Should Democrat presidential candidates recuse themselves from impeachment trial?

Politics
1

The impeachment article about abuse of power involved Trump’s allegedly partisan pressure on Ukraine to investigate allegations of corruption involving Trump’s political opponent, Joe Biden. Assuming Nancy Pelosi eventually sends the impeachment to the senate, several Democratic presidential candidates will in judgement of President Trump, who is arguably their political opponent.

Based on the apparent conflict of interest, should all the Democratic candidates recuse themselves?

If they don’t, are they guilty of abuse of power based on the same logic used in the impeachment articles?

For background, Karl Rove brought up a similar question in a recent commentary:

"Mr. Booker himself, a little hypocritical, has already said months and months ago ‘impeach President Trump.’ When are we going to hear Booker denounce himself and denounce Warren, and denounce Sanders, and denounce Kamalah Harris and denounce Amy Klobuchar as being biased and incapable of serving on the jury?

2

Great question.

3

How is their “bias” any different from McConnell’s statements?

1 Like
4

It is an interesting question…And it can go other way with the GOP Senators who said they wont be fair and impartial. I believe they have to take another oath saying otherwise before the Senate trial…

5

Democrats have been saying the impeachment and removal from office does not require actual proof of violations of the criminal code.

Senators can be removed from office by 2/3 majority in the Senate. That does not require proof of a criminal offense either. Will Democrats support removal of senators who refuse to recuse themselves?

I am not holding my breath on that happening.

2 Likes
6

No it can’t go the other way.

7

McConnell is not running for president.

2 Likes
8

Because they have a vested personal interest in the outcome.

McConnell is not running for President.

9

Well I just read a libs saying you cannot investigate your political opponent…but you can judge and convict em?

Silly libs…I really wish you guys start being consistent.

10

I’ll trade them for trump testifying

11

Why is that? Both sides have prejudged (or some members anyway).

12

They aren’t running for President. No conflict of interest.

13

Rove is just saying that to divert attention away from his own imminent indictment. :wink:

2 Likes
14

To be fair, Harris has withdrawn from the race. Perhaps she could claim there is no longer a conflict of interest.

I believe the others are still active candidates. Logically they need to either withdraw or recuse.

15

I’m good with that.

16

Based on what legal president? If it isn’t in the Constitution I don’t see how a legal case can be made.
It would have to go to the courts and would most probably end up in the SCOTUS.

17

Precedence.

There’s always a first case. It would be the honorable thing to do.

18

The precedent is based on the language of the impeachment articles themselves. If supporting an investigation of a political opponent is corruption worthy of impeachment, then logically sitting in judgement in a trial to remove a political opponent from the office you are seeking is at least as corrupt.

1 Like
19

Only one of them (or maybe someone else) will be the candidate. But you are wanting all of the ones running to recuse. That seems pretty unfair. How about we wait until the candidate is chosen and if that person is a Senator then it could be considered? But hey, it’s sort of a moot point anyway since none of it is going to happen.

20

How is it unfair? It’s a clear conflict of interest.