Oath of Impartiality in an Impeachment

[fried-chicken]

The Constitution states that Senators must take a specific oath when acting as a jury in an impeachment hearing. That oath isnt the same as the one they take at their swearing in. You can read about it here:

https://takecareblog.com/blog/impeachment-trials-and-the-senator-s-oath-of-impartial-justice

Its much more specific and requires specific actions and behavior. It is basically the same idea that a jury would be impartial and listen to the facts before deciding.

Since Mitch McConnell is openly coordinating with the defendant in this matter, it is impossible for him to be impartial. He should recuse himself from the impeachment.

 

[goodknightfl]

Understandable, they are becoming Jurors.

 

[DaShuckster]

Understandable, they are becoming Jurors.

If we're to believe they will become impartial jurors, then it stands to reason that we'll get to the heart of this matter by hearing from Guiliani, Pompeo, Perry, and Mulvaney under oath.

Anyone want to place any bets on that happening?

 

[Crazyhole]

If we're to believe they will become impartial jurors, then it stands to reason that we'll get to the heart of this matter by hearing from Guiliani, Pompeo, Perry, and Mulvaney under oath.

Anyone want to place any bets on that happening?

Since the risk of being charged with process perjury is lower, I would guess that they probably will testify. The house didn't allow any if them to testify with representation present, the Senate will. Would you want to go to court if they told you that your lawyer couldn't be present?

 

[DaShuckster]

Since the risk of being charged with process perjury is lower, I would guess that they probably will testify.

Don't bet your life on it.

 

[Crazyhole]

Don't bet your life on it.

Lindsey Graham was on Face the Nation this morning and sounded like it was probable. It looks more and more like there is enough sentiment from both the White House and senate republicans to have a full blown trial with several witnesses that it's going to happen. It's probably not coincidental that the senate opened up the probe into Biden earlier this month. I wouldn't be surprised if they use this as an opportunity to publicize the horowitz investigation even more as well.

 

[goodknightfl]

If we're to believe they will become impartial jurors, then it stands to reason that we'll get to the heart of this matter by hearing from Guiliani, Pompeo, Perry, and Mulvaney under oath.

Anyone want to place any bets on that happening?

I don't for a minute expect either side to be impartial jurors.

 

[The Branch]

The Constitution states that Senators must take a specific oath when acting as a jury in an impeachment hearing. That oath isnt the same as the one they take at their swearing in. You can read about it here:

https://takecareblog.com/blog/impeachment-trials-and-the-senator-s-oath-of-impartial-justice

Its much more specific and requires specific actions and behavior. It is basically the same idea that a jury would be impartial and listen to the facts before deciding.

Since Mitch McConnell is openly coordinating with the defendant in this matter, it is impossible for him to be impartial. He should recuse himself from the impeachment.

In a forum full of dumb posts, this one is up there.

Mitch McConnell should recuse himself? But the rest of this band of idiots are impartial?

I love when some people just say stuff that they think is smart and don't realize that everyone else knows they are dumb.

 

[fried-chicken]

In a forum full of dumb posts, this one is up there.

Mitch McConnell should recuse himself? But the rest of this band of idiots are impartial?

I love when some people just say stuff that they think is smart and don't realize that everyone else knows they are dumb.

No one else has come out and straight up said "I'm going to be biased." Since he has to take an oath that he won't be biased he is not going to be able to both participate and honor his oath.

 

[Crazyhole]

No one else has come out and straight up said "I'm going to be biased." Since he has to take an oath that he won't be biased he is not going to be able to both participate and honor his oath.

I'm going to assume that you are limiting this to the Senate, because at least a dozen members of the house are on record saying that they won't stop until Trump is removed from office. Do you think Maxine Watters should recuse herself from an impeachment vote because she declared her intent to do so 3 years before these articles were even drafted?

 

[UCFKnight85]

This is one of the most pathetic posts from a poster who boasts a history of insanely pathetic posts

 

[firm_bizzle]

Why is McConnell running the trial instead of Roberts?

 

[fried-chicken]

I'm going to assume that you are limiting this to the Senate, because at least a dozen members of the house are on record saying that they won't stop until Trump is removed from office. Do you think Maxine Watters should recuse herself from an impeachment vote because she declared her intent to do so 3 years before these articles were even drafted?

The Senate takes the oath before acting as the jury.

 

[Boosted87]

Since the risk of being charged with process perjury is lower, I would guess that they probably will testify. The house didn't allow any if them to testify with representation present, the Senate will. Would you want to go to court if they told you that your lawyer couldn't be present?

That's not true. All the witnesses who testified (that I'm aware of) had personal attorney's present. The rules prevented the administration from sending counsel to represent the department the witness came from.

 

[Boosted87]

Why is McConnell running the trial instead of Roberts?

Roberts is more like a figurehead. Yea technically he would make rulings on procedural questions per whatever rules the Senate agrees to, but with 51 votes they can overturn any decision he makes. The Senate majority has 100% control over what happens in the trial.

 

[Crazyhole]

That's not true. All the witnesses who testified (that I'm aware of) had personal attorney's present. The rules prevented the administration from sending counsel to represent the department the witness came from.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2...y-without-lawyers-present-justice-department/

Schiff set that rule in place and the DOJ objected to it, leading to the decision to not have officials testify. He also put in place a rule that would disallow Trump administration lawyers to cross examine witnesses when it moved to the judiciary committee.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Imagine someone pathetically cheerleading the absolute debacle that was the hyper partisan Adam Schiff run proceeding in the House, and then having the gall to whine about McConnell not being "impartial" enough before the Senate proceedings have even begun.

 

[Crazyhole]

Imagine someone pathetically cheerleading the absolute debacle that was the hyper partisan Adam Schiff run proceeding in the House, and then having the gall to whine about McConnell not being "impartial" enough before the Senate proceedings have even begun.

"Schiff told reporters on Monday that agency lawyers aren’t allowed to be present during depositions “particularly when we have concerns about those agencies.”

Imagine a judge saying you can't have your lawyer present. Does that sound like something an impartial judge would do?

 

[fried-chicken]

Imagine someone pathetically cheerleading the absolute debacle that was the hyper partisan Adam Schiff run proceeding in the House, and then having the gall to whine about McConnell not being "impartial" enough before the Senate proceedings have even begun.

Schiff did his duty and held hearings to uncover facts. Republicans called witnesses and asked questions throughout the process. They chose to use their time doing things like trying to call Hunter Biden as a witness. The ended up with some good witnesses but even their own people threw Trump under the bus as the evidence mounted. People forget that Sondland was a GOP witness.

McConnell is REQUIRED to take an oath of impartiality yet he is on the record saying he is in total coordination with the defendant. How can he act as an impartial jury while he is letting the white house run its own trial.

This is the primary check and balance on the executive branch and it is being thwarted by people putting their party over their constitutionally mandated duties.

McConnell can have his mind made up but he can't let the executive branch run their own trial. The checks and balances are there for a reason, undermining them is unconstitutional and the oath of impartiality exists for a reason.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Schiff did his duty and held hearings to uncover facts. Republicans called witnesses and asked questions throughout the process. They chose to use their time doing things like trying to call Hunter Biden as a witness. The ended up with some good witnesses but even their own people threw Trump under the bus as the evidence mounted. People forget that Sondland was a GOP witness.

McConnell is REQUIRED to take an oath of impartiality yet he is on the record saying he is in total coordination with the defendant. How can he act as an impartial jury while he is letting the white house run its own trial.

This is the primary check and balance on the executive branch and it is being thwarted by people putting their party over their constitutionally mandated duties.

McConnell can have his mind made up but he can't let the executive branch run their own trial. The checks and balances are there for a reason, undermining them is unconstitutional and the oath of impartiality exists for a reason.

Read Crazy's post then return to this thread with some sliver of sanity.

 

[firm_bizzle]

Roberts is more like a figurehead. Yea technically he would make rulings on procedural questions per whatever rules the Senate agrees to, but with 51 votes they can overturn any decision he makes. The Senate majority has 100% control over what happens in the trial.

That's a flaw in the constitution. At least with the Supreme Court, it would take some of the partisanship out of this.

 

[Crazyhole]

That's a flaw in the constitution. At least with the Supreme Court, it would take some of the partisanship out of this.

Not necessarily. Does anybody have any doubt that Ginsburg would fall on the side of removal and Thomas would side with Trump? Imagine being in Kavanaughs shoes, presiding over a hearing that involves people who smeared his character last year.

 

[Crazyhole]

Read Crazy's post then return to this thread with some sliver of sanity.

There will be at least 5 or 6 dems that vote against impeachment, and it has more to do with the process than anything. The dems framed their narrative before they even received testimony, and then acted like they were sad about this outcome. One congressman is leaving the democrat party over it. That should say something.

 

[OregonKnight]

There will be at least 5 or 6 dems that vote against impeachment, and it has more to do with the process than anything. The dems framed their narrative before they even received testimony, and then acted like they were sad about this outcome. One congressman is leaving the democrat party over it. That should say something.

How about Justin Amash? He left the GOP due to Trump and the GOP's unwavering support of him.

 

[Cubs79]

There will be at least 5 or 6 dems that vote against impeachment, and it has more to do with the process than anything. The dems framed their narrative before they even received testimony, and then acted like they were sad about this outcome. One congressman is leaving the democrat party over it. That should say something.

Jeff Van Drew is leaving the Democratic party because he is in a Historically Republican district and knows he likely couldn't win the district again as a Democrat. He is also very moderate and has always voted with Republicans in several issues anyway. The impeachment is just his excuse, but he is doing nothing more than looking out for his own career.

 

[Boosted87]

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2...y-without-lawyers-present-justice-department/

Schiff set that rule in place and the DOJ objected to it, leading to the decision to not have officials testify. He also put in place a rule that would disallow Trump administration lawyers to cross examine witnesses when it moved to the judiciary committee.

You said the house didn't let them testify with representation present. That's simply not true. They didn't allow administration/agency counsel present, the individuals brought personal representation in all cases that I saw (I saw attorney's being transcribed in the depositions).

I'm not saying that decision is right - just making sure the facts are correct here.

 

[Crazyhole]

You said the house didn't let them testify with representation present. That's simply not true. They didn't allow administration/agency counsel present, the individuals brought personal representation in all cases that I saw (I saw attorney's being transcribed in the depositions).

I'm not saying that decision is right - just making sure the facts are correct here.

The people they deposed had personal attorneys present, but they weren't at risk of discussing national security issues that could compromise anything. Refusing to allow department lawyers to be present could have created a scenario where a high level official could disclose something that could create legal liability. Executive branch officials deserve the kind of protection that would have come from have dept counsel present. Sondland essentially perjured himself because of this.

 

[firm_bizzle]

Not necessarily. Does anybody have any doubt that Ginsburg would fall on the side of removal and Thomas would side with Trump? Imagine being in Kavanaughs shoes, presiding over a hearing that involves people who smeared his character last year.

I don't mean as jurors, but running the trial. No way should the senate both run the trial and be jurors in the trial.

 

[Boosted87]

There will be at least 5 or 6 dems that vote against impeachment, and it has more to do with the process than anything. The dems framed their narrative before they even received testimony, and then acted like they were sad about this outcome. One congressman is leaving the democrat party over it. That should say something.

Here's what we need to keep in mind as this highly partisan vote comes down. The democrats won almost every seat they reasonably could win in 2018, including a whole bunch of districts that lean red. If you look at the Cook Political report partisan lean index you can see this. Republicans hold one district that leans blue (+2%). Dems hold every single district that's rated as EVEN plus another 30+ seats that lean Republican, including districts with as high +13% R lean.

In other words, there are plenty of politically vulnerable Democrats, but very few Republicans. While it's good politics for Trump to be able to claim defections, he's only going to get defections because Democrats won soooo many seats they had no business winning in the first place.

 

[Boosted87]

The people they deposed had personal attorneys present, but they weren't at risk of discussing national security issues that could compromise anything. Refusing to allow department lawyers to be present could have created a scenario where a high level official could disclose something that could create legal liability. Executive branch officials deserve the kind of protection that would have come from have dept counsel present. Sondland essentially perjured himself because of this.

Yea I'm not arguing any of that (though I would disagree with some of it). You said "The house didn't allow any if them to testify with representation present, the Senate will." That's not true. They were all able to bring representation for themselves. The house didn't allow the administrative agency in question to provide counsel.

That's a significant detail to omit. If you knew that and just mis-spoke then fine. If you weren't aware of it, and I made you aware, great.

 

[Boosted87]

I don't mean as jurors, but running the trial. No way should the senate both run the trial and be jurors in the trial.

The system is imperfect. Keep in mind when this was adopted, the Senators were appointed not elected. The idea was that senators were far more likely to be impartial as they didn't have to worry about winning a popular election.

 

[Crazyhole]

Yea I'm not arguing any of that (though I would disagree with some of it). You said "The house didn't allow any if them to testify with representation present, the Senate will." That's not true. They were all able to bring representation for themselves. The house didn't allow the administrative agency in question to provide counsel.

That's a significant detail to omit. If you knew that and just mis-spoke then fine. If you weren't aware of it, and I made you aware, great.

A personal attorney may not, and likely would not, know what issues could compromise a high level government official. A dept lawyer would have a much higher level of knowledge on what topics are sensitive. The entire situation here is predicated on the fact that impeachment is political in nature, and like Scooter Libby found out the hard way, process perjury comes with far harsher penalties than actually committing the crime.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Jeff Van Drew is leaving the Democratic party because he is in a Historically Republican district and knows he likely couldn't win the district again as a Democrat. He is also very moderate and has always voted with Republicans in several issues anyway. The impeachment is just his excuse, but he is doing nothing more than looking out for his own career.

lol he JUST won election in that very district as a Democrat. He’s leaving because he’s disgusted by the way the Democrats shamefully have pursued this partisan debacle in the House

 

[Cubs79]

lol he JUST won election in that very district as a Democrat. He’s leaving because he’s disgusted by the way the Democrats shamefully have pursued this partisan debacle in the House

Yeah, it was a strategic move he thinks will help him keep his seat. With him out as a Democrat, there are currently no Democrats running in his district, so as long as he wins the Republican primary against as of now is 3 candidates, which he likely will, then he maintains the seat. That probably going to be much easier than winning as a Democrat and then running against a Republican who just won a primary in a district that was Republican from 95-19. And like I mentioned, he is a very conservative Democrat that voted with Republicans quite often, so it isn't much of a leap for him to join the Republican party.

 

[Boosted87]

A personal attorney may not, and likely would not, know what issues could compromise a high level government official. A dept lawyer would have a much higher level of knowledge on what topics are sensitive. The entire situation here is predicated on the fact that impeachment is political in nature, and like Scooter Libby found out the hard way, process perjury comes with far harsher penalties than actually committing the crime.

That's not true at all. There's an army of lawyers in DC that represent individuals in front of congress. A department lawyer would be there to represent the interests of the department itself, not the individual. If the department had the opportunity to throw a career staffer or two under the bus, to protect the department from larger scandal, we both know that could happen.

You can argue that departments should have been able to have counsel present, but don't conflate that with the individuals being protected. If you work at a company accused of wrong doing, and you're a fact witness not a suspect - would you really rely on corporate counsel to represent you personally?