More (Groan) About the Impeachment Trial

I have three points to make about the impeachment trial of President Trump that is winding down in the United States Senate...

1) During the two-day period when the senators themselves could submit questions for Chief Justice John Roberts...the Constitutionally-mandated presiding officer at the trial...to read for either the House prosecuting team or the President's defense team to answer, I was taken aback somewhat by the fact that the Democratic senators addressed their questions only to their "side", i.e. the prosecution, while the Republicans posed theirs only to Trump's team.  The buildup to these sessions promised a robust and spirited cross-examination, but what we got instead was puffball questioning and the two sides talking past one another instead of engaging in honest interaction.  With the one time I'm aware of that a questioner crossed sides, House manager Adam Schiff angrily retorted that Republican senator Ron Johnson's question did not dignify a response. I'm sure this is all quite different for Roberts, who as a Supreme Court Justice is used to the court's oral arguments in which justices of all persuasions actively question the lawyers arguing both sides of a case.  Also, I've heard the argument propounded by a Trump lawyer that the Democrats' impeachment could lead to a more parliamentary system in which the leader can be easily toppled by a no-confidence vote.  While reminding readers that in the USA we have a very steep two-thirds threshold for conviction and removal while parliamentary systems, with governments often propped up by flimsy, unstable coalitions, only require a simple majority for the same effort, I have to look with envy at the British House of Commons sessions in which the prime minister takes on questions...sometimes very pointed and critical...from members of all parties, be they on his side or not.  Over here, though, the politicians can't seem to wait to get themselves before the cameras and media microphones to debate, away from their opponents...a strange way of doing things, I say...especially when while actually attending this impeachment trial they had ample opportunity to directly confront the other side...

2) I am not a Trump supporter and don't want to list here all the reasons I have for this stance.  But I have to stand back and wonder why it is okay to investigate him...both during and after an election campaign...and the burden is all on him to cooperate and not complain about it while, when a Democratic politician like Joe Biden is mentioned for possible investigation, it suddenly becomes a threat to our democracy and grounds for impeachment.  First of all, we need to sort out our thinking a bit and understand that an investigation or inquiry does not in itself constitute an accusation...neither does being called upon as a witness.  Unfortunately, the most partisan politicians and media figures out there like to pretend it is, taking the swayable section of the American voting electorate that has decided the last five presidential elections...and who will most likely decide the upcoming one...for the ignorant, complete dumbasses that they are.  I was for calling a limited number of witnesses for both sides in the impeachment...both John Bolton and Hunter Biden would have been fine as part of this group, as far as I was concerned...

3) The vote on whether to have any additional witness at the impeachment trial went 51-49 in favor of the Republicans' side not to call them.  If it have gone 50-50 it would have been up to Chief Justice John Roberts, who before the trial had stated that he would vote with the Republicans on any tie-breaker.  I find this hard to understand on a number of levels.  Maybe since Roberts was taking the place where Vice-President Pence, a Republican, would have sat on regular Senate business he was deferring in that way, although the vice-president is already implicitly a loyalist of the president and also stands to be president upon a possible conviction...sounds like a conflict of interest that Roberts shouldn't want to align himself with. And during Clinton's impeachment trial in 1999 Democrat VP Al Gore would have been the regular presiding tie-breaking Senate vote with a Republican majority back then.  If Roberts was instead simply deferring to the Republicans' majority status, then I believe he was stepping out of his Constitionally-mandated role...the US Constitution makes no mention of political parties.  The Chief Justice's presence on this solemn occasion placed all three branches of government there and Roberts should have been independent in his decision-making as the sole representative of the Judicial Branch...instead he voluntarily and openly abdicated his proper role in favor of one of the sides in the trial...

Well, the final impeachment vote is scheduled for Wednesday, one day after President Trump's State of the Union address to Congress and two after the Iowa Caucuses.  No doubt the talking heads on TV will be spinning every which way on all three events...I'll follow the actual events but try to steer clear of the professional "interpreters" who operate under the assumption that you and I are incapable of figuring things out for ourselves...