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

Except they don’t, a sane republican candidate would likely present more challenge than trump will.

 

I pulled the words form your quote, so it certainly does. Unless you lied, that is.
Why do you think this does not include making sure federal monies do not go to corrupt governments?

 

You pulled the words but not the meaning of those words.

 

If you thought this was true, you'd present an argument to that effect.
You haven't.
So, you don't.

 

Why do you think the text in question does not include making sure federal monies do not go to corrupt governments?

 

I have presented numerous, it is an outright lie to state otherwise.
Thus the reason why you have to edit down my posts because you cannot address the points within.

 

Because it does not state this.
And again, trump was asking only for the announcement of an investigation — not an investigation itself.

 

No. You have presented what you to believe to be the thoughts of others.
That's not an argument against what I said.

Why do you believe an incumbent President does not have electoral advantages over a non-incumbent candidate?
Why do you believe the GOP will not be at a distinct disadvantage in its ability to wage a successful campaign that doe snot begin until at or near the point in time that Trump is removed from office?

 

Why do you believe that if the constitution does not state a power or responsibility of those in office under it, said power or responsibility does not exist?

 

Except there are Republican Senators who will be running in 2024 who have interest in whether they will be following an incumbent Republican.

Bottom line, Mitch McConnell actually has the most on the line in this Impeachment trail, so if anyone needs to recuse themselves, it is he.

 

What I quoted, from the constitution, does not endorse what trump did.

There was a legal way to accomplish the same goal, had the goal been making sure money was not sent to foreign governments.
But the intention was to announce an investigation into a specific person.

If you alter or edit down another one of my posts, I am blocking you.

 

I asked:
Why do you believe that if the constitution does not state a power or responsibility of those in office under it, said power or responsibility does not exist?
Well?

I graciously accept your surrender.

 

Really anyone that is collaborating with the defendant, it would not be allowed in a civilian trial — why should it be allowed in this trial.

 

You must not have gotten the memo:
Impeachment is a political, not legal, process.

 

Personally, I am glad they are cooped up in DC instead of on the Campaign trail promising anything and everything to a rowdy crowd of 10 at a coffee shop in rural Iowa. I would love to see Mitch keep them under lock and key in DC for a couple of months.

 

We'll....they'll have to take a break from the trial to have a vote on Trump's next nomination to the USSC.

 

Its not particularly fair to the states who would be represented by their votes. Who is going to decide for example that Mississippi should lose half of its representation at the trial because a Senator from Vermont chose to run for President. Its one thing to decide that Vermont should lose its representation when they voted for a man who was ambitious enough to run three years ago. Its another to punish the voters of Mississippi when they did not elect someone ambitious.

these trials are not supposed to be partisan affairs. We do not have perfect equality in party representation in the first place and don't enforce it as a matter of precedent in any legislative business, or in any other affair, we ought not shove it into this matter.

I loath to say this, I really do, but Sanders, Warren etc, really ought to recused themselves, or they should have been pressured to recuse themselves absent a mechanism in the Senate rules. The conflict is too direct, too immediate, and too obvious to ignore.

But when you have hyper-partisan protection of the administration, from Mitch and friends, is incredibly difficult to throw away what few votes you have. Nevertheless, its one thing to decide that a juror is likely to have a political bias based on his prior statements. Its another to ignore a direct, immediate and unavoidable benefit when someone who applys solicits and interviews for the job of the man they are voting remove .

These Senators should not be voting to pick their own opponent in next years election.

 

Also to have him added to Mt. Rushmore.

 

Meh, Schiff for brains has already said he would target Pence.

 

I generally agree with you in principle but I don't think that justice (which is supposed to be the over arching concern here) would be well met if one side gets a handicap because Trumps actions occurred so close to an election date. The candidates didn't decide when Trump would take these actions, so as a counter argument, why should they be penalized for deciding to run in the necessary amount of time and then get an Impeachment proceedings in their perspective laps?

If say, someone announced one the proceedings had already been initiated, then yes, that person threw their hat in the ring knowing full well they'd have to fulfill their duties as a Senator while taking the gig, but these folks announced their candidacy prior to these proceedings.

A sticky quandary for sure, but one that will ultimately be philosophical then realistic today.

 

Justice is blind to such considerations.

 

Justice (with a capital J) has no bearing in a 'political process'. Only in a 'legal' one.

I was using justice with a small 'j' to denote the philosophical ideal vs the legal framework.

 

Either way - justice is not served by those serving it having a personal stake in the outcome.
Is if 'fair" that the Democrats lose three votes because of a conflict of interest?
Is if "fair" that the Democrats -keep- three votes with a conflict of interest?

 

And neither is it fair that the Dems have to lose 3 votes because they decided to run for POTUS prior to the impeachment proceedings becoming a reality.

Neither of your options are fair in this respect. That's the problem. Hence my solution of keeping the senate voting number balanced between both parties. But that won't happen either.

 

I know it's crazy, if anyone has anything to gain from removing Trump from office it would be the Democrats that could potentially run against him in in the general election