Now that the Democrat-run House of Representatives has passed the articles of impeachment against President Trump on a purely partisan basis, there may or may not be an impeachment trial in the US Senate. In the event of a trial – even if it only lasts for a single day – the Constitution requires the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court to preside over the trial.

There was a flurry of speculation in the legacy media at the beginning of the Democrats’ impeachment charade about the potential need for Chief Justice John Roberts to recuse himself. Some conservatives believe Roberts was coerced into coming up with the pretzel-like logic that Obamacare was “just a tax” which therefore enabled him to vote with the liberal court majority to “save Obamacare.” The reason may have been this one.

Roberts, who reportedly was investigated at one time for illegally adopting his sons, betrayed the Republican base that initially celebrated his Bush appointment when he confirmed the supposed constitutionality of Obamacare during Obama’s re-election campaign.

Here is another puzzle piece that identifies Roberts’ bias and potential need for recusal.

Mr. Trump, who has clashed with Chief Justice Roberts over the perceived political bias of the federal courts, would have to count on him for a fair hearing when the fate of his presidency hangs in the balance. It’s a prospect that has caused rumblings in Washington that the chief justice should recuse himself.

John Cardillo, a conservative radio personality and host on Newsmax TV, sounded the recusal alarm. “There is already a crisis of confidence among the American people that we have a fair system of justice. When you have a chief justice of the Supreme Court overtly making comments that are derogatory to the president of the United States, take all speculation out of the process,” he said.

That was just the first shot across the bow. Presiding FISC Judge Rosemary Collyer has been in the news lately with her tepid letter to the FBI “demanding” that explain to the court what it has done to fix the problems identified in the Horowitz report.

THEREFORE, the Court ORDERS that the government shall, no later than January 10, 2020, inform the Court in a sworn written submission of what it has done, and plans to do, to ensure that the statement of facts in each FBI application accurately and completely reflects information possessed by the FBI that is material to any issue presented by the application.

Oh, the horror. Please, please, FBI, tell us how you’ll cover our butts now that the FISC complicity in FISA abuse has been made known to all Americans. And yes, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) has accused the FISC of complicity in the FISA abuse identified in the Horowitz report.

My response to FISC court letter. Republicans warned court 2X in 2018… pic.twitter.com/oNODqy61hc

— Devin Nunes (@DevinNunes) December 18, 2019

But the buck doesn’t stop with Rosemary Collyer regarding FISC complicity. The buck stops with none other than John Roberts, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, who appointed all of the FISC judges. He has yet to make a public statement accepting any kind of responsibility for the FISC’s actions associated with the FISA abuse uncovered by IG Horowitz. And suspicious me believes that Collyer’s letter was misdirection to assuage the public’s concerns about “corrective action is being taken,” shifting focus away from the Chief Justice. Never mind personal accountability!

Might the Chief Justice need to step aside – or even step down – in accepting personal responsibility for obvious lack of oversight of the FISC judges and FISA review procedures by the FISC? Quite possibly, but even that is not the end of the reasons why Chief Justice Roberts almost certainly should recuse himself from the Senate impeachment trial.

Back in November, Ed Timperlake pointed out that Fiona Hill’s testimony before Adam Schiff’ impeachment star chamber essentially made the Chief Justice a fact witness.

The chief justice has just become a fact witness in the impeachment process because of Fiona Hill’s testimony.  It is Chairman Schiff’s hearing, and his witness, and he is responsible for building the evidence to impeach President Trump.  Consequently, when Fiona Hill testified about her relationship with Christopher Steele’s work product, a public connection was made between the impeachment process and the fraudulent document used in the FISC process to unmask innocent Americans and target political opponents.

It makes zero difference if the subject is Russia or Ukraine in the Democrat endgame to remove President Trump.  The “salacious document” was just raised in the House impeachment process, and no one can un-ring that bell.

Timperlake goes on to identify the specific rule for disqualifying judges from the American Bar Association’s “Moral Code of Judicial Conduct:”

Rule 2.11: Disqualification of a Judge:

6) The judge:

(c) was a material witness concerning the matter

That rule is crystal clear and completes the trifecta: personal animus against the President, FISC court oversight maladministration (quite possibly through compromise/coercion), and disqualification because he is a material witness in the impeachment proceedings in the Senate. At the very least, Chief Justice Roberts must recuse himself, and since the Constitution requires that the Chief Justice preside over Senate impeachment trials, by his recusal, he must step down as Chief Justice so that a newly-designated Chief Justice fulfill the constitutional requirement.

Hello, senior Justice Clarence Thomas! He is the logical candidate to become Chief Justice after Roberts steps down. And I love it! He’s been waiting a long time to exact penance from those in the Democrat Party (and media sycophants) who attacked mercilessly and falsely during his own Senate confirmation hearing back in 1991. Most people have forgotten that Anita Hill’s accusations against Judge Thomas were just a dry run for Christine Blasey-Ford’s false allegations against Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. Judge Thomas’s phrase, “it is a high-tech lynching” made during his confirmation hearing in response to relentless Democrat senators’ attacks on his character automatically comes to mind when Judge Thomas renders a court opinion or makes a public appearance.

The Left have been trying to “lynch” Justice Thomas figuratively since he was confirmed in 1991, with countless books and articles disparaging his judicial opinions, character, and public statements. The latest in that genre is a diatribe entitled, “The Enigma of Clarence Thomas,” which was subsequently reviewed and destroyed here. If you want to read about a bit about Clarence Thomas, as well as his relationship with President Trump, then you may wish to check out this article (although admittedly a bit jaundiced since the author is a lefty).

In the end, it would be much more than poetic justice for Clarence Thomas to ascend to Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. He flat-out deserves the post, and the fact that his appointment would make the heads of Democrats and leftist legal “scholars” everywhere explode would be the icing on the cake.

The end.