Only those running for the Dem Nomination have the same personal vested interest in damaging him as a candidate for reelection.
The general bias of Washington is not the same as using your office to withhold aid to a foreign nation to damage your opponent.
I feel fairly certain that both Bernie Sanders and Nancy Pelosi really really want Trump impeached and to loose the White House in 2020. I don’t see how him wanting to be President is going to affect his partiality anymore than another Democratic senator. Besides, even if Trump is removed from office, that doesn’t mean the Democrats are a shoe-in in 2020. It’s going to be a joke anyway because the Dems don’t have the votes to impeach.
I agree with this. It may not be required, but it would be the honorable thing to do and it eliminate a potential problem with the claim being made that impeachment was just a abuse of power to remove a political opponent.
1 Like
It isn’t general bias.
Trump supposedly abused his office by asking for an investigation of his political opposition according to all of the “experts” here as well as the democrats making arguments during the hearings.
The Senators who are running for the democratic nomination all know Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee so they have a vested personal interest in damaging him as much as possible during the Senate trial.
No, you really can’t pretend otherwise nor can you have it both ways.
If Republican in the Senate can openly say they will work directly with the President on his defense, I don’t see why Democrats in the Senate can’t work directly against him.
You have no hill to stand on your side isn’t acting non-partisan so why should the other.
There is no conflict of interest; all members of the Senate will be able to vote at the conclusion of the Senate trial.
Hell no. Go on tv and yell at the top of their lungs, orange man baaa, baaa, baaad. Finish this thing. 
BTW…what’s Yang’s view that he’s developed after cruising around the country? Oh, oh…
Yeah, yeah…and persuade Trudeau to jump in with his fellow libz too. That’ll help, eh?
Actually there is a recent precedent for recusal by a presidential candidate during an impeachment, although the logic was somewhat different:
I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment . . . also I could not in good conscience vote for impeachment . . .
1 Like
I fail to see how her action could be construed as anything else but a damning indictment of Trump and the Republican Party.
The same he’s had all along. Emphasis mine.
Dec 19, 2019: “Stop being obsessed with impeachment and dig in and start solving the problems that got Donald Trump elected in the first place,”
-
September 24, 2019 : “Given the President’s latest actions I think impeachment is the right path forward. Asking foreign leaders for political help in return for aid and then suppressing your own agency’s inquiry is egregious. There have to be limits and Congress is right to act.”[52]
-
June 1, 2019 : “The desire to impeach Trump is understandable - but the fact is impeachment is almost certain to fail in the GOP Senate which would require 67 senators to approve. Unless a bunch of GOP Senators decide to get on board it will fail, rally the GOP base and play into Trump’s hands.”[53]
-
April 18, 2019 : “I am glad that the Mueller Report has been made public. It’s important to the American people. My focus is on beating Donald Trump at the ballot box and solving the problems that got him elected in the first place.”[54]
1 Like
Clearly you did not read her letter:
Basically the basis of the impeachment is about Trump’s failure to recuse himself in a matter that involved a political opponent. Democrats who voted for impeachment claim that the failure to recuse is of such vital importance that is a valid reason to remove him from office even if no criminal laws were broken.
Failure of Democratic presidential candidates to recuse themselves in the senate trial would effectively confirm that the whole thing is a partisan endeavor since they would be guilty of violating the very rule they claim to be upholding.
1 Like
No my friend…he’s “evolved”. He now says his comrades are obsessed.
1 Like
So what?
McConnell absolutely has a vested interest in the outcome.
He’s running for re-election.
Not one for context or even a statement in its entirety?
I disagree that it isn’t any greater for the candidates. What is different about this and the claims of Trump benefitting from an investigation into Biden?
The candidates have a direct and personal interest.
1 Like
Allegedly directly attacking the character of an opponent in order to gain an advantage in the court of electorate opinion.
Yes, there is a conflict of interest. Your declarations from England’s penal colony do not change that fact.
She’s a democrat.
