Anti-Warren nemesis Tommy Christopher admires her callout/question of CJ Roberts

[BeyondGeography]

Was Elizabeth Warren’s Call-Out of Chief Justice John Roberts ‘Brilliant’ or a ‘Dick Move’…or a Brilliant Dick Move?

...Readers of this site know that I’ve made plenty of fair and factual criticisms of Senator Warren, but one of several areas in which she has shown near-perfect instincts is the issue of impeaching Trump. When most Democrats were still getting their shit together on impeachment, Warren was crystal clear and nearly alone in daring Republicans to acquit Trump in the face of the Mueller report, an absolute moral and political imperative.

Since them, she’s been ahead of the curve on pressuring Republicans every step of the way. She was the only candidate to accuse Trump of factoring impeachment into his decision to strike Qasem Soleimani, five days before The Wall Street Journal published a report that Trump factored impeachment into his decision to strike Qasem Soleimani.

Having observed Warren closely on this issue, the question threw me at first, because her political instincts on this issue are too good for her to have not seen that Schiff would have to defend Roberts, and there are a million different ways to have phrased that question for similar sham-exposing effect. But Warren gave a very clarifying interview this week — on SiriusXM’s Signal Boost, hosted by former Hillary Clinton senior staffers Jess McIntosh and Zerlina Maxwell — in which she spent the better part of the twenty minutes talking about impeachment in a way that demonstrated a deep understanding of the stakes involved, and of Roberts’ role in the trial.

Based on everything I know about Senator Warren, I don’t believe this question had anything to do with politics, with shaming Roberts and the Republicans in the eyes of Democratic and independent voters, with creating a viral moment that would benefit her politically. On the subject of how women are perceived and treated when they make strong moves like this, Warren is an expert. No, I believe Senator Warren’s question was directed at an audience of one, with the purpose of shocking the conscience of Chief Justice Roberts, of bringing to vivid life the consequences of his inaction. If nothing else, if Republican Senate rules strip him of every power normally accorded a presiding judge, he has the power to open his goddamn mouth.

Warren’s application of defibrillator paddles to Roberts’ soul is unlikely to succeed, and as the reactions have shown, are unlikely to help her politically, but it was a risk that she found worth taking, and I’m glad she did.

https://www.mediaite.com/news/was-elizabeth-warrens-call-out-of-chief-justice-john-roberts-brilliant-or-a-dick-move-or-a-brilliant-dick-move/

[Nitram]

1. I agree.

[Pacifist Patriot]

2. Roberts is not acting as a presiding judge.

This trial is not part of the judicial process. He's not there in a judicial capacity.

When the Constitution was drafted, the VP was the candidate for President who got the second highest number of votes. This meant the President and VP were opponents. The VP is the president of the Senate. By making the CJ the presiding officer at an impeachment trial, it removed the VP from a position of inherent conflict of interest as he would be the one to benefit from a decision to remove the President.

The Senate is not strictly analogous to a jury here. They are judge and jury combined.

Using legal terminology for a political remedy makes analogies really tricky. We need to be careful here.

That being said, I think he's partly right. I think she did use that question to shock Roberts, but I think she also asked it for the general public as well.

[LonePirate]

3. Warren's insights into DC and what needs to be done to fix America are unparalleled.

She is by far the best candidate we have running for President.

[BeyondGeography]

4. We agree

Among many other things, this supposed takedown article re her time at the CFPB proves it:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/12/warren-obama-2020-228068