By Denny Gulino
THE WHITE HOUSE (MaceNews) – Monday at the White House meant welcoming in the Rose Garden Conan, the dog that chased doomed ISIS leader Baghdadi into his dead-end tunnel. Then, in the Oval Office, there was the prime minister of Bulgaria. Lunch with the Vice President was on the schedule. A meeting with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, spotted with the president, was not.
Congress is out of town for the holidays until Dec. 3. Staff for four House committees continue to work on impeachment inquiry matters with the assumption being a report will be put together soon for the Judiciary Committee – House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff says it will happen next week. Then the Judiciary Committee will hold its own hearings and may or may not refer articles of impeachment to the Senate for a trial.
So amid all the routine, there’s that. A trial sometime in the future, perhaps early next year.
If the possible trial was not in the picture, it would be pretty good all around for an incumbent president preparing to run again. Once again the U.S. stock markets are setting records, even the Russell 2000. A couple million people are employed who weren’t a year ago. When third-quarter GDP is revised Wednesday morning it will be somewhere close to the original reading of 1.9%.
Yes, 1.9% or thereabouts is not 4% or 3%. Yet it’s about what the U.S. economy can be expected to come up with on a sustainable basis. In contrast, look at Japan, which the chief of the IMF during the day pointed out can look forward to a potential growth rate of just half a percent for decades to come. So if it gets a 0.8% rate in its next report, as expected, it will be outperforming. An aging population will be an increasing drag on Japan productivity, the IMF says.
A trial will not necessarily be a pro forma recitation of everything everyone already knows, even with Republican control of the jury, the Senate. There’s that nagging quote from Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Oct. 22: “Unlike other processes in the Senate, the majority leader does not really have ball control here.”
Think about that as White House officials likely already have, a lot. The trial’s presiding officer would be the chief justice of the Supreme Court and regardless of how he defines “preside” there is no escaping that the Constitution makes him the wielder of the preeminent authority over the exercise.
He would bring a staff of his own, be assigned offices in the Capitol and despite whatever his level of comfort in overseeing an essentially political process, he would first and foremost want to be the very embodiment of, what else? a judge. Anyone aspiring to be a judge learns the characteristics to be embodied are independence, impartiality, fairness, and competence.
The trial could take weeks. Would Chief Justice John Glover Roberts Jr. be inclined to listen to fantasy narratives, tolerate missing witnesses, assume facts not in evidence? Probably not. In fact, if he defined “preside” in an aggressive, activist, participatory mode he could even dispatch U.S. marshals to corral missing witnesses and drag them into the presence of the jury.
Whatever he does, it will likely be remembered far more indelibly than any number of high court opinions he might author. So he’ll want to get it right. When it comes time for the jury to vote, he’ll want all the facts to be on the table. Facts. As sworn to by witnesses and as supported by documents, logs and communications.
Between then and now are many steps. Could the House Judiciary Committee decide not to formulate those articles of impeachment? Is the chairman of the committee Jerry Nadler? Enough said.
Those articles are now speculated to be at least three: abuse of power, obstruction of justice and, of course, using the office of the president to manipulate congressionally authorized taxpayer funds linked to national security to force an investigation of his presumed political rival.
Questions abound. Will former National Security Adviser John Bolton ever have anything to say in the matter of execution of Ukraine policy and will President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and/or Secretary of State Mike Pompeo ever volunteer to add their voices – or can they ultimately be compelled to speak?