Presiding Judge Gerking: "Certainly disappointed by these texts"

Interview on KOBI

     "Our partners were talking. Amazing. So mean, so reckless, thinking that stuff and then actually putting it in writing like that.  She's a judge, for crying out loud."

           Partner in a large Medford law firm

    

 "Unless Lisa has a good explanation for these texts, she should resign."

          Veteran Medford personal injury plaintiff attorney

Judge Greif provides her explanation, in full: 

        "I wrote these texts over two years ago and, obviously, I am embarrassed by their content. I sincerely apologize to Judge Pat Crain, OnTrack, my colleagues on the bench, and to the citizens of Jackson county for using inappropriate language and not living up to the expectations I have of myself.

        I know that respect must be earned, and I hope that my actions since 2017 are a better reflection of who I am and the judge I aspire to be."

This response might work for her. Prior to becoming a judge Greif was a public defender, a lawyer who provides legal defense to people accused of crimes. Defending problematic incidents is a job in her wheelhouse. There is experience, craft, and strategy to her response. 

It was short--get it over with.

Take a contrite tone.

Say it was a long time ago and you are reformed.

And most important: apologize for the least important and most forgivable thing. Try to make her mistake one of bad language.

That is what she did. 

A Rotarian comment to me

I shared with her that I thought her texts revealed something much, much more troubling. This wasn't about writing "shit" and "Fuckers!" and calling other people "bitches" or talking about body slamming them. I said there were bigger issues.

The problem is that she used her office as judge to assist in a legal and media strategy to help litigants who were suing a organization doing the court's work, doing it secretly, doing it in part by using contemptuous language to undermine respect for fellow judges and the court system. Moreover, the texts do not demonstrate a conscientious "roll up ones sleeves" sincere desire to fix problems and make a better community. It does the opposite. It demonstrates malicious joy in personal and institutional destruction of people central to the court's work, in which Judge Greif was an active, gleeful participant.

That is conduct unbecoming a judge. That is what diminishes respect for the legal system and every other judge. That is what will cause every citizen who interacts with the justice system in Jackson County to wonder about the real, underlying motives, goals, and character of any judge sitting in front of them. Judges, as we see, are not necessarily rational, fair, reasonable people, with actions taken in open court. That is what concerns me.

Greif sent me a follow-up to her first explanation:

     "The disagreements, rancor, and underlying litigation are in the past. There were serious issues that were identified in DOJ's investigation of, and lawsuits regarding, OnTrack. My comments and conduct were ill-advised, and I have acknowledged that. As I indicated in may earlier response to you, I have had significant time since I wrote those text messages to reflect on and to address the "bigger issues" to which you refer."

Again, smart strategy.  

Still short. Still contrite. Still asserting that the past is past, that texts written two years ago and a lawsuit resolved this summer were old business, but adding a new element: OnTrack, the organization she worked to destroy, had problems. It is the victim-deserved-to-die defense in a murder case.

I consider this a distraction, an effort to change the subject. It might work in front of some juries, but is less likely to in front of the real body deciding the future for Judge Greif--the legal community of Southern Oregon. 

The issue is Greif herself. Was her response to whatever problems she may have perceived  at OnTrack reasonable and fair? Was it ethical? Do we want judges to address problems--or allegations of problems--by secretly taking sides in a lawsuit, secretly helping to gather evidence, or to use friendly media "moles" to get out "dirt" to drive up potential settlement values for the litigants? Do we want judges who carry out that work to tell court witnesses that the judges they appear in front of are witches, bitches, and evil?

A Facebook comment

This isn't interpretation or commentary. It is the plain and simple direct observation of the content of her texts. No need to trust me. Read them. Decide for yourself.

The question for Jackson County legal community is whether Greif's behavior is OK?  Or is it bad, sure, but still "good enough" by Jackson County standards?

Presiding Judge Timothy Gerking has a comment, in full: 

        "I am certainly disappointed by these texts authored by Judge Greif, as well as the history of reciprocal discord between two valued members of this court. Our court works hard to approach disputes impartially and to treat all people with respect. The language and the thoughts expressed in the texts are inappropriate and fall short of what we expect from a judge.

        I have spoken with Judge Greif. I am convinced she is learning and growing from this experience, and despite this lapse will continue to be a respected and valued member of our court."

Note he does not say her behavior falls far short, just short. He says Greif is learning and behavior in her eighth year of being on the bench was disappointing, but now, in her tenth year she has "grown." It was just a "lapse." She apparently was respected and valued going back while doing this behavior, and still is.

There it is. 

Speaking for myself, it is not good enough. I have a higher respect for the court system than that, and want to keep feeling that way. 

I expect more from judges.

Note: I know lots of lawyers and indeed I am married to one. No one but me decides what goes into this blog. I don't consult with my wife about this blog; in fact, she doesn't even read it. She is busy doing good work.

Shocking Text Messages by Judge Lisa Greif

Greif, interviewed on KOBI

"Heard about your bad day. Don't worry, those bitches are going down!"

     Judge Lisa Greif, 2-15-2017, to a local litigant Amy Jacobs.

"I also wanted to kill Crain today at CFC graduation. But I was worried about all the witnesses if I just ran and body slammed her."

     Judge Lisa Greif, 5-16-2017, following a graduation ceremony for a Family Court event in her courtroom. 

And this exchange:

Jacobs:  "No matter what happens--Rita is done and that's a win :)"

Judge Greif: "Now if Crain would just go away my life would be complete."

Jacobs:  "I'm working on it :)"

     Judge Lisa Greif and litigant Amy Jacobs, 6-25-2017

Lisa Greif is a Circuit Court Judge serving in Jackson County. The "Crain" in the above texts is Judge Patricia Crain, her colleague on the bench. The "Rita" is Rita Sullivan, for 39 years the Executive Director of OnTrack, a drug and alcohol recovery program. Crain and Sullivan were the "bitches" Judge Greif was actively working to bring down. 


These text messages were uncovered as part of the "discovery" process in a lawsuit filed by Amy Jacobs, a former client of OnTrack, who entered and completed treatment, and who was subsequently employed to manage OnTrack owned housing for people in recovery. Jacobs made a variety of accusations against OnTrack and Rita Sullivan personally. The accusations were given wide publicity in local media. Her case, and the cases of friends who joined in accusations, were either dropped or settled this summer by OnTrack's insurance company for less than the cost of attorney fees to defend them.

For over a year local residents got media reports of alleged wrongdoing by OnTrack, focusing on problems at housing provided by the organization. Jacobs sought to leave OnTrack and secure employment at the Family Nurturing Center, an organization doing some similar work to OnTrack. Judge Greif was on the board of the Family Nurturing Center. 

Judge Greif carried out a lively text-message correspondence revealing a startling relationship between a judge and a person whose job included regular appearances before that judge as a witness to the court on the behavior of tenants in OnTrack housing. Doubly startling, Jacobs was a litigant in a lawsuit against an organization that provides services that were mandated by the court in which both Greif and Crain served. Greif's own text messages show that Greif believed the court itself might be a party to that suit. More startling yet was the Greif's comments to this court witness about her colleague, Judge Patricia Crain. Jacobs also regularly appeared before Judge Crain as a court witness.

In an interview on KTVL

Media "mole." Observers of local media noted a vigorous effort to "try the case in the media" rather than in the courtroom. By damaging the reputation of OnTrack, the cost to the organization in lost contracts for services might be so high it would choose to make a settlement offer to stop the bad publicity. In carrying out the media strategy Jacobs had the advantage of coaching by Greif, her credibility as a sitting judge, her connections with the District Attorney's office, and connections in the media--her "mole."

Greif coached Amy Jacobs and fellow employee plaintiffs on their strategy to feed material to the media, with three texts from Judge Greif to Jacobs on June 14, 2017:

Greif: 
"Yes, we want to show they are full of shit! Rowna is trying to see what she can dig up too."---"Great news about the Neil's case! Fuckers!" --- "Sorry. I am in a mood!"  

Followed up four days later, arranging to send have material sent to Greif's personal email account:

Jacobs: "Did you send your stuff in for mole? I'm meeting with Rowna at 3 to build timeline for media with pictures."

Greif: "No I didn't get anything from anyone to send in.

Jacobs: "I will have plenty."

Greif: "Good."

Jacobs: "Did an amazing time line for my attorney I will send to you on your personal tomorrow :)"

Greif: "Sounds good."

[Note: Rowna Hunt is a supervisor at the Department of Human Services/Child Welfare.]

Then this in August: 

"My mole tells me the media would be willing to do a follow up story on OT's deferred maintenance to point out how long said maintenance was actually deferred. If either of you have any documentation prior to June 2016, such a[s] photos or emails, let me know." Judge Greif to Amy Jacobs 8-14-2017.

 Lisa Greif had knowledge that there was a  problem with her relationship with someone who had filed notices of potential litigation against the court on which she served. Jacobs planned a celebration of progress in her case to be held at a local Mexican restaurant and and "invite my friends."  

Greif responded: "Is your attorney going to be there Friday? I am not sure it is good for me to be there with an attorney on a pending case who has included the court in the tort claim notice. Let me know. You and I could go another time to 'celebrate'."

These messages are a sample from the hundreds of back and forth texts between Judge Greif and the OnTrack accusers. I present more of them below, so readers can see them for themselves, in context. 

The case for Jacobs against OnTrack is over. But there remains the disturbing evidence of Judge Greif's involvement in that case.

I am disappointed in Judge Greif. 

These texts themselves are outlandish and vicious.  They reflect awesomely immature and vengeful thinking. She could easily have foreseen that a litigant might have her phone texts subpoenaed--yet she carried on this ridiculous correspondence anyway. Greif isn't stupid or naive..This is head-shaking imprudence and lack of judgement--the worst possible qualities in a judge.

Worse, the texts reveal a pattern of behavior that seems unethical, unbecoming of a judge, and destructive to the honor of the court system as an impartial way to settle disputes justly. This wasn't just private behavior. She leveraged her position as a judge to assist litigants in an ongoing lawsuit against an agent of the court, both with legal strategy and the media take-down strategy. She disparaged and undermined a fellow judge who interacted with that litigant, disrespecting the court. At a time when public belief in public institutions are are at a new low, Greif's behavior makes it worse. She hurt her court.

I publicly supported Judge Greif in her one contested campaign for office, in 2008. I recall making a significant financial contribution to that campaign.  I had had generally good supportive thoughts about Greif. I thought she would show good judgement. 

Now I don't.

Readers can read these and decide for themselves whether Judge Greif seems reasonable, fair, and just. The phone numbers have been blacked out. Judge Greif's words are marked in yellow. 

Tomorrow: 
Presiding Judge Timothy Gerking and Judge Greif have each responded to my request for a comment, with very brief note. Each asked that it be printed verbatim. I will do so tomorrow.

Message Samples:

 "I also wanted to kill Crain day at CFC graduation, but I was worried about all of the witnesses if I just ran and body slammed her."

Grief to Amy Jacobs, June 2017

"Heard about your bad day. Don't worry, those bitches are going down!"

Conversation comparing OnTrack to the Family Nurturing Center, Feb. 2014

"Now if Crain would just go away my life would be complete"

Bringing down OnTrack, June 2017

"I am not sure it is good for me to be there with an attorney on a pending case who has involved the court in the tort claim notice."

Watching appearances.

"I heard shit going down with licenses? Bahahahahahaha!!!

Media strategy, and OnTrack weakened

Judge Crain is "the witch."

From a conversation about the KOBI and Tribune article.

"Isn't it nice working for someone who has a soul?"

February 2017

Down with OnTrack/Up with Family Nurturing Center. "What a hot mess."

Greif stayed in touch with media strategy while on vacation, March 2017

"My mole tells me the media would be willing to do a follow up story on OT's deferred maintenance."

Leveraging credibility with the media. A "mole" helps

Getting DA friends to hush up an OnTrack supporter: "I will alert some of the DAs."

A DA employee speaks up for OnTrack. Greif intervenes.

"Yeah, they fucked up big time. Off the record, I went off on OHA at at meeting a couple of weeks ago."

Leveraging a judge's power and credibility

"I didn't get anything from anybody to send in."

Actively involved in the media campaign

"Saw the story. That is some good shit. The only thing I wish is for a way to sue Crain!

Conversation about a KOBI story.

"We want to show they are full of shit! Fuckers! Sorry. I am in a mood."

Frustrated.

There were dozens more texts along these lines. I had intended to make the full un-edited package of them available to anyone who asked, in an easily e-mailed PDF file, but I was informed that since the texts showed phone numbers, I cannot do that. If there is reader demand for more examples, I can edit and publish another batch. But these are enough to tell the story.

Greener pastures for Walden

     "For me, the time has come to pursue new challenges and opportunities."

    Greg Walden, announcing he will not run for re-election

I already noted that I predicted this a year ago.

Off to become a lobbyist.

Walden does not consult with me. My predictions are based on publicly available observations. Readers said I was just trolling him when I wrote last year and subsequently that he would be leaving office. Actually, I was being sincere. It was a guess, but an educated one.

I don't know for certain what "new challenges and opportunities" he plans. For all I know, he plans to get into great shape and do marathons and write poetry. As I said, he doesn't open up to me.

But here is what I am confident he will do. He will be part of the revolving door of public office and then lobbying. Nowadays, to the peril of our republic, public office is the semi-paid internship, the dues people play before they leave office and cash in. Donald Trump called this "the swamp" and the campaign message got real traction.  He was too rich to bother cashing in, he said.

It helped him get elected. Hillary Clinton was a better example of the revolving door of public service and big money than was Trump. Trump said he played the contribution game as a guy who gave money and got favors, and said he played to win but disapproved of the game.

Hillary played the game and didn't seem to disapprove. Her paid speeches were a body-language signal that she got money for playing the game.  As with prostitution, the recipient of the money is perceived worse than is the payer of the money. Trump won that matchup.

Democrats have taken a step back from PAC and big lobbyist contributions, and even contributions by well heeled individual donors making the maximum $2,800 contribution are suspect. Sanders and Warren contrast their fundraising with that of Pete Buttigieg.  

Republicans are less picky. Trump gets money from rich and poor. Greg Walden's own announcement noted that he had raised a great deal of money. In the Republican view, there is no shame in being beloved by people who write big checks. Walden gets those checks, especially from two of the industries his Energy and Commerce Committee oversees: health care and telecommunications. He has friends in those industries.

I predict the revolving door will turn exactly  180 degrees. He will go to work representing one of the industries he worked to regulate. 

They owe him.

Walden to leave Congress. I told you so.

This blog predicted it over a year ago. And repeated it multiple times.

Walden is not running for re-election.

Note the date on the post heading below: November 8, 2018

Then, in December of 2018, I repeated it: 

And repeatedly in posts ever since then I have been observing that Greg Walden would leave. 

Once you have been Chairman, I said, it would be galling to have to address someone else as "Mr. Chairman." And besides, I have written, his real calling is as a lobbyist. He is comfortable with lobbyists, he is obviously well liked by them, and he has been raising money from them for himself and others for years.

He could go in the direction of drug companies, he could go in the direction of telecoms, he could could be the frontman for a national organization, e.g. the National Association of Broadcasters. Anything has to be better than being a spear carrier in a caucus that has to defend Donald Trump by ignoring what he proudly does--things he would raise holy hell about if a Democrat were to do it.

Increase the deficit. 

Ignore the Congressional power of the purse.

Encourage foreign interference in our elections.

Work to end health coverage of pre-existing conditions. 

Let me note here that I have zero "inside information" on Walden. Neither he nor his staff every told me anything about his plans, nor should they. If they had, I would have written about it. 

I saw this coming because I watched Walden closely enough to think he was sincere in not personally wanting to reduce the expansion of Medicaid and the coverage of pre-existing conditions, but that as Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee he needed to do the ugly work of his president and GOP caucus, so he did, the good soldier.  The status was nice, but the job wasn't. Now, without the status of being Mr. Chairman, his job required that he defend the indefensible. Walden isn't really a Trump-type Republican. He was more a Romney-type Republican. They are on the outs now.

And he wasn't stuck. He has lobbyist friends, and now he can be with them.

Put all that together and I predicted it, and said so.

Guest post: Trump won't be removed

Of course, Trump is guilty. 

Street fighter character

It won't get him removed from office.

Americans knew Trump was a dirty street fighter when we elected him. That wasn't a bug. It was a feature.

The 2020 election will not be a referendum on Trump. Voters will be forced to choose between a flawed president and a Democrat who by election day will seem even more dangerous to a great many people.

People appalled by Donald Trump have a hard time believing he can be good at anything. In fact, he is enormously talented at defending himself in this media environment and projecting a personae that thrills a lot of Americans. He uses the tools of wild, newsworthy accusations, shows of contempt, name calling, and lack of concern for consistency or hypocrisy. He is shameless, and therefore confident and forthright in his assertions.

Happy to fight

He connects with a lot of Americans. He understands and validates the and resentment of Christian social conservatives amid a growing tide of secularism. He understands and validates the sense of displacement felt by people observing ethnic and demographic changes from immigration from Latin America and Asia. He understand and validates the resentments felt by many Americans for coastal elites and their woke social justice culture. 

He plays the role of the victim who fights back. 

Thad Guyer predicts Trump won't be impeached, and may well be elected, not because Trump is a good president but because he is a good political street fighter and because Democrats are pushing forward candidates he easily can characterize as extreme.

In 2016 Americans elected a person who had just been exposed on tape and video saying he grabbed women "by the pussy" and wanted to "fuck the married woman" he was about to meet. How could he actually win a majority of the votes of white women under those circumstances?

Answer: He made the Democrat seem even worse.

Guyer is an attorney. He does some Legal Services cases in Medford, Oregon, but his primary practice is an international one defending whistleblower employees, done from wherever he and his laptop computer chooses to be. Now, most frequently, it is in Vietnam.

Thad Guyer

Guest Post by Thad Guyer

     Peter's post cuts right to the heart of the future of the impeachment effort and Trump's reelection prospects-- it's all about the jurors, i.e. senators. Jurors decide who is more harmful to society, a lawless citizen or a lawless cop; or which is more valuable to a community, employees reporting wrongdoing or executives growing businesses and jobs. GOP senators will decide if its better or worse for America that Trump’s presidency continues or ends. Three compelling questions will determine if Republican senators vote to end Trump: (1) Are Trump's accusers themselves innocent of wrongdoing; (2) was Trump’s misconduct far outside our expectations of him when he was elected; and (3) would GOP senators by removing Trump protect the rule of law in its broader form or simply reward lawless Democrats?

    Two precedents are predictive: (1) Cavanaugh’s confirmation trial, and (2) the Mueller special counsel investigation that acquitted Trump of Russian collusion, and found lack of jurisdiction over obstruction of justice. The humiliating failure of Democrats on both has seriously eroded trust in the media that a winning impeachment effort requires. Cavanaugh's conduct as a high school and college undergrad presented GOP senators with no politically credible issues as to “the rule of law”. The Mueller investigation proved nothing—not even obstruction-- by the clear and convincing evidence that Republican senators will demand. Nor has any Trump misdeed I’m aware of been far outside the nation’s expectations of him. America knowingly elected a dirty street fighter famous for dodging indictment to achieve his ends, and he won’t be removed for delivering exactly that to his GOP base.

    More consequentially, in the Cavanaugh and Mueller precedents the accusers were themselves tainted by the overtly partisan prosecution—i.e. Democrats bent on 2016 revenge under a false flag of “the rule of law” that the GOP wasn’t buying. It will be the same with impeachment. House Democrats who’ve screamed for impeachment literally foaming at the mouth from day one have zero credibility in the Senate. It’s undisputed that Biden's son was getting rich in the Ukraine while the Vice President demanded removal of the prosecutor investigating the company making his kid rich. “It was not illegal” is no defense but a Trump defense. As to protecting the rule of law, removing Trump would insure election of a secularist, socialist or anti-capitalist Democrat whose campaign pledges threaten GOP orthodoxy that God and Capitalism are the cornerstones of our constitutional democracy, indeed of the rule of law itself. Thus, even if Trump is guilty of “quid pro quo” in “the Ukraine”, hesitant GOP senators will easily reason that it’s absurd to lay claim to saving the republic by installing Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders in the oval office. Call it acquittal, call it jury nullification, the GOP Senate removing Trump from office is a self-destructive Democratic fantasy.

    A failed impeachment will strengthen Trump's reelection bid by giving him his biggest win yet. The GOP will turn it into a trial of Joe and Hunter Biden, the FBI adulterers, Comey leaks, the IG report against FBI officials, and the new DOJ “Durham criminal probe” of Obama’s intelligence chiefs for spying on the Trump campaign. It may be better for Trump to have Romney and a few other GOP “traitors” proving that the war against corrupt political elites and their lawless hoaxes is bipartisan. If Trump’s presidency is to end, it won’t be by the GOP Senate. If he is reelected, the failed impeachment will go down in history as a major factor in Democratic defeat. 

Do Democrats want to lose?

There is a new wave of anxiety flowing through op-ed punditry.

The fear: Democrats are on track to nominate an unelectable, extreme candidate, whom Trump will humiliate and then defeat. 

Maybe America voters will validate demagogic authoritarian governance. Five more years.

Op-Eds in the establishment media, multiple podcast feeds, and even comedian Bill Maher are saying the same thing: Democrats are going over a cliff. 

The meme circulating: Democrats are trying too hard to appeal to the people in the "twitter bubble," the activist Democrats who gather on Facebook, at Indivisible rallies, and and issue-oriented group meetings. The activists are doing negotiation of their own, taking strong positions. The candidates are meeting their litmus tests, and then raising the bid. This activist energy represents the aspirations of the Democratic Party coalition: feminists, reproductive rights activists, climate activists, Green energy activists, anti-frackers, anti-gun activists, blacks, Latinos, Asians, Jews, immigrants, college professors, students, and labor unions.  

Click: Lots of articles along this line.

Sanders and Warren are clear spokespeople for a point of view. Biden is not making an effective counter-case, so Sanders and Warren are setting the mid-field of political discussion. 

Hunter Biden exemplifies swamp culture and Joe Biden does not have the rhetorical skills to reframe this. He is present enough to put younger candidates in a shadow, but doesn't come across as an articulate alpha leader. This leave a political vacuum.

In that vacuum Democrats take the following positions: 

***Sanders and Warren tell people the government and economy is rigged, and then urge people to trust government to socialize the health care payment system in America. 

***Sanders says people serving life in prison should have the vote. 

***Warren says we should pay for transgender surgery for people in prison and is going to try to win Pennsylvania telling them she will ban fracking on Day One in office.***

***Beto says yes, we will confiscate your guns and tax churches. 

***Many candidates say we should decriminalize illegal entry to the country and abolish ICE enforcement.

***They all say we should give free health care to people here illegally.

Those will be a hard sell for Democrats. They are positions designed to affirm that the Democratic Party is dedicated to coastal cities and college towns, that it reflects the values of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. It risks repeating the mistake of the 2016 election, nominating a candidate who is out of touch with the sensibilities of people in "flyover country," places like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Minnesota. 

Donald Trump will not let this election be a referendum on him. We have four years observation and experience with how Trump frames conflict. He will make it a choice. "What about Biden?" "What about Democrats?" "What about. . . ."

The Sanders/Warren message on income distribution and health care access are designed to re-affirm that Democrats reflect the aspirations of working Americans. Democrats dream of re-capturing the votes of blue collar America. It may work. Trump is easy to dislike, and many people dislike him, but he has a gift for communicating contempt. The economic and social justice message may get lost amid attempting to defend providing gender reassignment surgery to prisoners and free college to the children of millionaires. 

Trump will see to that.

"Human Scum"

Which Republicans could trigger an impeachment avalanche?

I identify nine.

       "The Never Trumper Republicans, though on respirators with not many left, are in certain ways worse and more dangerous for our Country than the Do Nothing Democrats. Watch out for them, they are human scum!"

         Trump Tweet

Trump Tweet

The most dangerous people are not the Never Trumpers. The dangerous people to Trump are people who represent political movement, people who change to favor impeachment. 

Justin Amash, Republican Congressman from Michigan, announced he favored impeachment, and then changed his party affiliation to Independent. 

That's one. One is not a movement. This defines Amash as an outlier and traitor. He is not leading a movement. The people with the visibility and credibility to define Republicanism are Senators. 

Mitt Romney could easily announce he supports impeachment. He isn't up for election, and he has little to fear electorally. Trump offends Utah values; Romney exemplifies them. It would be an easy vote, and indeed would affirm and enhance his brand: the principled, square jawed hero.

Number one

The fact that Romney has not led on this when he could is a statement in itself.

To be a leader, not an outlier, one needs followers. If three or four Republican senators joined Mitt Romney then each would have the cover of demonstrating that there is a body of Republicans who support impeachment. It would signify that those people aren't Republican heretics or turncoats. They would be team players, playing on a new version of the Republican team, the "principled Republican team." They could praise Mike Pence, and call it a restoration of Republican virtue. It would signify a choice of directions, not abandonment of the team.

Romney surely would be first.

Susan Collins of Maine, Cory Gardner of Colorado, Joni Ernst of Iowa, and Martha McSally of Arizona are all up for re-election in states where Trump is somewhat unpopular. Pundits look at them as potential votes for impeachment  I think that is wrong.

If they were to announce they favored impeachment, would they gain any Democratic votes? I expect not. Democrats already have a good candidate.  Democrats would think it was an overdue conversion. Would they lose Republican enthusiasm and votes? Almost certainly. No gain, lots of pain--a losing strategy. These are not the low hanging fruit.

Who could do it, out of principle and brand consistency?  People like Mitt Romney, people with low risk for doing it.

Lamar Alexander, Mike Enzi, and Johnny Isakson are retiring from office and they were among the seven people who refused to sign onto Lindsay Graham's resolution to condemn the impeachment probe. They could do it. No senator wants to think of himself as a soldier, loyal to a self serving leader. Senators have pride. They want to think of themselves as statesmen. It would be on-brand. It would follow a pattern, that the people who publicly oppose Trump are the ones leaving office: Bob Corker and Jeff Flake. It is a way to go out head held high.

Lisa Murkowski

Lisa Murkowski of Alaska is one more. She could do it, especially with the cover of company. She is not running this year, and her brand includes being principled and independent of Trump. She voted against repeal of the ACA and the Brett Kavanaugh elevation to the Supreme Court. 

That would be five. 

If Romney could lead a delegation of five, consider how the political environment would be changed. Now the news stories would be "Republican revolt" and the teams would be "Trump loyalists" vs. "Principled Republicans." A choice, a comparison.

Consider what that would mean for someone like Susan Collins, who has a tight race in Maine. Now her calling for impeachment would switch from signifying she is abandoning her team into signifying she is a principled senator joining the team of principled Republicans.

"Principle" is a better brand than "turncoat."  And if Collins goes, then Gardner, McSally, and Ernst can do it. 

Will this happen?  I expect not. I don't think Romney can get people to join him. I don't know if he has had closed door visits with them to plan the mutiny. Still, there were seven senators who  rejected Lindsay Graham's Senate Resolution, so there is potential there. And if he gets to three or four he can get to nine. 

Bankruptcies, dam failures, and an impeachment happen the same way: gradually, and then suddenly. At this point we are waiting for Romney to decide how he wants to be remembered: as the feckless loser who lost an election and then was powerless in the Senate, steamrolled by Trump,  or as the hero who brought integrity and principle back to the GOP and America.