How Can McConnell and Graham Take Oaths Of Impartiality?

[Southern Chicken]

Well "pp" show us, show us where a Senate Democrat said they knew exactly now how they will cast their vote in the Senate before the evidence is delivered. Show us where any Senate Democrat said that they would be working with the impeachment managers to get the verdict they wanted

If you can't, you are showing us that you are full of shit, your turn

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2...usal-would-di/

[Southern Chicken]

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2...usal-would-di/

From the link-
in the impeachment trial, suggesting he won’t be impartial in deciding whether Mr.*Trump*should be convicted and removed from office.

By that measure,*Senate*Minority Leader*Charles E. Schumer*also could be sidelined for the trial.

Mr.*Schumer, New York Democrat, declared Monday that the evidence gathered by the House impeachment inquiry is sufficient to show the president committed the charges detailed in the two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

“Right now, I think the House has amassed a great deal of evidence — much of it in the form of testimony — from the president’s own appointees that the president committed impeachable offenses,” he said.

He’s far from alone.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts Democrat, has been saying for months that Mr.*Trump*should be impeached while she campaigns for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

“What he has done is an impeachable offense, and he should be impeached,” Ms. Warren told reporters in October.

Others vying for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination also could be accused of prejudging the president’s conduct.

[Darth Omar]

Sure, at this point, what else it, has been since the Trump's lackeys in the House attempted to make it a circus for TV, as I said, Pelosi isn't after the verdict of a sham trial in Mitch's Senate, that isn't the jury she wants to convince of Trump's behavior, but rather public opinion, the one that will count next November

If House Democrats were impartial, they wouldn’t have sent the *historically* thinnest articles of impeachment*—passed along straight democrat party lines, to the Senate.

And they expect Senate Republicans to be impartial lol? Under the circumstances, it’s to their great credit if they can manage to be. There shouldn’t be a single witness allowed. If House Democrats were confident enough in the articles to pass them, they should be voted on as they stand.

This is bullshit on steroids.

[Nordberg]

If House Democrats were impartial, they wouldn’t have sent the *historically* thinnest articles of impeachment*—passed along straight democrat party lines, to the Senate.

And they expect Senate Republicans to be impartial lol? Under the circumstances, it’s to their great credit if they can manage to be. There shouldn’t be a single witness allowed. If House Democrats were confident enough in the articles to pass them, they should be voted on as they stand.

This is bullshit on steroids.

Thinnest? based on what? Trump is getting deeper and deeper every day. But the House had lots more and settled on 2.The House impeaches after gathering evidence. The Senate runs a trial. Do you understand what is involved in a trial? Witnesses, evidence, lawyers and judges. The house was essentially acting as an evidence-gathering organization, similar to the police crime scene investigation and forensics. That is turned over to the Senate for a trial.

[Darth Omar]

Thinnest? based on what? Trump is getting deeper and deeper every day. But the House had lots more and settled on 2.The House impeaches after gathering evidence. The Senate runs a trial. Do you understand what is involved in a trial? Witnesses, evidence, lawyers and judges. The house was essentially acting as an evidence-gathering organization, similar to the police crime scene investigation and forensics. That is turned over to the Senate for a trial.

Thinnest, based on historical precedent.

The evidence in the Clinton/Nixon impeachments were voluminous by comparison. In fact, both Nixon and Clinton were deemed guilty prior to the House passing the articles. In terms of impeachment, there has never been a more ‘rush to judgment’ then this.

Admit it.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Darth,

This whole escapade is a charade intended for public consumption lol.

Believe whatever you wish. The President is really on trial. This is no joke. This is President Trump's first impeachment trial. The only people who are claiming this is a hoax are Trump fans. That's just denial, words. Anybody can say words. That doesn't mean they have to be true. When the President says words, we have all learned they are frequently not true. This is real. The President abused his power, sought foreign involvement in rigging the 2020 election, and obstructed Congress in violation of the Constitution.

And now, according to Parnas, we learn that Pence and Nunes were in on it.

Parnaz needs to be a witness.

The American public needs to hear from all the witnesses.

Trump needs to take the oath, take the stand, and explain himself.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Thinnest? based on what? Trump is getting deeper and deeper every day. But the House had lots more and settled on 2.The House impeaches after gathering evidence. The Senate runs a trial. Do you understand what is involved in a trial? Witnesses, evidence, lawyers and judges. The house was essentially acting as an evidence-gathering organization, similar to the police crime scene investigation and forensics. That is turned over to the Senate for a trial.

dismissal, prima facie

[PoliTalker]

Hello archives,

Sure, at this point, what else it, has been since the Trump's lackeys in the House attempted to make it a circus for TV, as I said, Pelosi isn't after the verdict of a sham trial in Mitch's Senate, that isn't the jury she wants to convince of Trump's behavior, but rather public opinion, the one that will count next November

Excellent point.

Trump needs to be beaten resoundingly for three reasons.

1) He stands in the way of saving the climate and we are out of time.
2) There has to be extra votes to overcome the Russian meddling.
3) If the result is at all close Trump will refuse to accept it, take it to court, refuse to leave the WH.

[Damocles]

I love how Democrats believe that "impartiality" means "believe what they say and do what they want you to, or else".

[christiefan915]

There must have been no chance for Democrats to object.

It's already a sham.

Justice is now meaningless.

Oaths are meaningless.

And they don't even think it's wrong to be lying liars before they even heard all the evidence.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Southern Chicken,

Lol, judges are not politicians. Robert's will have modest input in the trial. Roberts might have authority to make rulings, such as questions about whether evidence is relevant, but the rules allow the Senate to call for a vote to overrule him anyway.

McConnell and Graham are making a mockery of the Constitution. They should both recuse. The are unacceptable as impartial jurors, having both made public statements of partiality.

Roberts is making the SCOTUS a laughing stock, losing credibility. It is his job to properly swear them in. All they did was say words. He didn't ascertain that there was any meaning to them.

Both of those unfit jurors should have been asked about their public statements. Called to the carpet.

Pretending those public statements weren't out there makes a mockery of the proceeding already.

[ThatOwlWoman]

I love how Democrats believe that "impartiality" means "believe what they say and do what they want you to, or else".

I love how you believe that you know how a large group of millions of people think.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Southern Chicken,

From the link-
in the impeachment trial, suggesting he won’t be impartial in deciding whether Mr.*Trump*should be convicted and removed from office.

By that measure,*Senate*Minority Leader*Charles E. Schumer*also could be sidelined for the trial.

Mr.*Schumer, New York Democrat, declared Monday that the evidence gathered by the House impeachment inquiry is sufficient to show the president committed the charges detailed in the two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

“Right now, I think the House has amassed a great deal of evidence — much of it in the form of testimony — from the president’s own appointees that the president committed impeachable offenses,” he said.

He’s far from alone.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts Democrat, has been saying for months that Mr.*Trump*should be impeached while she campaigns for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

“What he has done is an impeachable offense, and he should be impeached,” Ms. Warren told reporters in October.

Others vying for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination also could be accused of prejudging the president’s conduct.

But have any of them said they are not an impartial juror?

[christiefan915]

I love how you believe that you know how a large group of millions of people think.

His statement really applies to repubs but he doesn't see it. And especially to Senate repubs.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Darth,

If House Democrats were impartial, they wouldn’t have sent the *historically* thinnest articles of impeachment*—passed along straight democrat party lines, to the Senate.

That doesn't follow. And some Democrats voted each way. That shows they were not voting any strict party line. But all the Republicans voted the same cookie cutter way. Very partisan.

And they expect Senate Republicans to be impartial lol?

Everyone should, Republicans included. What happened to the Republicans who refused to comment? Saying "I cannot comment. I am a potential juror?" What happened to that? How can a juror come out before a trial has even started and state they have already made up their mind and then go swear to be impartial? They can't. Not without lying.

Under the circumstances, it’s to their great credit if they can manage to be. There shouldn’t be a single witness allowed. If House Democrats were confident enough in the articles to pass them, they should be voted on as they stand.

This is bullshit on steroids.

If Republicans turn this into a sham without witnesses, the 70% of Americans who want to hear from all the witnesses are not going to be satisfied with it. This needs to be a real trial.

Trump needs to testify, just like Bill Clinton did.

We need to hear from our leader, front and center. It's lonely at the top time.