Since the dawn of anti-aircraft missiles, a sage warning has been passed down from combat aviator to combat aviator as they do mission planning: be alert — it is often the unseen missile that will kill you.  As the House forwards its BS non-case, no-solid-evidence impeachment charges against President Trump to the Senate, there is a serious blind spot in the process.

There is metaphorically a significant "unseen missile," and that is Chief Justice John Roberts presiding.  The Constitution is unambiguous that the chief justice presides over impeachment trials in the Senate.  It is the specific behavior of lawyer and chief justice John Roberts with respect to his 100% ownership of the FISA court that should give all Americans concern as impeachment moves from the House to the Senate.

Just like with President Trump as commander-in-chief, or Speaker Pelosi and Senate leader McConnell running their constitutional branch of the government, the chief justice fully owns everything to do with his FISA court.

Preparing for the Senate to take up the impeachment of President Trump, there have been several shallow inoculation stories making comparisons between the late Chief Justice Rehnquist and President Clinton's Senate impeachment process and Roberts's potential role in Trump's.  Readers have seen this quote in many stories about Chief Justice Rehnquist: "I did nothing in particular, and I did it very well."

There is now a nice try by Ruth Marcus, deputy editorial page editor, venturing her opinion from Jeff Bezos's personal newspaper, the Washington Post:

The chief justice is not going to arrive on a white steed to save the country from Trump. Indeed, a minimalist approach on Roberts's part is not only the all-but-certain outcome — it is also the wiser course, better for the court and the country.

What the writer misses is the obverse: the Chief Justice can actually be a subtle activist judge.  I do agree with her point about hoping for a minimalist approach, but that is just our opinions.

Evidence of the chief justice being partisan against President Trump is in the public record.  So far, all current reporting fails the test of judging the chief justice on his total AWOL behavior overseeing the most corrupt use of the power of the state to destroy a presidential campaign.  In my opinion, the Senate and the president have much to be concerned about, just by looking at Roberts's imperfect (being kind) stewardship of his FISA court.

 A Wall Street Journal editorial is very good, up to a point:

The court did nothing about this deception for three years despite accumulating evidence presented to it. Once this is all publicly exposed, would your response be to hire a former Obama official and media apologist for the FBI to restore the court's credibility?

Yet that is exactly what the FISA court has done in appointing David Kris to review changes proposed by the FBI to the court's surveillance application process.

Federal Judge James Boasberg, an Obama appointee for the District of Columbia, became presiding FISA judge on Jan. 1. That he would act in such an obtuse fashion is another argument for the FISA court's abolition.

Chief Justice Roberts has final hiring authority over David Kris.  It also looks as if federal judge James Boasberg has a major conflict, because, after all, the Obama administration spied on President Trump and his team.  Judge Boasberg and lawyer Kris working together brings to mind the famous quip in a Chicago courtroom: "Your Honor, Motion to Fix."

Now one more time, please: All American's should know if the chief justice is just foolishly ignorant of such hiring behavior, or is it a horrible case of willful blindness on his part?

 Best to sort it all out quickly or have a new chief justice sworn in ASAP.