Recusal
- Thread starter Barabbas
- Start date
Of course they're not going to be impartial. Duh.
I don't want them to recuse. I want them pulled off the campaign trail - by their own Party no less
- and have to sit and fume through the trial that they wanted so badly. Ha ****ing ha ha ha. : pointsandlaughs :
Joe Biden is about the only one left, so he will likely get the nomination. I cannot wait for #1, the debates; and #2, the freaking shellacking Trump is going to give him on election day.
I don't want them to recuse. I want them pulled off the campaign trail - by their own Party no less
- and have to sit and fume through the trial that they wanted so badly. Ha ****ing ha ha ha. : pointsandlaughs :Joe Biden is about the only one left, so he will likely get the nomination. I cannot wait for #1, the debates; and #2, the freaking shellacking Trump is going to give him on election day.
I still think there is no way in hell that biden gets the nomination..but I'm usually wrong
I'm stunned that they trotted him out there in the first place.
Grumpy
Well-Known Member
Walking,talking gaffe machine.
Well, that's all a bunch of malarkey and 'lies that even the press wouldn't print'*. So what are you talking about ?
* according to Joe Biden
SkylarkTempest
Active Member
Excellent point. When Lindsay Graham, who said he was “trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind. I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here. What I see coming, happening today, is just a partisan nonsense," recuses himself, then the others should definitely withdraw. Of course, since it's all partisan nonsense anyway, what's the big deal?
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
This list should include Graham and McConnell who have clearly shown themselves to be impartial as well, but I agree with the idea that those seeking to be the next President have a vested interest in impeaching the current one.
It should have included more than a few House members also, but the cat's out of the bag now.
It should have included more than a few House members also, but the cat's out of the bag now.
There ya go
They should save time and money and just go, "53 Republicans, 45 Democrats....no 2/3 majority for conviction, trial's over." Instead they insult us by pretending to be impartial and judicious.
SkylarkTempest
Active Member
There ya go
Not Lindsay Graham. He's not pretending.
Well, then he's the only one not insulting my intelligence and I appreciate that.
SkylarkTempest
Active Member
So, you agree that he should recuse himself along with the Democratic senators running for president?
Let's not forget Booker, Gillibrand, and Harris just because they couldn't get enough support to stay in the race.
Barabbas
Active Member
This list should include the vast majority of the Senate, including Harris and Schumer who all but admitted they've made up their minds on guilt AFTER they took the oath to be impartial, in a press conference to announce just that information.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Hell, just let Roberts make a ruling by himself.
Barabbas
Active Member
After his turnaround on the ACA? He's proven himself to not be impartial judge of the law.
I've got an idea...let's let the electoral college decide who should be president unless there's actually a crime committed by the president. Then, Congress can fire him early. But, it has to be a HIGH crime, like treason or something.
I think I've read that somewhere. "Not liking the person who occupies the office" doesn't seem to be a reason to fire him.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
So you're making the argument that literally no one is capable of impeaching Trump?Giuliani (and most of the Right) is making the argument that the impeachment charges are not really crimes.
He wrote a column in the Daily Caller arguing that SCOTUS should nullify the impeachment because "abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are not crimes of any kind".
This is the same guy who, in a 2018 interview, said that (after being asked about Trump possibly preemptively pardoning himself for anything that Mueller may have uncovered) "there's nothing that limits the presidential power of pardon [for] a federal crime. The president of the United States pardoning himself would just be unthinkable and it would lead to probably an immediate impeachment..
Well that's just strange. A self-pardon is not a crime, but an impeachable offense? Probably because the argument that "high crimes and misdemeanors" is the absolute only way to get impeached is a dubious one at best.
Barabbas
Active Member
No, that would be silly!I'm making the observation that virtually anyone can have a claim of bias raised against them, so "bias" isn't a good enough argument. The arguments for recusal are because the senators named would have a tangible result from their role in the proceedings.
I hear if you use the power of your office to damage your political opponent, that's abuse of power. You wouldn't want any of the senators named to have a charge of abuse of power raised against them, would you?
That's not really an "argument", that's an "observation". Not a thing Trump is charged with is a crime.