin Tuesday, February 9. It does not appear that Roberts’ decision is a factor either way.
This clown show needs some unpacking. First off, Roberts has very good reason to reject presiding over Trump’s impeachment trial. The Constitution states that the chief justice will preside when the president is tried. Not the ex-president, the current president. That alone should be sufficient.
Despite this, there may not be anything that expressly forbids Congress from impeaching and convicting former officials. Some legal experts have pointed out that “nothing in the text of the Constitution bars Congress from impeaching, convicting, and disqualifying former officials from holding future office.”
In light of all this, the radio silence of the Founders on this matter allows both sides to justify their support or opposition. Those in opposition say that because there’s nothing in the Constitution about trying a former president, there are no grounds to hold the trial. Those in support say that because there’s nothing in the Constitution about trying a former president, there is no legal reason to oppose the trial.
Furthermore, law professor Frank Bowman, speaking to the Washington Examiner, argued that if a trial is going to be held, it might be prudent for Roberts to preside.
“The vice president does have a personal interest in the outcome, insofar as conviction would eliminate Trump as a future political rival, either to President Biden or to Harris herself,” Bowman said. “I think the constitutionally safer call is that he should preside. That way, there can never be a later objection on the ground that the tribunal was not properly constituted.”
If Chief Justice Roberts decides to extricate himself from this mess, Democrats are said to be discussing the possibility of having Vice President Kamala Harris, who is also the president of the Senate, preside. Also being floated is president pro tempore and longest-serving senator Patrick Leahy.
Harris has a conflict of interest if she were to preside, however. And indeed that is why the Founders wanted the chief justice of a (theoretically) non-political entity of government to do so. Harris is not only of the opposite party and was on the ticket that defeated the Trump/Pence ticket, she might very well have aspirations for the presidency if Biden decides not to seek reelection. Trump himself may have his eye on the presidency once again as well, meaning that Harris would be presiding over the impeachment trial of a potential political opponent.
So if the legality of convicting an ex-president is gray, then it becomes a question of prudence. And prudence dictates that the impeachment trial should not proceed. The side that’s calling for “unity” is engaging in something fundamentally disunifying. Any attempt to convict a former president with no clear legal grounds is most definitely not a recipe for “unity” and “healing.” Our senators should just move on and worry about governing. Enough with the political shams and shenanigans.
White House4 days ago
President Trump Contemplates Ditching the GOP, Starting New ‘Patriot Party’ to Put America First
Big League Economics4 days ago
Trucking Industry Leaders Expect Biden’s Policies to Crush Small Trucking Companies
Politics4 days ago
ENOUGH ALREADY: QAnon Hucksters Now Claim Biden Will Execute ‘The Plan’
The Swamp1 day ago
Democrats Move to Ban Trump Supporters From Joining the Military and Holding Federal Jobs
White House3 days ago
Biden White House Makes YouTube Upload of Inaugural Speech ‘Unlisted’ After Being Flooded With Dislikes
Big League Wellness2 days ago
Biden Nullifies Trump Executive Order Issued to Reduce Prices of Insulin and Epinephrine
Big League Guns4 days ago
Texas Governor Abbott Wants Texas to Be a “Second Amendment Sanctuary”
Congress4 days ago
115 House Republicans Sign Onto Effort to Remove Neocon Liz Cheney as GOP Chair