House Democrat calls on McConnell to recuse himself from impeachment trial

[tulc]

House Democrat calls on McConnell to recuse himself from impeachment trial

Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.) on Friday called on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to recuse himself from the Senate impeachment trial, citing the GOP leader's remarks the previous night about coordinating with the White House.

McConnell said during an interview on Fox News on Thursday night that “everything I do during this, I’m coordinating with the White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this to the extent that we can.”

Demings accused the GOP leader of promising to "sabotage" the trial.

"No court in the country would allow a member of the jury to also serve as the accused’s defense attorney. The moment Senator McConnell takes the oath of impartiality required by the Constitution, he will be in violation of that oath," she said in a statement.

tulc(thinks she makes an excellent point)

 

[Bobber]

What the Senate doesn't get the write up the rules any way they want? Don't the Dems love to do that in the House?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Should everyone that called for impeachment before the matter was even taken up in the House also recuse themselves from voting on the issue? They obviously are not impartial.

 

[DavidPT]

House Democrat calls on McConnell to recuse himself from impeachment trial

tulc(thinks she makes an excellent point)

I don't get it though? Even if McConnell were to recuse himself, so what? There is still not going to be a 2/3 vote in the Senate to remove Trump, regardless.

 

[redleghunter]

What the Senate doesn't get the write up the rules any way they want? Don't the Dems love to do that in the House?

That’s what’s laughable. A House resolution which allows Democrats in the House to veto witnesses called by Republicans in the same committee. Having Adam Schiff lead an investigation when his office had contact with the supposed whistleblower. Not to mention Nadler should have recused himself from the Judiciary chair as he and Trump have a long history of animus in NY politics and real estate development.

 

[Hank77]

If it wasn't McConnell coordinating with the WH it would just be someone else.

 

[tulc]

All of which, while interesting is actually beside the point. If he's already admitted he's unwilling to be unbiased that means he has to lie in order to take the oath to be sworn in as the "jury foreman" since they're the ones to decide guilt or not. Honestly, this may well be his way of ducking out of being held responsible for what ever happens. If he has to recuse himself someone else will have to step in, then the heat will be on that guy, come what may. And he still gets to play the "I'm still President Trumps ever faithful turtle!" card if he needs to in his up coming election.
tulc(that Moscow Mitch, always trying to cover his bases)

 

[redleghunter]

All of which, while interesting is actually beside the point. If he's already admitted he's unwilling to be unbiased that means he has to lie in order to take the oath to be sworn in as the "jury foreman" since they're the ones to decide guilt or not. Honestly, this may well be his way of ducking out of being held responsible for what ever happens. If he has to recuse himself someone else will have to step in, then the heat will be on that guy, come what may. And he still gets to play the "I'm still President Trumps ever faithful turtle!" card if he needs to in his up coming election.
tulc(that Moscow Mitch, always trying to cover his bases)

The context was based on the articles passed by a partisan panel.

I saw the interview. He said the articles lack evidence and are too general to be taken seriously other than a partisan ploy for political gain.

 

[tulc]

The context was based on the articles passed by a partisan panel.

I saw the interview. He said the articles lack evidence and are too general to be taken seriously other than a partisan ploy for political gain.

...in other words he's already made up his mind. Which is what the point of the OP was. Thanks for agreeing with it.
tulc(is always glad when he can agree with people about things)

 

[redleghunter]

...in other words he's already made up his mind. Which is what the point of the OP was. Thanks for agreeing with it.
tulc(is always glad when he can agree with people about things)

Yes in other words the articles of impeachment are a partisan document from the House Democrats. The way they ran that sham inquiry is an embarrassment to our Republic.

 

[Matt5]

Gee tulc, your stuff seems to be getting locked. I wonder why?

The Democrat rule for being recused:

If we discover that you have thought about something, then you must be recused.

Naturally, this rule only applies to Republicans. In reality, recusal in the Senate is about conflict of interest where personal (or family) gain is at issue.

This impeachment nonsense will come back to haunt Democrats. We don't like you, so we will impeach you rule.

 

[redleghunter]

Gee tulc, your stuff seems to be getting locked. I wonder why?

The Democrat rule for being recused:

If we discover that you have thought about something, then you must be recused.

Naturally, this rule only applies to Republicans. In reality, recusal in the Senate is about conflict of interest where personal (or family) gain is at issue.

This impeachment nonsense will come back to haunt Democrats. We don't like you, so we will impeach you rule.

As always Trump has a solution which will save embarrassment of both chambers of Congress.

Trump Requests Impeachment Trial By Combat

 

[hedrick]

Gee tulc, your stuff seems to be getting locked. I wonder why?

The Democrat rule for being recused:

If we discover that you have thought about something, then you must be recused.

Naturally, this rule only applies to Republicans. In reality, recusal in the Senate is about conflict of interest where personal (or family) gain is at issue.

This impeachment nonsense will come back to haunt Democrats. We don't like you, so we will impeach you rule.

The House is not trying the President. They are acting as investigators and prosecutors. They certainly should demand good evidence of a high crime, of course, but they have a different role from the Senate.

The Senate is acting as a jury. They are required to take an oath: ”I solemnly swear (or affirm) that in all things appertaining to the trial of ____, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.”

Now realistically, they've already seen much of the evidence. It's unrealistic to think that they wouldn't have formed opinions. But (1) they can and should subpoena evidence themselves. There are, after all, a number of witnesses who haven't testified who have more direct knowledge thn those who have. The House is really only required to see if there's good reason to prosecute. They can act on the best evidence available. The Senate, however, should want the testimony of people who refused to talk to the House. (2) despite having formed preliminary conclusions they are required by their oath and a general duty to justice to be as unbiased as possible in considering evidence. Making public statements that the President is innocent (or guilty) conflicts with this. Coordinating strategy with the President conflicts with it.

The statements and actions of some senators appear to conflict with this oath. In my opinion if the Senate refuses to subpoena the people with the most direct knowledge, no trial will have been conducted. The next Senate would then have it as their duty to conduct an actual trial.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

I call on house democrats to do something else to themselves.