Posted on 01/29/2020 6:07:42 PM PST by dgkb
It’s a good question and an open one that ought to be settled, despite the Article I argument elsewhere in this thread. If they are running the primary to be president, they are by definition running to be president and in conflict as passing a legal judgment on their opponent. As with all challenges to the Constitution, this one ought to go to court and settled by SCOTUS. Framers evidently did not anticipate this issue, but a conflict is a conflict and this one is Hugh and series. I would have thought it might at least be brought up in the question period of this Senate trial. Love to hear the House managers’ reply and the senators then faced with the very question posed by reporters.
If I am running for president and my opponents get to campaign unfettered while I rot in my chair in the Upper Chamber, someone should check my brain. Someone explain to me why 3 senators running for president are willing to sit through this trial when they know that the conclusion is a given? Why haven’t they given the Dems the finger and gone to Iowa? There must be an end game for them. Is the party trying to knock them out?
SHUT UP, PEASANT. /Democrat Party Overlords
I’ve wondered that myself.
I guess the assumption is that all the Dems want Trump to not be their President...but I still think the acquittal vote will be between 55 and 60...
A reverse of that question was asked by mediots a couple of weeks ago; How can a Republican senator act as an impartial juror in trump’s trial?
I didn’t hear word one about Democrat congressmen not being able to be impartial in bringing the charges, though!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.