Why aren't Democrat Senators as candidates for president removed from the Senate trial of Trump?

is it fair to try an impeach a president during the election year?

For that matter is it fair to impeach a president for simply appealing, what he viewed as House overreach, to the Supreme Court, during the enquiry

 

It's what we have.
Why do you believe those with a clear conflict of interest should be allowed a vote?

 

I don't see an answer to my questions.

 

I already said why. The dems shouldn't be penalized because three members announced POTUS Candidacies prior to the announcement of Impeachment proceedings.

If they had announced after the proceedings were scheduled, then yes, I'd be more inclined to say 'you knew the situation and you announced anyway. Too bad, so sad'.

 

So tell us how was Trump supposed to benefit, politically, from having the firing of prosecutor-general Shokan investigated?

 

How does this mitigate the clear conflict of interest, and its inherent negative effect on justice?
If justice rests on impartiality, how can it allow a conflict of interest?

 

They are trying to get 4 republican senators to change their suspected vote. If the senators running for office of the presidency did not attend, the dems would need to convert more senators.

 

I'm challenging the veracity of your questions. if impeaching a president during the election year is not fair to begin with, then nothing else matters

 

justice in a court of law rests on impartiality. Mitch threw that out the window when he declared that they would be working hand in hand with the POTUS in this 'political process'.

Morally and in an actual court of Law - They wouldnt' be allowed to vote.

Politically and in this political situation - Doesn't matter and they will vote anyway.

 

Why would it not be fair?

 

You can argue all you want about Mitch, but doing so doesn't change anything regarding the impartiality of those three Dem Senators with a clear conflict of interest.
That is, all else not withstanding, if you believe these people should have a vote, you do not care about impartiality.

 

The Democrats already have a built-in impeachment tool. All they need to do is send a flurry of subpoenas for Witnesses and documents to the executive branch, and wait until the president exerts executive privilege and appeals house overreach to the Supreme Court. Then impeach the president for it.

the the Democrats don't even need the president to commit a crime just start the inquiry and subpoena stuff until President says enough is enough

 

We don't know yet who is going to be the Democrat candidate. So, all the Democrat candidates should be allowed to vote in this case.

 

Had he done it by established norms he really wouldn’t have, the investigation would have happened in the background and the results would have likely not been released until after 2020, this time frame did not achieve the political damage to Biden — which was currently polling higher than trump at the time — which is why he sent his own non-governmental staff to broker a deal to announce an investigation, prior to one even begining.

 

Yes it does. Mitch's actions have shown that impartiality within the confines of this particular situation are immaterial to the result. Therefore, the impartiality of the Dem candidates is also immaterial.

Is there a clear bias in this situation? Absolutely. Does it matter anymore? Not really.

 

Great point.

 

... have nothing to do with the conflict of interest of the three senators under discussion here.

If you believe these people should have a vote, you do not care about impartiality.

 

It started with partisan bias from before Trump was sworn in.

 

Yeah you keep circling around to things I've already answered. I can't help it if you don't want to take in what I'm saying. I've already stated how that goes. This isn't a legal proceeding, and impartiality doesn't play a role as evidenced by the Majority Parties actions. Therefore, the question of impartiality is moot.

 

Mitch McConnell is very biased. He doesn't know the meaning of the word impartial.

 

So you agree - you don't care about impartiality.
Got it - thanks.

 

Mitch McConnell is very biased. He doesn't know the meaning of the word impartial.

 

You can argue all you want about Mitch, but doing so doesn't change anything regarding the impartiality of those three Dem Senators with a clear conflict of interest.

 

What? The opposition party doesn't like the party in power? Man. Blowing my mind over here.

Yes, I'm aware that lots of people on the Left (and some on the right) despise Trump, and have for a long time prior to his political career.

Your point?

 

Section 3 of Article Two lays out the responsibilities of the president, granting the president the power to convene both houses of Congress, receive foreign representatives, and commission all federal officers. ... The Recommendation Clause requires the president to recommend measures s/he deems "necessary and expedient."

In examining the likelihood of gross corruption in the handling of enormous amounts of money between the U. S. and Ukraine, it is entirely possible that any president could find it "necessary and expedient" to dig into the background and find out what the hell went on!

The House, obviously, couldn't care less -- it routinely throws out billions of dollars that WE DON'T HAVE to nearly every third-world piss-pot that queues up, looking for a handout from 'Uncle Sugar', and the corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs were only too happy to take every dime they could!

Trump's people smelled a RAT, and he did, too. So, they began nosing into it, and found -- JOE BIDEN and his cocaine-huffing kid, Hunter! Ooh, but using 'Democrat-logic', nobody was supposed to even glance at that because ol' Joe was running for president in 2020! So, now all that rotten 'quid pro quo' corruption that stunk to high heaven is Trump's fault...?!

Hypocrite, thy name is DEMOCRAT!