Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Impeachment Trial Question

Reply

Old 12-03-2019, 11:49 AM
  #1  
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 16,558
Default Impeachment Trial Question

I was reading the comments about Democratic Senators running for President and how all of them said they would be back in DC for the impeachment trial because it's their constitutional duty. The article said the Senate must be in session for 6 days a week during the trial and had commented how that time requirement would take the sitting Senators away from campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire. The article's take was that Biden and Mayor Pete could spend lots of time on the campaign trail since they are current Senators but that the rest of the senators would get lots of air time each night after the hearing was over for the day because all of the media would be interviewing them for their take on that day's testimony. Almost a tie for necessary publicity.

Then I began reading some of the comments and was intrigued. One of the commenters said that anybody running for president should recuse themselves from anything involving impeachment since they would be voting on whether to impeach their potential opponent or not. The commenter's opinion was why wouldn't they vote for impeachment? As I thought about it, I kind of had a mixed opinion. On one hand, a sitting US Senator certainly does have a constitutional responsibility and obligation to listen to testimony in an impeachment hearing and vote on the evidence presented. On the other hand, it does seem like they are using their elected position to gain an unfair advantage over a political opponent. I don't know if the Constitutional authors envisioned such a complication or not when listing the Senators official duties for an impeachment hearing or not.

In a way, it's sort of like Trump asking the Ukrainian President about investigating Hunter Biden for corruption with US financial aid. The financial aid package does require Trump to ensure that Ukraine isn't doing corrupt stuff Before disbursing US financial aid. But in doing so, it's hard not to bring up Hunter Biden being put on a BOD with no experience in that field and Joe Biden's previous comments about withholding aid if Ukraine investigated his son for corruption. In both situations, an elected politician who is running for office is participating in investigations of corruption where their opponent is a subject of such an investigation. On one hand, conducting such an inquiry is certainly going to have some negative affect upon the upcoming election. But on the other hand, we elected each of these politicians to do a job and they are bound by their oaths of office to enforce the laws in our country and perform their job duties as spelled out in the Constitution and laws.

It's an interesting legal question. What does everyone think?
CalHunter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2019, 12:51 PM
  #2  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 278
Default

I'm hard pressed to believe that the Founding Fathers hadn't considered the likely possibility that sitting senators would be running against the President. Seems too obvious a scenario to me. Then again, I don't know if senators running for President was as common back then as it is now.
Cub Slayer is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2019, 06:29 AM
  #3  
Nontypical Buck
 
Mickey Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,609
Default

Originally Posted by CalHunter View Post
I was reading the comments about Democratic Senators running for President and how all of them said they would be back in DC for the impeachment trial because it's their constitutional duty. The article said the Senate must be in session for 6 days a week during the trial and had commented how that time requirement would take the sitting Senators away from campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire. The article's take was that Biden and Mayor Pete could spend lots of time on the campaign trail since they are current Senators but that the rest of the senators would get lots of air time each night after the hearing was over for the day because all of the media would be interviewing them for their take on that day's testimony. Almost a tie for necessary publicity.
My brother said the same things as soon as this Impeachment was started. In my own opinion the Democrats will have to come up with something other then impeachment if they want to win the White House.

Then I began reading some of the comments and was intrigued. One of the commenters said that anybody running for president should recuse themselves from anything involving impeachment since they would be voting on whether to impeach their potential opponent or not. The commenter's opinion was why wouldn't they vote for impeachment? As I thought about it, I kind of had a mixed opinion. On one hand, a sitting US Senator certainly does have a constitutional responsibility and obligation to listen to testimony in an impeachment hearing and vote on the evidence presented. On the other hand, it does seem like they are using their elected position to gain an unfair advantage over a political opponent. I don't know if the Constitutional authors envisioned such a complication or not when listing the Senators official duties for an impeachment hearing or not.
I guess the question here is whether or not there is a complication at all. The mentioned candidates have a constitutional obligation to attend their offices during the Impeachment. It's the President who has placed them in this position in the first place. Stall tactics as opposed to ownership have been his response. This delays things and is not very presidential.

In a way, it's sort of like Trump asking the Ukrainian President about investigating Hunter Biden for corruption with US financial aid. The financial aid package does require Trump to ensure that Ukraine isn't doing corrupt stuff Before disbursing US financial aid. But in doing so, it's hard not to bring up Hunter Biden being put on a BOD with no experience in that field and Joe Biden's previous comments about withholding aid if Ukraine investigated his son for corruption. In both situations, an elected politician who is running for office is participating in investigations of corruption where their opponent is a subject of such an investigation. On one hand, conducting such an inquiry is certainly going to have some negative affect upon the upcoming election. But on the other hand, we elected each of these politicians to do a job and they are bound by their oaths of office to enforce the laws in our country and perform their job duties as spelled out in the Constitution and laws.
One important point. When Biden threatened to withhold aid from The Ukraine if they did not do something about corruption. That was the official policy of the United States of America. Biden was merely serving his office. It's not what you posted above but it's the truth and a very important distinction. It appears that Trump threatened to withhold aid to have a political rival investigated. This is nothing close to the situation with Biden.

It's an interesting legal question. What does everyone think?
In my opinion the candidates are bound to be in Washington when required by law. If they fail to do so because they are campaigning. They should be censured. Maybe that's what they should have done with trump in the first place?
Mickey Finn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2019, 06:39 AM
  #4  
Nontypical Buck
 
Mickey Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,609
Default

Originally Posted by Cub Slayer View Post
I'm hard pressed to believe that the Founding Fathers hadn't considered the likely possibility that sitting senators would be running against the President. Seems too obvious a scenario to me. Then again, I don't know if senators running for President was as common back then as it is now.
I think the first five Presidents were actually "Founding fathers". The pattern was sort of broke when John Adams son took office. When you think about all that has happened since the drafting of the constitution. The Founders did a pretty good job laying out our path. If you read some of their letters and quotes some of which have been posted here from time to time. Much has not changed and maybe the frustration we seem to all feel is based more on the fact that we have immediate access to tons of information some of which is not accurate.

I think CI has the right idea. Fish more and do everything else less.
Mickey Finn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2019, 07:54 AM
  #5  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 35,844
Default

Impeachment Trial Question


One important point. When Biden threatened to withhold aid from The Ukraine if they did not do something about corruption. That was the official policy of the United States of America. Biden was merely serving his office. It's not what you posted above but it's the truth and a very important distinction. It appears that Trump threatened to withhold aid to have a political rival investigated. This is nothing close to the situation with Biden.
keep in mind, The President is the sole person in charge of setting foreign policy. So Trump on the call was acting in official capacity setting foreign policy to go after corruption. That is is duty as President and the top law enforcement officer in the land.


I challenge you to point to anywhere in the call transcript Trump said that? I'm tired of you Democrats repeating the lies from your masters. First, Biden isn't Trumps political rival. The election for the President doesn't begin until the end of August 2020. Second, please explain why running for office now in 2020 gives you a pass from being investigated when in 2016 you Democrats think it was perfectly legal for the Obama administration in collusion with Hillary, the DNC and multiple countries to investigate Trump. Btw, that's before I bring up the manufactured evidence the administration engaged in. Three, on the call, Trump specifically said Barr would be reaching out to them. Barr is the head of our DOJ and currently working on an on going investigation of the Obama administration's malfeasance.

Cal, yes, the impeachment trial would take all the Senators off the trail unless they recuse themselves. If they miss one day, they aren't allowed to vote in the end. This would lower the bar for the 2/3rds removal required.

Last edited by Fieldmouse; 12-05-2019 at 07:59 AM.
Fieldmouse is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2019, 10:12 AM
  #6  
Typical Buck
 
rogerstv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: West Central Illinois
Posts: 909
Default

Biden is not Trump's opponent.

Posted before reading all comments. FM clearly stated the facts.

Last edited by rogerstv; 12-05-2019 at 10:16 AM.
rogerstv is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2019, 10:36 AM
  #7  
Nontypical Buck
 
rockport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,224
Default

I can't wait until democrats refuse to testify in the impeachment trial after voting to impeach Trump for refusing to testify.

Any body think they have even considered that now they can't really even use the judiciary to delay or avoid subpoenas for any crazy reason the republicans want to issue them?

Last edited by rockport; 12-05-2019 at 10:38 AM.
rockport is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2019, 10:42 AM
  #8  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 278
Default

Rockport, who knows what the Democrats are thinking. One thing is clear - they haven't thought this through at all. If they had, they wouldn't have done it. Despite their public face, some of them are almost surely feeling major pangs of regret.
Cub Slayer is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2019, 01:38 PM
  #9  
Nontypical Buck
 
rockport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,224
Default

Originally Posted by Cub Slayer View Post
Rockport, who knows what the Democrats are thinking. One thing is clear - they haven't thought this through at all. If they had, they wouldn't have done it. Despite their public face, some of them are almost surely feeling major pangs of regret.
Unless their internal pools are telling them they can't win and it hail Mary full on desperation time.

I suspect a real poll designed to actually predict general election electoral college winners could be pretty ugly for all their candidates against Trump.
rockport is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2019, 02:37 PM
  #10  
Dominant Buck
 
Champlain Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Vermont
Posts: 20,487
Default

We are now the world's joke.
Champlain Islander is offline  
Reply With Quote

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service