Impartiality in the Senate

[hislegacy]

How do we guarantee it?

Three are actively campaigning, all three have called for his impeachment, all three are poised to benefit politically from an impeachment

I think they and any other who have already stated their bias should recuse themselves.

 

[DavidPT]

How do we guarantee it?

Three are actively campaigning, all three have called for his impeachment, all three are poised to benefit politically from an impeachment

I think they and any other who have already stated their bias should recuse themselves.

They have already been sworn in though. Can they still recuse themselves at this point? But I do strongly agree that they should recuse themselves.

 

[HannahT]

They won't recuse.

 

[DavidPT]

They won't recuse.

I agree they won't , but why won't they? That is the question. I think most of us already know the answer though.

 

[paul1149]

I agree they won't , but why won't they? That is the question. I think most of us already know the answer though.

They certainly can recuse after being sworn in. But they won't because the process has been political from its inception.

 

[Hank77]

I think they and any other who have already stated their bias should recuse themselves.

That would include about 98% of the Senate.

 

[Hank77]

They have already been sworn in though. Can they still recuse themselves at this point? But I do strongly agree that they should recuse themselves.

That would leave only 3 or 4 Republicans on the jury and all the rest would have to recuse.
And only 1 Democratic left on the jury and the rest would have to recuse.

It's rather like the justices on the SCourt, we have to trust that they will put their partisanship aside and put the Constitution and the laws of land first.

 

[DavidPT]

That would leave only 3 or 4 Republicans on the jury and all the rest would have to recuse.
And only 1 Democratic left on the jury and the rest would have to recuse.

I don't follow? Can you clarify further so that I can at least be on the same page with you?


Edited to add: after reading post 7 by you, I'm assuming that was what your point was based on. I hadn't read that post yet when I initially made this one.

 

[Hank77]

I don't follow? Can you clarify further so that I can at least be on the same page with you?


Edited to add: after reading post 7 by you, I'm assuming that was what your point was based on. I hadn't read that post yet when I initially made this one.

Correct. There have only been about 4 or 5 Senators who have said they would wait to hear the evidence, witnesses, etc.
McConnell, Lindsey Graham, and others have said they've made up their minds and I'm sure there are just as many Dems. that feel the same way.

 

[DavidPT]

Sanders says he's concerned about lost campaign time during impeachment trial


Here's his perfect opportunity to do the right thing. So why doesn't he then? Why doesn't he recuse himself?

 

[Hank77]

Sanders says he's concerned about lost campaign time during impeachment trial


Here's his perfect opportunity to do the right thing. So why doesn't he then? Why doesn't he recuse himself?

I imagine they all are, I would be but my duty would be to do my job first.

 

[DavidPT]

I imagine they all are, I would be but my duty would be to do my job first.

I think I'm slowly but surely figuring out the Democrats strategy here. Eventually it will get to the point when Schumer will call for a motion to call witnesses. There is 47 of them, except 2 are Independents, yet in the same group as the Democrats. In order for his motion to succeed , he would need at least 4 Republicans to vote in favor of. But take away 3 of these Democrats who shouldn't be sitting in this trial to begin with, the fact they are running against the one on trial, now the Minority needs 7 Republicans in favor of, rather than only 4. No matter how you look at it, it would obviously be easier to sway 4 Senators your way versus 7.

 

[Hank77]

I think I'm slowly but surely figuring out the Democrats strategy here. Eventually it will get to the point when Schumer will call for a motion to call witnesses. There is 47 of them, except 2 are Independents, yet in the same group as the Democrats. In order for his motion to succeed , he would need at least 4 Republicans to vote in favor of. But take away 3 of these Democrats who shouldn't be sitting in this trial to begin with, the fact they are running against the one on trial, now the Minority needs 7 Republicans in favor of, rather than only 4. No matter how you look at it, it would obviously be easier to sway 4 Senators your way versus 7.

Everyone knows he isn't going to be impeached.

 

[jgarden]

How do we guarantee it?

Three are actively campaigning, all three have called for his impeachment, all three are poised to benefit politically from an impeachment

I think they and any other who have already stated their bias should recuse themselves.

It must have slipped the OP's memory that Majority Leader McConnell announced on FOXNEWS that he and the White House were cooperating to create a united front! concerning this President's trial in the Senate!

Senator Blackburn who first floated this trial balloon, has a history of receiving large donations from the fossil fuel industry, telecommunication corporations and the Koch brothers, and then voted on legislation that favored them without recusing herself!

 

[Arcangl86]

Everyone knows he isn't going to be impeached.

He's already been impeached.

 

[Hank77]

He's already been impeached.

Sorry, I meant acquitted. Thanks for catching that.

 

[The Barbarian]

McConnell, Lindsey Graham, and others have said they've made up their minds and I'm sure there are just as many Dems. that feel the same way.

I'm sure McConnell and Graham will do the right thing and recuse themselves.

Like I'm sure pigs will start to fly tomorrow.

 

[Uber Genius]

Well the jury gets to hear the case. And since they decided not to dismiss based on complete lack of evidentiary support, they will have to bring witnesses. I expect they will want to talk to Joe and Hunter Biden so the Senators can confirm quid pro quo on Joe. Something that is well worth investigation since Joe claimed he was also representing Obama when he demanded that the prosecutor was investigating his son and his son's company Burrisma.

We will also want to hear from the whistleblower, who doesn't meet the qualifications of a whistleblower since it was hearsay, and he met with Schiff's staff, although Schiff denied even knowing who it was.

So we also need to hear from The Honorable Representative Adam Schiff. Not as a prosecutor but as a witness.

Since abuse of power and obstruction of congress are not statutory, and also without warrant (every POTUS since Eisenhower with exception of Ford and Carter would be impeached given the bases of the obstruction charges).

Abuse of Power for investigating quid pro quo by Joe? How is that a crime?

We have the transcript.

The only abuse of power was by Pelosi, and Nadler, and Schiff, and the those that were willing to deny due process and fake an impeachment to steal an election.

Luckily, the jury needs to get 67 votes to convict.

The house case is not even weak, in any court in the land it would be dismissed with a summary judgement. But we will see if the trial hurts reelection. The real losers in this impeachment are the people (both those who voted for Trump and those like me who did not) and destruction of the U.S. Constitution.

 

[The Barbarian]

No cover-up ever works. Republican Senators might vote to hide witnesses, but they can't stop them from talking. And as long as we have a free press, that's all that's necessary.

The republican assault on the Constitution is already a failure. And keep in mind, the impeachment isn't a criminal trial; he remains open to prosecution as soon as he leaves office. It is sufficient for history to note that he was properly impeached, that his party controlled the Senate and covered up witnesses, and that evidence and witnesses show he committed crimes.

 

[Bobber]

How do we guarantee it?

Three are actively campaigning, all three have called for his impeachment, all three are poised to benefit politically from an impeachment

I think they and any other who have already stated their bias should recuse themselves.

Very true. The very fact that they're campaigning for his job is a direct conflict of interest where they might not show impartiality. Every other human being can do that IF you belong to their political party but if not YOU CAN'T. So obviously an attempt to stack the deck wherever they go and whatever they do.

THEY WON'T offer the same consideration to the President where he can gain from seeing Biden investigated and have it still not have it be for right legal reasons.