Posted on 12/16/2019 5:36:32 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
Calls for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to recuse himself from an impeachment trial of President Trump because he allegedly prejudged the case also would remove scores of Democrats if they are held to the same standard, including most of the chamber’s 2020 presidential hopefuls.
Mr. McConnell drew criticism for lacking impartiality when he declared last week that he was on the same page with the White House when preparing for a trial.
“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,” the Kentucky Republican told Fox News.
The remarks spurred House Democrats to call for his recusal as a juror in the impeachment trial, suggesting he won’t be impartial in deciding whether Mr. Trump should be convicted and removed from office.
By that measure, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer also could be sidelined for the trial.
Mr. Schumer, New York Democrat, declared Monday that the evidence gathered by the House impeachment inquiry is sufficient to show the president committed the charges detailed in the two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
“Right now, I think the House has amassed a great deal of evidence — much of it in the form of testimony — from the president’s own appointees that the president committed impeachable offenses,” he said.
He’s far from alone.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
The second it goes to the Senate, hold a vote to end this sh*t..I dont give a rats behind what the commies want..they can kiss my ass..end this nonsense NOW
Any senator running for president should recuse themself.
If you exclude everyone with an opinion then the vote would be zero to zero.
That's right !
and a ton of Criminal Dems in the House would have to recuse themselves because of their connection to the Ukraine
If that’s the case, the Pelosi should have recused herself because of a conflict of interest.
She’s next in line for the presidency if something happens to Trump and Pence.
She can’t be considered impartial and should never have been part of a process where she could be accused of using her position to overthrow the results of the election.
If the vote is zero-zero then the issue lies with the President of the Senate which is the VP but then the issue arises: Does the VPOUS belong to the Executive or the Legislative branch of government? The demonrats will be quick to chime in that the VPOUS belongs to the Executive branch as to nullify the VPOUS’s vote. The Constitution is ambiguous as to which branch of the government the VPOUS belongs to.
Schumer still thinks the demonrats are running the show. The media is also promulgating him to dictate to the repubes the trial in the Senate. If the repubes cowtow to the demonrats, they deserve the name repubes and forever are done. I will never vote for another repube for Senator in my life. I certainly hell no won’t vote for a demonrat.
No trial at all.
Summary acquittal instead.
It would remove everyone on both sides of the aisle. There isn't one senator who doesn't already know how they're going to vote.
Once the Articles of Impeachment are voted on and when they are passed, it falls onto the Senate to hold a trial with SCOTUS presiding. The repubes are running the Senate currently. No House members participate in the Senate trial so how can they recuse themselves? That’s not to say there is a ton of criminal demonrats in the HOuse. They just won’t be presiding in the Senate trial. Schifty knows this as he holds special privilege and if subpoenaed by the repubes in the Senate, he will more than likely ignore it.
And what, exactly, are the laws being referenced here? Where in the CFR can we find "abuse of power" or "obstruction of Congress"? These are completely invented, have no basis in law, and are meaningless as concepts.
Hard to argue against that on Article I, impossible (seeing that SCOTUS is on record, by granting cert, to the effect that Trump has a colorable argument that the House of Representatives’ subpoena is not valid) to argue against that on Article II.
Hard to argue against that on Article I, impossible (seeing that SCOTUS is on record, by granting cert, to the effect that Trump has a colorable argument that the House of Representatives’ subpoena is not valid) to argue against that on Article II.
The morning of the Clinton trial Sheets Byrd said “While these (impeachment articles) rise to high crimes and misdemeanors, I’ll not vote to impeach.”
lol...they’re right. ALL Democrats who have Presidential ambitions need to recuse themselves as well. No Bernie. No Bennet, no Booker, No Klobuchar, no Warren.
F U & E Schitt & D, DemonRats.
Laughable and childish on its face.
Treat Schumer like a House Republican. When he squeals how unfair it is, then ask him if it’s so unfair, why didn’t you speak up for the House Republicans when they were treated THE EXACT SAME WAY? Then have. MItch smile and say “Welcome to Karma bitch!”
“Right now, I think the House has amassed a great deal of evidence — much of it in the form of testimony — from the president’s own appointees that the president committed impeachable offenses,”
If all hearsay is excluded the only testimony admissible would be from Sondland, the guy who testified that President Trump told him he wants nothing, no quid pro quo.
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.