The Un-peachment Trial

The Senate opened the trial today. Cheif Justice John Roberts is on trial.

After the long drama of a barricaded White House ignoring subpoenas from the House Judiciary Committee while screaming abuse at all and sundry; after a bursting dam of new evidence from the usual rats leaving the usual sinking ship… where was I?

The Chair of that House Committee gave a typical, reasoned, factual and educational argument. All well and good.

Then the President’s team attempted–in front of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court–to explain that each fact-based, historically consistent, exhaustively documented charge was in fact, in itself, a crime against the Constitution.

The defense will be: “I know I am, but what are you?”

They ended up accusing the Democrats of attempting to steal an election. Which is, if one has any undamaged brain cells left after this assault, exactly what the President is supposedly on trial for.

Mr. McConnell asserts that the House Judiciary had “declined to interview” witnesses that the President had ordered to stay away. Great pains are taken to use the same accusatory terms brought forth in the various charges, spun backwards of course. The defense will be that the Democrats “colluded” with, um, each other.

This is like killing both your parents, and then claiming clemency because you’re an orphan.

If they can make that stick, it’s Nellie-bar-the-door. New vistas of power will open to a President who already asserts the power to assault women with impunity (a dozen or so say credibly that the word is rape); to surveil, imprison indefinitely, assassinate with drones, bomb, declare war, or otherwise abuse anybody he dislikes, without any Congressional oversight.

Hey, water under the bridge.

But perhaps more to the point. John Roberts now presides over the trial of his career. The whole system, after all, rests on a foundation of trust and integrity. There is no way some kind of technical acquittal, much less a corrupt process, can stand, if the Supreme Court, and the system of justice of which it is the final arbiter, is to continue with a shred of credibility.

Let the President get away with it; let him claw his way into a second term; let him complete the looting of the Treasury; let him enrich his already-obscenely rich cronies, sycophants and toadies; let him further enrich the media, which have destroyed journalism in pursuit of all that money; let there be four more years of climate change denial, immigrant concentration camps, perpetual air wars, and a new nuclear arms race. The Nation can survive this kind of catastrophes; indeed, it has many times in history. And the President is not to be held accountable for any of that.

But.

What will happen if the Supreme Court allows the idea that facts are merely opinions, and documenttation and witness testimony is unnecessary in a trial of a President?

That the Supreme Court will not survive.

The whole system, after all, rests on a foundation of trust and integrity. There is no way some kind of technical acquittal much less a corrupt process can stand, if the Supreme Court, and the system of justice of which it is the final arbiter, is to continue with a shred of cridibility.

I’m not talking about the many valid legal points raised in the first half hour of this specacle; I’m talking about what is being shown to Americans one and all: blatant, bald-faced lying on an unprecedented scale. We need and expect a Chief Justice who doesn’t need to be a chicken to tell a rotten egg.

We will then be living in a world of warring virtual city-states called “corporations”. The most vulnerable people will then be allowed to die off, leaving the world less burdented by human carbon emissions, a world in which warlords will rule as much land as they can glom, and that will be only a small part of the remaining land-mass above sea-level.

But it won’t matter. When it’s 160 in the shade, nobody’s going to be looking too good.