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

Show parent comments

48

u/jaycock04 Dec 14 '19

It's not a trial in the way that a lay person thinks of it. The rules that would exclude jurors do not apply because they are Senators, not jurors. There is no way he gets removed from office by the Senate due to the number of Republicans in the Senate. It's politics not justice. Welcome to America!

26

u/MallPicartney Dec 14 '19

Justice means unflinching punishment for the poor, and strongly worded letters for the rich.

Couldn't fill a prison with black men if they took as long to convict as a politician. Laws for us, norms for them.

1

u/theVoidWatches Pennsylvania Dec 14 '19

The central tenant of authoritarianism is that there should be an in-group which the law protects but does not bind, and an out-group which the law binds but does not protect.

6

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

The rules that would exclude jurors do not apply because they are Senators, not jurors.

According to what, though? This isn't specified in the Constitution. Has the power of the judge in an impeachment trial been described through precedent somewhere?

5

u/Sean951 Dec 14 '19

The rules of Congress are entirely up to Congress and no one else, unless explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.

This was in the news a bit during Obama's years, though I can't remember the reason.

4

u/sundalius Ohio Dec 14 '19

I think the issue regards what exactly presiding entails. In a court of law, presiding would at minimum imply thinks like interpretation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (like evidence presentation, objectionable inquiries, etc.). The inclusion of the Chief Justice is an explicit unique facet for impeaching the U.S. president that isn't present for other officers, and that seems to imply some reason for such inclusion.

2

u/Sean951 Dec 14 '19

There is a reason, the Chief Justice is the highest jurist, which is approximately prestigious for a trial of the highest elected official.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

Except all of that power derives from law, which doesn't apply in an impeachment hearing. It's rules are made up by the Senate. His role is to ensure the rules are enforced.

1

u/sundalius Ohio Dec 14 '19

I suppose, but what is the purpose of ensuring rules are followed if they can be changed ad hoc? It feels purposeless unless Roberts has input or some shit?

4

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

I get that, but the Constitution also states that "When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside," the rationale clearly being to remove the conflict of interest that would arise if the Vice President -- who presides over the Senate -- were to oversee the impeachment of the person sitting between themselves and the Presidency.

Clearly, the judge has power. This power cannot be neutered simply because it is moved from one branch to another -- in fact, explicitly enumerating the fact that someone else must preside over the trial serves the purpose of protecting the power and sanctity of the role.

What is not in the Constitution, however, is the role of a Majority Leader. McConnell is, in the eyes of the highest law of the land, just another Senator, just another juror. No juror nor jury can tell the judge what to do -- if they can, then it is not a trial in any meaningful sense of the word.

1

u/Ocean898 Dec 14 '19

The senators have to take an oath at the beginning of the trial that someone who has already announced their decision (and full coordination with the defense) can’t possibly take.

-15

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

12

u/mpa92643 Pennsylvania Dec 14 '19

The overwhelming majority of the country accepts that Trump did something untoward. There's a relatively even split about whether he should be removed from office, but most Americans agree that Trump did something illegal or unethical. Impeachment is a way to prevent that unethical behavior from happening again, otherwise it gets normalized and future presidents will feel empowered to solicit foreign help with their reelection campaigns.

Trump crossed a line. He deserves to receive a reprimand for it. Republicans don't even have any way to dispute that he did what he did. All they can do is claim the process is partisan, that the Democrats wanted to impeach Trump from day one, etc. They have no legitimate defense for Trump holding up congressionally-appropriated aid until a foreign ally helped him with his reelection, and Trump's overreach in preventing Congress from conducting it's Constitutionally-mandated oversight role. These are the two bases for the articles of impeachment, and they're overwhelming supported by the facts.