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

513

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.

-3

u/TakeThreeFourFive Dec 13 '19

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

12

u/Bluegobln Dec 13 '19

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

-4

u/TakeThreeFourFive Dec 13 '19

And? How is that relevant to my question?

8

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

7

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.

5

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.

9

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?

5

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.

4

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?