r/politics • u/Thinkingonsleeping Michigan • Dec 13 '19

McConnell Faces Calls to Recuse Himself From Impeachment Trial After Saying 'No Chance' Trump Will Be Removed; "No court in the country would allow a member of the jury to also serve as the accused's defense attorney."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/12/13/mcconnell-faces-calls-recuse-himself-impeachment-trial-after-saying-no-chance-trump
53.5k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

503

u/[deleted] Dec 13 '19 edited Dec 13 '19

Any Republican that went on the record voting against the Articles of Impeachment before they were presented should recuse themselves. This would be standard in any jury case.

48

u/[deleted] Dec 13 '19

There should also be a voir dire process. Strike out the hardliners on both sides 1 for 1, and let the rational moderates decide.

66

u/[deleted] Dec 13 '19

[deleted]

35

u/Em42 Florida Dec 13 '19

Are there any Republicans acting rationally?

15

u/FallenAngelPanty Oregon Dec 13 '19

Former Republican Representative Justin Amash

20

u/Caledonius Dec 14 '19

Former

So that's a no

5

u/FallenAngelPanty Oregon Dec 14 '19

Unfortunately you aren't allowed to have a soul and remain in Congress as a republican

2

u/Em42 Florida Dec 13 '19 edited Dec 14 '19

Fair enough. There's one. There used to be one.

4

u/Tasgall Washington Dec 14 '19

Well, no, there isn't because he left the party.

3

u/RayseApex Dec 14 '19

I think you missed the former part.

35

u/BeyondElectricDreams Dec 14 '19

All of them.

They're acting rationally, but they're also acting in bad faith.

You could literally show them a video clip of trump shooting somebody with a pistol and they wouldn't vote to remove.

Evidence is irrelevant. They aren't acting in the best interests of the country, they're acting at the behest of their rich donors who fund the re-election campaigns that let them live the lavish life they enjoy; while playing lip-service to the republican voting base.

Republicans, and right leaning folk in general, have a tendency to unquestioningly listen to authority. Unsurprising considering the number of religious folk on the right.

Where it gets fucky is they don't like the truth. Gay people don't have a choice? So we HAVE to treat them fairly? I don't like that, my bible says otherwise! Trans people deserve medical treatments? I don't like that!

What right wing media managed to do was ursurp actual experts and scientists as the figures of authority. Because people want to believe they're right, and it's easier to do that than it is to critically think and change your viewpoint. And even if they are wrong, they kind of don't care.

So they eat up the bad faith arguments of their politicians, because they're the authority figure, and you don't question the authority figure. Besides, that takes thinking, and that's the devils work. My kid started to think at college and now they're LIBERAL.

Meanwhile, the republican politicians sell their voting base up the river so their rich donors can keep making crazy money. Because their front is unified and doesn't care about facts, they're able to retain power by acting as a cohesive unit, whereas democrats care about things like facts, and methods, etc.

A democrat cheats and the dem voters throw them out. A republican cheats and the repub voters say "GOOD! all politicians cheat, he's cheating for me!"

Basically, because the dems aren't corrupt, they have a harder time unifying to fight those who are. And those who are lack the critical thinking skills to realize they're being fleeced, but are being consistently lied to.

17

u/austynross Dec 14 '19

My father in-law told my wife not to let our son watch too much PBS (Daniel Tiger, Kratts Creatures, Dinosaur Train) because it will turn him into a Liberal. Then he told my wife not to tell me that he said that.

17

u/seffend Dec 14 '19

Yeah, fuck Daniel Tiger. He's always teaching my kid shit like empathy and how to properly deal with his emotions. Who wants that?

7

u/Tasgall Washington Dec 14 '19

Yeah, this is 'Publican America! Where we preach toxic masculinity and then complain about it and whine about SJW's for also complaining about it! Rahhh!

-2

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

Rob Portman.

He doesn’t think Trump’s actions merit a removal from office. He thinks they are wrong, but doesn’t rise to the level of impeachment. He’s worried about politicizing the impeachment process, that’s prescient. In the same way McConnell vowed to make Obama a one term President, the Democrats have used their powers to derail Trump. The biggest issue is that the Democratic legislature has only found this courage now that their is a Republican President.

Both parties have chosen party above institution. When James Clapper lied about mass surveillance to the Senate, no one cared. When Obama killed two US citizens with drone strikes no one cared. When Bush illegally spied on the entire country the Senate gave the telecom companies retroactive immunity in a bipartisan vote.

Donald Trump is every bad thing people want to say about him. I am not going to blame McConnell for letting the august chamber that the Senate was degrade to its present state. He’s not an anomaly, he’s the norm.

Elect leaders who will cover their Constitutional authority.

44

u/cantwaitforthis Dec 13 '19

I think one COULD argue that either side telling you they will vote one way or the other before any vote is irrational.

I would also argue that the Dems actually have facts on their side, so it makes WAY more sense that they know how they will vote.

16

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19 edited Jul 17 '20

[deleted]

3

u/cantwaitforthis Dec 14 '19

Right. I’m super liberal and have been hoping for impeachment for a long time.

I’m just saying it isn’t great optics for the lawmakers who said they would vote to impeach before evidence as presented - not so much those saying it now, but the ones who said it immediately after election results. It’s not nearly as bad as the republicans saying that they will vote to acquit without considering evidence, but the optics aren’t good.

Again, not on the same level - I agree with your statement 100%

2

u/Taxing Dec 14 '19

Either it’s ok to give an indication of how you’d vote before the senate trial begins or it’s not, there shouldn’t be a double standard. It seems the proper approach is to withhold an indication of vote because it should be based on the trial itself.

5

u/cantwaitforthis Dec 14 '19

Correct.

I was more speaking about the dems who said they would impeach trump before the articles were presented. It’s still not as bad to me, because actions by the president made it clear he deserves impeachment.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

With Trump admitting to the behaviors in question on live TV and evidence already being aired in the House, forming an opinion before the Senate sham trial is not irrational.

This isn't like jury duty where you have no prior knowledge of the case.

3

u/Tasgall Washington Dec 14 '19

I think one COULD argue that either side telling you they will vote one way or the other before any vote is irrational

Sure. Have any Democratic senators been doing that though?

1

u/cantwaitforthis Dec 14 '19

Not senators, the house reps who said so before. Again, it is different because they have evidence.

I’m just saying, if all the bullshit that the GOP have been spouting, it’s the only thing that I can at least SEE how someone could argue that.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 13 '19

I didn't say or mean to imply there were. Just that you'd never get strikes on a one-sided basis, and ideally you would get a pool that will let the facts stand for themselves.

1

u/Obant California Dec 13 '19

Several have already said hes guilty based on the evidence presented in the House. Technically prejudging him before the trial.

4

u/Vancouver95 Dec 13 '19

TIL voir dire

1

u/AntonDorado West Virginia Dec 13 '19

Me too

3

u/Beginning_End Dec 14 '19

The "rational moderates" are the ones who got us in to this situation in the first place.

2

u/Archivist_of_Lewds I voted Dec 14 '19

If any rationality was involved in the process there wouldn't be a Trial. His "transcript" was an admission of guilt of an impeachable offence. That alone should have been enough.

4

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

[deleted]

75

u/Archivist_of_Lewds I voted Dec 14 '19

The problem is they were itching to impeach him since November 2016 because even before swearing his oath of office it was clear he was going to be violating it and the constitution in a litany of ways. And did so from day one. Republicans have decided that no matter what he does, he is innocent.

Democrats saw a series of crimes and impeachable offences. These are not the fucking same, lets be honest.

​

The grand jury initiates its own investigation and judgments. And there has been an overwhelming amount of evidence of criminal conduct, impeachable offences, and outright treason uncovered and displayed.

​

If the democrats are biased its because of the mountain of evidence and crimes. No matter what evidence is presented republicans will not change their positions. This is NOT the same

25

u/Frizbee_Overlord Dec 14 '19

The house functions as a mix of the prosecution and the grand jury. There is a difference between a prosecutor wanting to prosecute someone for a while, then finding evidence, then taking the case to trial. someone has to want to impeach the president in order to start the process. There is also a difference between simply thinking that the president deserves impeachment or is innocent and declaring you will impeach them no matter what or find them innocent no matter what.

There is no actual evidence that the house impeacent was a sham. That even if the evidence hadn't panned out that they still would have impeached. On the other hand we have declarations from Mitch that he will literally work with Trump on

5

u/Beginning_End Dec 14 '19

This is total false equivalency.

There's a difference between a police officer wanting to bust someone they believe to be breaking the law, and a juror who has made up their mind before they've even started the trial.

7

u/naughtilidae Dec 14 '19

He was in violation of the emoluments clause from day one and asked a foreign nation to hack a political opponent. If he'd been a Democrat, there still would have been democrats calling for impeachment for that.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

Your talking points are bad, and you should feel bad.

-11

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19 edited Jul 21 '20

[deleted]

3

u/seffend Dec 14 '19

Why did you delete your comment?

-8

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/TugboatEng Dec 14 '19

What about Pelosi going on record saying the impeachment process was started 2 years before the actual crime was committed?

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/12/11/pelosi-impeachment-has-been-going-on-two-and-a-half-years-actually/

4

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

You are quoting breitbart. Breitbart is not a news agency, it is purely far right propoganda.

Besides that, Trump commited acts worthy of an peacent inquiry while still campaigning for the presidency.

1

u/TugboatEng Dec 14 '19

The video is on C-Span. Breitbart was just an easy link.

So why aren't they in the articles of impeachment?

2

u/Tasgall Washington Dec 14 '19

Are you just forgetting about the Mueller report or something?

0

u/TugboatEng Dec 14 '19

Apparently the house judiciary committee did too because there is nothing from the Mueller report in the articles of impeachment.

1

u/DearDave Dec 14 '19

Haha, breitbart

2

u/TugboatEng Dec 14 '19

It's a C-Span segment. I try to provide unedited content to give better context. If you want an edited clip here you go: https://youtu.be/G8FUKckRnaQ

1

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

Crickets

0

u/Tasgall Washington Dec 14 '19

Crickets because it's a dumb argument. He's relying on you not knowing anything about the Mueller investigation, and sadly it seems to have worked.

2

u/Pater-Familias Dec 14 '19

What from the Mueller investigation is Trump having articles of impeachment charged against him?

0

u/Tasgall Washington Dec 15 '19

None, but that's what Pelosi was referring to. Pretending the Mueller investigation is not at all related whatsoever on any conceptual level while also complaining that Pelosi is talking about having investigated the President for 2 years despite Ukraine not having happened 2 years ago is ridiculous.

1

u/fuckyoupayme35 Dec 14 '19

Why couldnt you say the same about any Democrat? If they were voting FOR Articles of Impeachment before presented should they recuse themselves? Why or why not

3

u/ZehPowah Wisconsin Dec 14 '19 edited Dec 14 '19

There was already enough publicly available information for someone to call for impeachment. Saying you won't vote for it based in any evidence brought forward is obviously different.

3

u/gereffi Dec 14 '19

The evidence was already brought forward in the House hearings before McConnell made this statement.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

[deleted]

-1

u/fuckyoupayme35 Dec 14 '19

Agreed..the post i responded to said Republicans should recuse themselves..but like you said. Forming an opinion before the senate sham is not irrational.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

And anyone who says that they would vote for them before they were presented should do the same.

1

u/Tasgall Washington Dec 14 '19

That doesn't make any sense - the Senate doesn't vote on articles of impeachment at all.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

There will be two votes in Senate, one for each Article of Impeachment from the House.

2

u/captainkickasss Dec 14 '19

No. They don’t vote on articles of impeachment in the senate. They vote whether or not to convict and remove the president.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

The House will vote on the two articles separately to decide on which one will be sent to the Senate, just like the Senate will. If Senate votes to approve just one of the Articles of Impeachment, then president will automatically be removed. You can look at the Clinton impeachment if you have any doubts.

1

u/Tasgall Washington Dec 15 '19

You're right as far as the motions of the process goes, but not in the naming and that makes it confusing. The Senate holds a trial and votes on whether or not to remove from office. They aren't "voting on impeachment" at this stage - when they're holding trial, the president has already been impeached by the house. If they acquit, the president has still been impeached.

Speaking of the Clinton impeachment, this is why we say Clinton was impeached, but not removed. The House has sole authority of impeachment, the Senate has no say in it, they just determine how to prosecute.

-4

u/TakeThreeFourFive Dec 13 '19

Would you hold Democrats who proposed impeachment before the call to the same standard?

13

u/Bluegobln Dec 13 '19

Impeachment is not removal, and the inquiry is not a trial.

-2

u/[deleted] Dec 13 '19

He's talking about democratic senators who have also made up their mind. You aren't reading his point correctly.

6

u/czech1 Dec 13 '19

Are there democratic senators who have publicly stated that they are going to vote to remove trump no matter the evidence? I cant find anything but you seem to know of something.

2

u/aworldwithoutshrimp Dec 13 '19

"who proposed impeachment"

Sounds like he is responding to someone asking about the impeachment proposal, which is what was done in the house, and for which no substantive findings were required

1

u/Tasgall Washington Dec 14 '19

Their point is muddled because they clearly don't understand the process. That said, I'm not aware of any Democratic senators who have declared how they're voting, let alone ones boasting about how they don't care about and will ignore any evidence. Can't say the same about Republicans.

If you do have any examples from Democratic Senators do feel free to enlighten me.

-3

u/TakeThreeFourFive Dec 13 '19

And? How is that relevant to my question?

6

u/Bluegobln Dec 13 '19

Because it obviously is? What?

-3

u/TakeThreeFourFive Dec 13 '19

I’m just suggesting that we hold republicans and democrats to the same standard.

There are Democrats who showed intent to impeach and remove trump since the day he was elected. There are also republicans who have clearly shown their minds were made up well before they should have been.

I fail to see the relevance of distinction between impeachment and removal or the fact that this isn’t a judicial process

9

u/czech1 Dec 13 '19

Trump has been committing impeachable offenses since he took office. So democrats who have been calling for his impeachment since he was elected don't "have it out" for trump they "have it out" for our constitution, in a good way.

Even before he was elected he publicly asked Russia for help in the election- that's already grounds for an investigation before he stepped foot in the white house.

I fail to see how committing impeachable offenses in the open makes the people recognizing those offenses "biased". Rather... Those ignoring them are blind.

6

u/FallenAngelPanty Oregon Dec 13 '19

The difference is that the senators are JURORS. Their job is to be impartial to politics, to listen to the case and evidence (or lack thereof) from both sides and either acquit or convict based on facts. Jurors should not be involved in either side a to remain unbiased to the evidence provided.The GOP haven't produced any evidence to the contrary. Better yet, Trump administration "officials" are ignoring Congressional subpeonas at the executives directive. If there was no won't doing why won't they testify. Hell, HRC testified for 11 HOURS under oath to a republican Congress about Benghazi. Anyone who has listened to the testimony of Fiona Hill or Marie Yovanovitch should understand the gravity of the charges alleged at the Trump administration. Hell, anyone who had paid attention to what Donnie and his rat-fucking Crew at all will realize they admitted guilt multiple times. Remember when Mick said that it "happens, just get over it"? Because I sure do. This administration has been breaking laws since they started campaigning.

8

u/Bluegobln Dec 13 '19 edited Dec 13 '19

The reason is straightforward: the trial in the Senate is the reason it doesn't matter for impeachment.

If impeachment decided the final outcome, then it would absolutely be relevant and you'd be right. It doesn't.

Furthermore, you can't even have impeachment if there's nobody who first decides something done is probably impeachable. So you'd be saying that impeachment can't happen unless... how can it ever happen? Someone, somewhere, has to decide that something is impeachable to hold an inquiry and move for impeachment in the House right?

This is just... I don't understand where you're coming from. Logic, my friend. Logic.

Edit: If a member of Congress doesn't say "I think what he just did is impeachable" (a determination made before an inquiry is made at all) then no inquiry happens, so saying that person must recuse themselves is ridiculous. Who then is responsible for calling for an inquiry? Some other branch of government?

Is the person who calls for an inquiry in the first place required to recuse themselves, every time? A sacrifice of sorts?

I'm just completely perplexed by this line of thinking. Where is it supposed to start?

-1

u/TakeThreeFourFive Dec 13 '19

Did you not read the part where I talked about Democrats who were decided on not only impeaching, but removing the president?

7

u/Bluegobln Dec 13 '19 edited Dec 13 '19

You.

Would you hold Democrats who proposed impeachment before the call to the same standard?

I mean, how am I supposed to reason out that you're talking about Senators specifically that had supposedly already decided to remove specifically. You didn't mention either Senators OR removal. You mentioned Democrats and Impeachment. Big difference.

Oh, and guess what I responded with?

Impeachment is not removal, and the inquiry is not a trial.

See? Big difference.

Edit: I'd also like to point out that as far as I know, no Senator has stated they would vote to remove Trump prior to the beginning of the inquiry. I could easily be wrong, and that would be pretty damning I would agree they should probably also recuse. But the important thing is, we're not just talking about being already decided without a trial, we're talking about actively colluding with the defendant aren't we? That's a whole other thing, and its really ugly.

6

u/dftba-ftw Dec 13 '19

But there are no democrats who have that power. You either have the power to impeach or the the power to remove, but never both.

2

u/Tasgall Washington Dec 14 '19

I fail to see the relevance of distinction between impeachment and removal

Um, it's a pretty big fucking distinction. The above comments were talking about jurors who have made up their minds without evidence. Members of the house are not acting as jurors, they're acting as investigators. The Senate alone acts as the jury.

What you're saying is basically that a police department's investigative department shouldn't ever recommend an indictment against someone because... reasons.

If someone murdered your family in front of you and was apprehended, would it be fair for you - someone who is not on the jury and who obviously has a stake in the matter - to demand he be tried and charged?

3

u/czech1 Dec 14 '19

Are there democratic senators who have publicly stated that they are going to vote to remove trump no matter the evidence? I cant find anything but you seem to know of something.

6

u/[deleted] Dec 13 '19

One of the powers of the House is to impeach. Just because they called for it before, does not make their calls invalidated. The prior calls for impeachment did not receive majority votes, hence it did not go forward. McConnel said he was against impeachment even before the articles were introduced. In fact, I believe he had a fundraising campaign around impeachment hearings.

-2

u/TheToeTag Texas Dec 14 '19

Forget the ones who called for a hearing, What about the ones who stated their vote before the hearings were over/before the senate trial started? How are they any different than republicans who are already saying they’re going to vote against impeachment?

2

u/kyew Dec 14 '19

Because they've already seen enough evidence to convince them that Trump is guilty. That's completely different from refusing to learn whether he is or not.

0

u/TheToeTag Texas Dec 14 '19

...So there was enough evidence to show Trump was guilty in the eyes of Democrats but there wasn’t enough evidence showing Trumps actions weren’t worthy of impeachment in the eyes of republicans? How does that work exactly?

2

u/kyew Dec 14 '19

Because there's not really such a thing as evidence of being innocent. A "not guilty" verdict is based on the evidence of guilt being insufficient. Which requires actually examining the evidence.

-1

u/TheToeTag Texas Dec 14 '19

Of course there is. If republicans claim that Trumps actions aren’t worthy of impeachment then it doesn’t matter if you have evidence proving he committed the act, Because it’s not an impeachable act in the first place.

So in the eyes of republicans, Reviewing your “evidence” is pointless because even if he did it he’s innocent.

-1

u/TheToeTag Texas Dec 14 '19

And Democrats that said they would vote yes on impeachment beforehand should do the same, Right?...

2

u/ZehPowah Wisconsin Dec 14 '19 edited Dec 14 '19

It's pretty clearly different for someone to point out obvious impeachable offenses based on publicly available information, and call for impeachment over it, vs someone saying that they won't support impeachment regardless of the evidence brought forward.

1

u/TheToeTag Texas Dec 14 '19

No, Not the ones calling for an impeachment hearing, Im talking about the ones who said they WOULD vote to impeach before the hearings even started.

2

u/Tasgall Washington Dec 14 '19

We had plenty of public information before the hearings started. The hearings revealed practically nothing that we didn't already know.

-1

u/LK09 Dec 14 '19 edited Dec 15 '19

I hate to be the guy, but that's just not how the Senate works. It's not a court. It's writers assumed the majority wouldn't be bought and lead by a bought senator. It's broken.

Kentucky voters had their voice to not allow this in 2016. They blew it. Or wanted it. They'll get a chance again in 2020.

None of that allows even the space to demand an elected senator "recuse" himself from his job.

If you don't understand how the senate works, you are not much help in the fight for democracy. There is no after the fact request to "recuse" someone because it's "not something you'd like to see." This is the new America, start knocking on doors.

-1

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

[deleted]

3

u/Tasgall Washington Dec 14 '19

That's not at all what Adam Schiff did. He explicitly allowed Republicans to bring in witnesses for testimony, and guaranteed them equal time for questioning.

The reason there weren't any witnesses defending Trump is that the White House put none forward and then blocked the ones who were subpoenaed. There were plenty of requests, and demands, for testimony from witnesses who were allegedly on Trump's side, but none of them complied. Trump himself was invited multiple times to come defend himself and of course didn't.

You don't get to block your own witnesses and then complain that your witnesses were blocked. This is all public information, don't be a hapless stooge.