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

We hear all this agitated blathering from Democrats about demanding fairness, honestly, and justice in the Senate trial of President Trump -- but then WHY are those Democrat Senators who are openly running for the presidency against him allowed to sit in judgement of him during these "impeachment trials" in the Senate?! How is that fair? How can their decisions be 'unbiased'? How could that be construed as "justice"?!

All of the Democrat Senators who are currently running for the presidency MUST remove themselves from this trial IMMEDIATELY -- otherwise it makes a totally corrupt mockery of every principle of jurisprudence in the entire American legal system!

So, how many Democrat Senators have announced their intention to withdraw from judgement of Donald Trump on legitimate concerns over ETHICS, JUSTICE, and FAIRNESS?

So far, NOT EVEN ONE! Surprised...?

 

If I were a Democratic Senator running to be the POTUS I would have to consider my chances against trump in the election as opposed to my odds against Pence. I would consider my chances of winning against trump better than my chances against Pence. I would want to improve my odds and keep trump in office. Therefore, I think you've got it backwards.

 

I brought this up some time ago:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...interest-warren-sanders-and-klobuchar.566889/

The Democrats cannot tell us why they should not have to recuse themselves.

 

While I agree that ALL candidates (all parties) running for President should recuse themselves for conflict of interest they have no obligation to do so. That’s also true in the House when considering Impeachment.

 

You were answered — numerous times — you just didn’t like the answer so you ignored it.
@Capt Nice answered it again immediately proceeding your post.

 

That's merely your opinion, this obvious conflict of interest is a fact.

 

They tried to say Trump was trying to influence an election, then turn around and do the same thing.

 

Where isn't there a conflict? Moscow Mitch has already said what he will do and that is opposite to what his oath says he will do.

 

Recall, your answer:
No, but virtually all are receiving campaign contributions because of trump, many have said they are not impartial, and many more would be negatively damaged if they choose to remove.
Should they all recuse themselves?

And my response:
And thus, you draw the distinction.
All of the senators have the same "re-election" conflict - it is inherent to their office.
THREE senators have a -clear- conflict beyond that inherent to their office - and thus, the difference.

You must not have liked my answer, because you ignored it.

Hee hee. Yeah.

 

Sure, sure he did. You are aware he is not running for Prez?

 

Your argument is that they would benefit from a trump removal but cannot show how they would benefit.
Let’s start there.

 

Actually, I agree with this. There is a definite bias on the hands of the candidates to unseat the POTUS they are simultaneously attempting to have removed through impeachment.

To me, a compromise would be to bar them from voting, but to reduce the Rep Senators by an even amount so that the makeup of the senate balance stays the same. That would be the fairest proposition to this issue.

 

Considering that the Jury foreman has publicly stated he is working with the defendant and that he WILL find him innocent, Fairness and recusal seem rather silly and pointless.

 

Sorry- I thought it was painfully obvious.
Should Trump be removed...
- They no longer have to face an incumbent President running for re-election, with all the advantages inherent to same
- Any GOP candidate they may face in November is months, if not a year, behind in any campaign they could mount.

For starters.

 

All Republican Senators would then need to recuse themselves as their guilty/not guilty vote will directly impact their own re-election chances. Only Senators who are not running for re-election should be allowed to be jurors if we entertain your logic.

 

And many on the left believe that the right could mount a better challenger than someone with sub 45% approval during that time frame that is generally disliked by everyone that does not have an (R) next to their name.

Using your metric however the point you quoted stands — if true, republicans have as much reason to find him innocent than democrats have to find him guilty. Why not just remove the people that have outright said they were not impartial or are directly colluding with the white house?

 

And thus, you draw the distinction.
All of the senators have the same "re-election" conflict - it is inherent to their office.
THREE senators have a -clear- conflict beyond that inherent to their office - and thus, the difference.

 

Ah. You agree with what I said. Thanks.

None of the Senate Republicans are running for President, so... no.

 

I suppose for the same reason that the Reps, who have said they WILL NOT be impartial, haven't been removed from the process.

 

“He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.”

Please highlight in the text where it says the president should be able to withhold congressionally approved funds to have another nation announce an investigation into a political rival for personal gain.

 

Not typically

 

....he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed...
Why do you think this does not include making sure federal monies do not go to corrupt governments?

 

When you can tell us how the benefits I described would not exist, let me know.

Since you can't, the point stands:
THREE senators have a -clear- conflict beyond that inherent to their office - and thus, the difference.

 

Because it doesn’t state that... It especially doesn’t state that he should use back channel and personal resources to secure only the announcement of an investigation.
Furthermore, even if it did — where are the investigations into far more corrupt nations...
Why hasn’t Israeli aid been halted until they investigate Netanyahu?