Senate GOP defends Trump, despite oath to be impartial impeachment jurors

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...9Qb?li=BBnb7Kz
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler accused Senate Republicans of violating their oath to be impartial jurors in an impeachment trial, as GOP senators defended their right to work for President Trump’s acquittal.
© Shawn Thew/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) responds to a question during a news conference. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said last week that he was working in “total coordination” with the White House — something Nadler (D-N.Y.) characterized Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” as akin to “the foreman of the jury saying he’s going to work hand in glove with the defense attorney.”


“That’s in violation of the oath that they’re about to take, and it’s a complete subversion of the constitutional scheme,” Nadler said.
Senators take an oath to “do impartial justice” at the start of any impeachment trial — but several Republican senators argued that impartiality doesn’t cover politics.
“I am clearly made up my mind. I’m not trying to hide the fact that I have disdain for the accusations in the process,” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
Graham called “this whole thing” a “crock” and warned that Democrats were “weaponizing impeachment.”
“I want to end it. I don’t want to legitimize it,” he said.
“Senators are not required, like jurors in a criminal trial, to be sequestered, not to talk to anyone, not to coordinate. There’s no prohibition,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said on “This Week,” calling impeachment “inherently a political exercise” and Trump’s impeachment a “partisan show trial.”
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), speaking Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” also argued that there was nothing wrong with senators having already made up their minds. Calling impeachment an effort to “criminalize politics,” he noted that “we’re going to hear the evidence repeated, but we’re not going to hear any new evidence.”
Senate GOP leaders have been telling allies that they want to limit the trial to a short proceeding, omitting any witnesses from testifying. That isn’t sitting well with House Democratic leaders, who contend that senators should use their trial to secure evidence and testimony that the White House prevented House investigators from accessing.
“They don’t want the American people to see the facts,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) said Sunday on ABC, appearing alongside Nadler.
“They realize that what’s been presented in the House is already overwhelming, but that there’s more damning evidence to be had,” Schiff continued. “I hope that the senators will insist on getting the documents, on hearing from other witnesses, on making up their own mind, even if there are some senators who have decided out of their blind allegiance to this president that he can do nothing wrong.”
Nadler added that senators should “demand the testimony” of people like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton, “who at the president’s instruction have refused to testify.”
There are some Senate Republicans who want to hear from witnesses at the trial. But they aren’t thinking about Pompeo, Mulvaney and Bolton; they’re thinking about the whistleblower and Hunter Biden.
“You can be sure we’re going to allow the president to defend himself,” Cruz said, adding: “That means, I believe, if the president wants to call witnesses, if the president wants to call Hunter Biden or wants to call the whistleblower, the senate should allow the president to do so.”
Hunter Biden, son of former vice president Joe Biden, sat on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma for five years and was paid as much as $50,000 a month, despite having no expertise on the subject matter. As Democrats have made the case that Trump tried to use his office to pressure a foreign leader into announcing investigations against a political rival, several Republicans have rallied around the countercharge that Trump was right to be concerned about “corruption” involving the Bidens — though it does not appear that Joe Biden, who was closely involved in Ukraine policy, made any decisions to advantage the company.
“I love Joe Biden, but none of us are above scrutiny,” Graham said Sunday, noting there were “legitimate concerns” about Hunter Biden’s activity. But he added that the Senate could look at all of those issues — as well as whatever new information Trump’s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani unearthed in his latest trip to Ukraine — “after impeachment” and should move ahead without witnesses.
It is not clear whether the senate will be forced to hold separate votes on witnesses — or if most of the GOP would hold rank in that situation. It takes 51 senators to approve a motion. There are 53 Republicans in the Senate, meaning the GOP can afford to lose no more than two senators on any motion for McConnell to fully control the course of the trial.
Paul guessed that, ultimately, two Democratic senators would end up joining all Republicans in voting to acquit Trump, just as a handful of Democrats are expected to join the GOP in the House to vote against impeachment.
Paul did not say who those two Democrats might be. At this point, some Democratic senators are taking pains to avoid committing to vote to convict the president, even if they are otherwise echoing House Democrats’ frustrations with the president’s actions.
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said on “State of the Union” that Trump “did things Richard Nixon never did.” But he hedged when asked whether Trump’s transgressions rose to the need for removal, noting that senators should make that decision “based on the evidence.”
karoun.demirjian@washpost.com
steven.mufson@washpost.com



Nadler, Schiff,and Pelosi labelling Senators as not "impartial jurors" - first of all - no oath has been taken as a Senate jury. Nor , is an oath of impartiality administered to the Senate before an impeachment trial.

DPST's are making up their own hyper-partisan rules and trying to inflict the horribly santed Impeachment hearings rules on the Senate.

Not going to happen

Where is the call for all DPST Senators running for POTUS to recuse themselves ???
Not there.

The depths of hypocrisy of the DPST House knows no bounds. Their hatred for Trump is consuming them into actions inconsistent with the democratic republic Constitution under which we live.

The decision to Impeach Trump was made just after the Nov 2016 election - and has been insearch of a "crime" ever since. Now it is the slanted, faBricated DPSAT version of he Ukraine conversation. Ater workinig through mulitple other proven false accusations.

Gross, Hypocrisy!!!

Yup crime is a strong word they can't find any

So is impartial , Rexsy, and they can’t finds any.

So the Dims want to turn the impeachment into a political process and not a criminal one.
And the Dims want to deny the President's Constitutional rights that he had in prior two impeachments.
And the Dims now say that the House of Representative process is now more of a "Grand Jury" process.
And Pelosi said she wasn't going to impeach the President if it wasn't bipartisan.

By now the Senate Republicans have heard the lack of evidence against the President like everyone else has....

But Democrats want them to be "impartial".

Hypocrisy - and no DPST has chimed in on this one.

Of course, it is not the DPST "narrative" - impartial is not in their lexicon.

Hypocrites.

“They don’t want the American people to see the facts,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) said Sunday on ABC, appearing alongside Nadler.
“They realize that what’s been presented in the House is already overwhelming, but that there’s more damning evidence to be had,” Schiff continued. “I hope that the senators will insist on getting the documents, on hearing from other witnesses, on making up their own mind, even if there are some senators who have decided out of their blind allegiance to this president that he can do nothing wrong.”
Nadler added that senators should “demand the testimony” of people like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton, “who at the president’s instruction have refused to testify.”
There are some Senate Republicans who want to hear from witnesses at the trial. But they aren’t thinking about Pompeo, Mulvaney and Bolton; they’re thinking about the whistleblower and Hunter Biden.

The depths of hypocrisy of the DPST House knows no bounds. Their hatred for Trump is consuming them into actions inconsistent with the democratic republic Constitution under which we live.
Originally Posted by oeb11

I agree with Shifty Schiff, all the people who were blocked from testifying in the House, should testify in the Senate. I agree, too, that Hunter Biden should be in the line up.. and Rudy.. everybody. the Whistle blower as well. why would you not want that? a Partisan Hack doesn't, which is why many Senators do not. if they think the House fucked it up, rectify the proceedings. be fair, open, and impartial yourself. the House leadership rightfully feels the Senate may not do its job, based on statement cited above. here is the chance for transparency, and exoneration of Trump, if the facts demonstrate. the Republican Senate has total control.. if I thought Trump was totally innocent, I would bring tons of witnesses, let the American people see everything.

By now the Senate Republicans have heard the lack of evidence against the President like everyone else has....
Originally Posted by gnadfly

nonsense.. the Republicans bitched that ALL the House had was 3rd party Bullshit witnesses, who had zero evidence. the Senate can (and should) bring the REAL witnesses in to testify.. everybody from Biden, to Rudy, to Bolton.. be transparent.

Impeachment is a political process. Period.

The Senate is controlled by the Republicans, just as the House is controlled by the Democrats.

McConnel should call the Senate to order, and immediately call for a vote.

Just like in the movie Casino.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i1KDmG4bxXY

This trivial shit has gone on long enough.

Impeachment is a political process. Period.

no it is not.. this one is, but it need not be

The Senate is controlled by the Republicans, just as the House is controlled by the Democrats.

McConnel should call the Senate to order, and immediately call for a vote.

that is what you and the always-Trumpers want.. block real witnesses, use your power to dismiss. you don't want to know that Trump did shit, you want to plug your ears and shout it all away

This trivial shit has gone on long enough. Originally Posted by Jackie S

I'm certain you thought Clinton's lie about not getting a blow job, was not trivial..

I'm certain you thought Clinton's lie about not getting a blow job, was not trivial.. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Clinton actually committed a crime. A crime that actually has a statute defining it.

“President Trump won the 2016 election” is not a crime.

Clinton actually committed a crime. A crime that actually has a statute defining it.

“President Trump won the 2016 election” is not a crime. Originally Posted by Jackie S

no argument here. but c'mon, Man, would you have admitted that, knowing you would be relegated to Hilary Clinton's Dog House?

Trump didn't have to commit a crime. the Constitution doesn't say that explicitly.

The crime Clinton committed was lying to Congress in sworn testimony.

Was the house and Senate impeachment prosecution of clinton politically motivated - and the topic of the false testimony unrelated to any real "high crimes and misdemeanors"
yes, and Yes, IMHO.

Clinton shuld not have been prosecuted - and should not have been forced into testimony under oath about Lewinski.

IMHO.

I read with interest the suggestion of John Dean the former White House counsel of Nixon. He’s like most of us that the Senate ruled by Moscow Mitch that they’ve already decided the outcome. There’s not a sliver of impartiality there and McConnell has made it perfectly clear what he’s up to, despite the overwhelming evidence. As if the repugnant party care about the rule of law.
And John Dean should know what would be the best move for the Dems now.
He’s all for the articles of impeachment of Trump not to move forward to the Senate at all but the simple solution is to keep on investigating. Let this be the continuing humiliation of Trump an indelible tattoo on his so called legacy.
Take it all into the election with this cloud over his head. I’m sure that would piss McConnell off and his senate buddies. Don’t let Trump off the hook, as the Senate will only embolden him and his crimes will continue. John Dean certainly knows the outcome but whether the house follows up is another story. Time will tell.

I read with interest the suggestion of John Dean the former White House counsel of Nixon. He’s like most of us that the Senate ruled by Moscow Mitch that they’ve already decided the outcome. There’s not a sliver of impartiality there and McConnell has made it perfectly clear what he’s up to, despite the overwhelming evidence. As if the repugnant party care about the rule of law.
And John Dean should know what would be the best move for the Dems now.
He’s all for the articles of impeachment of Trump not to move forward to the Senate at all but the simple solution is to keep on investigating. Let this be the continuing humiliation of Trump an indelible tattoo on his so called legacy.
Take it all into the election with this cloud over his head. I’m sure that would piss McConnell off and his senate buddies. Don’t let Trump off the hook, as the Senate will only embolden him and his crimes will continue. John Dean certainly knows the outcome but whether the house follows up is another story. Time will tell. Originally Posted by BlisswithKriss

you are absolutely right! there is overwhelming evidence! of Trump conducting foreign policy and invoking a treaty with Ukraine regarding corruption.


thank you valued poster!

no argument here. but c'mon, Man, would you have admitted that, knowing you would be relegated to Hilary Clinton's Dog House?

Trump didn't have to commit a crime. the Constitution doesn't say that explicitly. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Au Contraire! It most certainly does. The Constitution explicitly says Treason, Bribery both crimes and the next one has CRIME in it's very designation HIGH CRIMES and what is a misdemeanor if not a lower level crime? The fact that misdemeanor is defined in criminal statutes should settle that argument. You know where this whole "doesn't have to be a crime" crap started? Gerald Ford gets that nod.


https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-do-...eachment-power

Then-Rep. Gerald Ford once defined an impeachable offense as “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” But legal scholars have concluded that impeachment is considerably more law-governed, and constrained, than Ford suggested.

DUH!


If the founders wanted acts less than crimes put into the Constitution they would have done so. It is only when people of different minds start telling us what they think the founders intended, is when we get in trouble and this illustrates perfectly why people like myself who support a reading of "original intent" which simply means you read what is written and make no attempt to alter the words or meaning of what is written right in front of you. Don't give me this crap about a "living Constitution" that has a different meaning than it did when it was written. That is what the Legislature and amendments to the Constitution is for.



What is written in the Constitution describes crimes not "maladministration" which was proposed and rejected putting "other high crimes and misdemeanors" in it's place.



That's exactly what Trump is accused of if you can't cite a crime. This is exactly what Hamilton warned against.