When I featured Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn’s suggestion that Senate Democrat candidates for President recuse themselves from the impeachment trial, I didn’t know how strongly the story would resonate. But the logic is impeccable. It seems only fair, given that Trump faces impeachment over the mere “presumption” (with no evidence) that he was trying to influence the 2020 election for his own personal gain. Blackburn makes a great point point: for anyone running for President, anything that damages the incumbent provides a huge personal benefit. How can they possibly be impartial in an impeachment trial that could conceivably remove the incumbent President from office (and from running for re-election)? Or, if not remove him, at least hurt his chances to remain in office for another term?

Sen. Blackburn appeared Thursday on FOX News’ HANNITY show. “...They took an oath that they’re going to give impartial justice,” she said, “and if you’re spending those millions of dollars and hundreds of hours...how in the world can you do that? And if these guys are out there in Iowa campaigning this weekend, they need to think long and hard about coming back and sitting and saying they are going to be an impartial juror in this trial.”

It wasn't mentioned, but I would add that they might have hard feelings against the accused, considering his trial is taking them off the campaign trail for as long as it goes on.

Blackburn went on to say that there is precedent for asking for recusal, stemming from the 1868 trial of Andrew Johnson (coincidentally also from Tennessee). It was brought up during that trial that certain people who had various conflicts of interest should recuse themselves, though that did not happen. Today, the people running against Trump, assuming they stay in the race, would likewise benefit greatly from Trump’s removal from office during this election year. It makes perfect sense that they should recuse themselves from the trial.

Some Democrats have called for Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to recuse himself from the trial, after he made statements that showed some manner of coordination with the White House. (Hard to know exactly what he meant by that besides what would normally happen). By that standard, all the Democrat candidates for President who are currently senators should recuse themselves. Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer should definitely recuse himself. They are all thoroughly and demonstrably biased, and they’re all “coordinating” with Madam Speaker to make sure this travesty goes forward.

As reported in the WASHINGTON TIMES, Rick Manning, president of Americans for Limited Government, said McConnell does not deserved to be tarred for prejudging the case, saying the Senate leader was merely protecting the President’s right to due process. He said, “The backlash on McConnell is simply politics as usual. This is nothing more than political gamesmanship.”

Indeed. At least Trump has a legitimate reason to look into corruption inside Ukraine, whether or not it involves someone (and/or the son of someone) who may or may not (I'm guessing NOT) turn out to be his political opponent in November. In contrast, all the Democrats running for President, as well as those who aren't, have purely political reasons for wanting to impeach Trump.

On the other hand, according to Keith Whittington, law professor at Princeton University, no member of Congress has ever been forced to sit out an impeachment trial, though some have done so voluntarily. Forcing any lawmaker to recuse him- or herself would break historic precedents, he said. It would take a motion made by another senator to put that on the floor, and it would be decided by John Roberts, though his decision could be appealed to a floor vote.

One other thing: Democrats are trying to implicate Mike Pence, too, and would like nothing better than to get both him and President Trump out. If this happened before November, our next President would be...Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi needs to recuse herself as well.

Also, the NEW YORK POST ran an editorial saying that a real court would reject Adam Schiff, for his dishonesty and "his nonstop campaign to smear President Trump."

Gosh, who's left?  I know! Let’s just acknowledge that this impeachment trial --- “the fruit of the poison tree” --- is so ridiculously partisan that EVERYONE should just recuse him- or herself and shut it down. We all know that Donald Trump’s only “high crime” was being elected President, and the idiots who have a problem with that can vote Democrat in November of this year.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/dec/16/mitch-mcconnell-impeachment-trial-recusal-would-di/

As long as we’re mentioning the HANNITY show, I would be remiss if I didn’t direct you to Thursday’s segment with Mark Levin, in which –- after noting it was Hillary Clinton’s campaign that “colluded” with Russia, to get the Steele “dossier” –- he hearkened back to the Bill Clinton era of the 1990s, when Clinton was up for re-election. Those of you who were around then surely remember that the White House was being sold to the highest bidder.

Clinton wasn’t impeached for THAT, though he arguably should have been. Remember the White House “coffees”? Johnny Chung? Charlie Trie? John Huang? Talk about foreign influence in our elections. Here’s what the LOS ANGELES TIMES wrote at the time:

"The chief of China’s military intelligence secretly directed funds from Beijing to help re-elect President Clinton in 1996. Former Democratic fundraiser Johnny Chung told federal investigators [saying he] met three times with intelligence officials, who ordered $300,000 deposited into [his] bank account to subsidize campaign donations intended for Clinton, according to sources. Chung spread around a great deal of foreign money on Democratic candidates and organizations and bought himself repeated access to the White House. He contributed more than $400,000 to various Democratic campaigns.”

This is money from the Chinese military. “Chung visited the White House more than 50 times.” the story continues, “and brought numerous Chinese associates to events with the President and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"Charlie Trie, a longtime friend of President Clinton, raised $1.2 million in foreign dollars for the Clinton Legal Defense Fund and the DNC, and in March 1996, Trie dropped off a donation of $460,000 at the Washington offices of the Clinton Defense Fund, with some of the money in sequentially numbered [bills] made out in the same handwriting.”

It goes on. (Link below.) The point is, Democrats who go on and on about their constitutional duty are a big, fat joke. Nancy Pelosi was around then; what did she have to say about all this dirty Clinton money? NOTHING. We also know, through old KGB files that have been made public, that during Ronald Reagan’s re-election campaign, Sen. Ted Kennedy tried to “collude” with the KGB to defeat Reagan.  Why, he was "the lion of the Senate."

And now, the GAO comes out with a statement that President Trump “broke the law.” We’ll address that case elsewhere, but here’s a question posed by Levin: If Trump’s small delay in sending funds to Ukraine broke the law, what about Joe Biden’s threat to withhold $1.5 billion to Ukraine unless a certain prosecutor –- who just happened to be investigating his son, Hunter –- was fired?

With all the rampant political bias and sleazy, disgraceful misconduct coming from the Democrat side –- both historically and today, right now –- what business do they have trying to take down President Trump for something that was well within his authority as President? With them, it’s always a case of “My rules for you, no rules for me.” Republicans have to UNIFY and stand up to this garbage, and it has to stop.

Levin: House has destroyed the Constitution, it's the Senate's job to fix it

 

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!
Captcha

Comments 26-44 of 44

  • Ray Cowden Witter

    01/17/2020 04:21 PM

    Keep writing your commentary!

  • Thomas Joseph Hussman

    01/17/2020 04:15 PM

    In Minneapolis Minnesota the entire US District Court Bench recused after a law professor sued a law school following his return to the USA from Rwanda. The case involved an employment dispute between the Prof and the Dean of the school. Both parties have confusing histories filled with political and international intrigue, which could rival any Perry Mason story or James Bond thriller.

  • Christine Dowd

    01/17/2020 03:45 PM

    Why can’t the senate just make a rule that candidates cannot be a part of the impeachment proceedings?

  • James E. McCrea

    01/17/2020 03:38 PM

    Those people never intended President Trump to have a fair trial!

  • James Robert Huffman

    01/17/2020 03:37 PM

    Amen and Amen!!! I completely agree.

  • Donna Hart

    01/17/2020 03:34 PM

    Why don't they just dismiss it like they talked about earlier? The Senate has the power to do that, right?

  • Vernon R Freeck

    01/17/2020 03:29 PM

    I am not one infavor on the impeachment and I DO NOT LIKE the democrats using my money to do so to DJ TRUMP our sitting president. The house has not done anything worthy of a salary that is paid for by my tax Dollar. If anyone should be kicked out of office should be the house democrats

  • Kay DeWitt

    01/17/2020 03:25 PM

    Mike, it is not even up for debate as to whether or not Senate Democrat candidates for President would be impartial...they WOULD not because they COULD not....not only because their self-centeredness would not be willing to suffer the loss of political benefit that they feel would be theirs if President Trump were to be impeached, but also because their hatred of President Trump is greater (therefore, has greater power OVER them) than does their "love" for justice !

    Your last statement: "Republicans have to UNIFY and stand up to this garbage, and it has to stop." reechoes my continual cry in my comments..with one small difference....which is that, instead of starting this statement with the word
    "Republicans", I start it with the word "Christians" because the so called "garbage" is the end-product of the EVIL ONE....because the "GOOD" ONE. ...our Lord Jesus Christ ..hates no person because HE only hates a person's SIN....THEREFORE...

    It is only the SUPERNATURAL power of Christ's love...THROUGH unified Christians
    ..that CAN "stand up TO this kind of garbage" , of the devil himself, and STOP him, and his garbage, because it IS true that "greater (and, therefore, more powerful) is HE that is IN Christians than he who is in the world (and hate filled Democrats)!

  • Linda Johnson

    01/17/2020 03:07 PM

    Why is Roberts the justice to preside over this trial? Isn't he partisan liberal? Where does justice for President Trump come from? When are Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, etc brought to justice for their flagrant abuse of power?

  • Richard Wieneke

    01/17/2020 02:52 PM

    Will President Trump really be convicted? Thats what Ive been hearing all morning. Whats wrong with Mitch McConnal making this into a political impeachment trial. What a stupid person.

  • James Slover

    01/17/2020 02:48 PM

    If the Democratic Senators running for President do not recuse themselves in the impeachment trial it could be argued they receive illegal campaign contributions by exercising their right to vote in this impeachment trial to gain an advantage over an opponent.

  • Marc Eisenstein

    01/17/2020 02:33 PM

    This will never end until such time as the "sheeples" in this country wake up, care about this country and do the right thing and vote. It is time that we remove career politicians (both Democrats and Republicans). Patrick Henry wrote "The Constitution is not a document for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government". I just hope it is not too late.

  • Donald Williams

    01/17/2020 02:31 PM

    Two comments: 1) let them vote as it will make no difference anyway. President Trump will be exonerated and 2) recusing oneself implies integrity and honor and those traits are sorely missing in the U.S. Congress.

  • Bobby Earl Cooper

    01/17/2020 02:30 PM

    I understand the logic but, since they are not impartial (and, I think unable to influence the outcome) being at the trial hurts their campaigning. On the other hand, if you mean they recuse themselves from voting on the outcome but need to be at the trial I am with you!

  • Ruth Ferraro

    01/17/2020 02:29 PM

    We need to keep praying for President Donald Trump and our country. Thank you for keeping us up to date on all your news.

  • rodney burke

    01/17/2020 02:23 PM

    this all stems because Joe Biden is "The chosen one" and all this stems because he is implicated in scandal and corruption. In reality, dems do NOT know who will be the opponent for DT. At this point, I don't think ANYONE can be his opponent. I think there is going to be so much in-fighting that they won't be able to make up their minds. As for recusal? There isn't ONE democrat in the senate who is NOT utterly hateful of Trump. They all cannot an have so stated that they will NOT be impartial. Marsha is dead on. Bernie et al. have no intention of being impartial. This is a one sided affair and to be "fair about it". Mitch should toss it out as having zero substance, zero crime, Nancy and schiff having zero to -25 in credibility. Let's call it what it is. A hate feast, The only crimes are on the left and they KNOW it. When Barr is thru and the Declas comes out, all will be revealed. and the stuff is gonna hit the fan. They KNOW they are exposed, and this is why all this is happening. They can make all these accusations but they don't know who the nominee will be. It's all about exposure and there is plenty coming and it's ALL on the left. Popcorn and sweet tea? ha, ha! maybe some apple pie, pecan pie?

  • Duane Lawton

    01/17/2020 02:11 PM

    Oh my. It makes no sense that the four dim senators would not recuse themselves: That would enable them to stay on the campaign trail, look good for not appearing partial in the trial, and have absolutely NO impact on the outcome of the trial ("Not Guilty"). So if they DO NOT recuse themselves, this reveals that they are totally deluded and think that there is a chance for conviction. Oh wait, we already know that...

  • Charles Simmons

    01/17/2020 02:08 PM

    If nothing comes from the Durham investigation, then USA is “over” ... including a two-tier justice system and a forever-protected class of untouchable elites ...

  • Kevin J. Cook

    01/17/2020 02:04 PM

    Dealing with democrats is like dealing with a spoiled two year old throwing a temper tantrum or a bully teenager telling his younger brother heads I win Tails you lose.
    The GOP needs to start acting like the parent

When I featured Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn’s suggestion that Senate Democrat candidates for President recuse themselves from the impeachment trial, I didn’t know how strongly the story would resonate. But the logic is impeccable. It seems only fair, given that Trump faces impeachment over the mere “presumption” (with no evidence) that he was trying to influence the 2020 election for his own personal gain. Blackburn makes a great point point: for anyone running for President, anything that damages the incumbent provides a huge personal benefit. How can they possibly be impartial in an impeachment trial that could conceivably remove the incumbent President from office (and from running for re-election)? Or, if not remove him, at least hurt his chances to remain in office for another term?

Sen. Blackburn appeared Thursday on FOX News’ HANNITY show. “...They took an oath that they’re going to give impartial justice,” she said, “and if you’re spending those millions of dollars and hundreds of hours...how in the world can you do that? And if these guys are out there in Iowa campaigning this weekend, they need to think long and hard about coming back and sitting and saying they are going to be an impartial juror in this trial.”

It wasn't mentioned, but I would add that they might have hard feelings against the accused, considering his trial is taking them off the campaign trail for as long as it goes on.

Blackburn went on to say that there is precedent for asking for recusal, stemming from the 1868 trial of Andrew Johnson (coincidentally also from Tennessee). It was brought up during that trial that certain people who had various conflicts of interest should recuse themselves, though that did not happen. Today, the people running against Trump, assuming they stay in the race, would likewise benefit greatly from Trump’s removal from office during this election year. It makes perfect sense that they should recuse themselves from the trial.

Some Democrats have called for Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to recuse himself from the trial, after he made statements that showed some manner of coordination with the White House. (Hard to know exactly what he meant by that besides what would normally happen). By that standard, all the Democrat candidates for President who are currently senators should recuse themselves. Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer should definitely recuse himself. They are all thoroughly and demonstrably biased, and they’re all “coordinating” with Madam Speaker to make sure this travesty goes forward.

As reported in the WASHINGTON TIMES, Rick Manning, president of Americans for Limited Government, said McConnell does not deserved to be tarred for prejudging the case, saying the Senate leader was merely protecting the President’s right to due process. He said, “The backlash on McConnell is simply politics as usual. This is nothing more than political gamesmanship.”

Indeed. At least Trump has a legitimate reason to look into corruption inside Ukraine, whether or not it involves someone (and/or the son of someone) who may or may not (I'm guessing NOT) turn out to be his political opponent in November. In contrast, all the Democrats running for President, as well as those who aren't, have purely political reasons for wanting to impeach Trump.

On the other hand, according to Keith Whittington, law professor at Princeton University, no member of Congress has ever been forced to sit out an impeachment trial, though some have done so voluntarily. Forcing any lawmaker to recuse him- or herself would break historic precedents, he said. It would take a motion made by another senator to put that on the floor, and it would be decided by John Roberts, though his decision could be appealed to a floor vote.

One other thing: Democrats are trying to implicate Mike Pence, too, and would like nothing better than to get both him and President Trump out. If this happened before November, our next President would be...Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi needs to recuse herself as well.

Also, the NEW YORK POST ran an editorial saying that a real court would reject Adam Schiff, for his dishonesty and "his nonstop campaign to smear President Trump."

Gosh, who's left?  I know! Let’s just acknowledge that this impeachment trial --- “the fruit of the poison tree” --- is so ridiculously partisan that EVERYONE should just recuse him- or herself and shut it down. We all know that Donald Trump’s only “high crime” was being elected President, and the idiots who have a problem with that can vote Democrat in November of this year.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/dec/16/mitch-mcconnell-impeachment-trial-recusal-would-di/

As long as we’re mentioning the HANNITY show, I would be remiss if I didn’t direct you to Thursday’s segment with Mark Levin, in which –- after noting it was Hillary Clinton’s campaign that “colluded” with Russia, to get the Steele “dossier” –- he hearkened back to the Bill Clinton era of the 1990s, when Clinton was up for re-election. Those of you who were around then surely remember that the White House was being sold to the highest bidder.

Clinton wasn’t impeached for THAT, though he arguably should have been. Remember the White House “coffees”? Johnny Chung? Charlie Trie? John Huang? Talk about foreign influence in our elections. Here’s what the LOS ANGELES TIMES wrote at the time:

"The chief of China’s military intelligence secretly directed funds from Beijing to help re-elect President Clinton in 1996. Former Democratic fundraiser Johnny Chung told federal investigators [saying he] met three times with intelligence officials, who ordered $300,000 deposited into [his] bank account to subsidize campaign donations intended for Clinton, according to sources. Chung spread around a great deal of foreign money on Democratic candidates and organizations and bought himself repeated access to the White House. He contributed more than $400,000 to various Democratic campaigns.”

This is money from the Chinese military. “Chung visited the White House more than 50 times.” the story continues, “and brought numerous Chinese associates to events with the President and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"Charlie Trie, a longtime friend of President Clinton, raised $1.2 million in foreign dollars for the Clinton Legal Defense Fund and the DNC, and in March 1996, Trie dropped off a donation of $460,000 at the Washington offices of the Clinton Defense Fund, with some of the money in sequentially numbered [bills] made out in the same handwriting.”

It goes on. (Link below.) The point is, Democrats who go on and on about their constitutional duty are a big, fat joke. Nancy Pelosi was around then; what did she have to say about all this dirty Clinton money? NOTHING. We also know, through old KGB files that have been made public, that during Ronald Reagan’s re-election campaign, Sen. Ted Kennedy tried to “collude” with the KGB to defeat Reagan.  Why, he was "the lion of the Senate."

And now, the GAO comes out with a statement that President Trump “broke the law.” We’ll address that case elsewhere, but here’s a question posed by Levin: If Trump’s small delay in sending funds to Ukraine broke the law, what about Joe Biden’s threat to withhold $1.5 billion to Ukraine unless a certain prosecutor –- who just happened to be investigating his son, Hunter –- was fired?

With all the rampant political bias and sleazy, disgraceful misconduct coming from the Democrat side –- both historically and today, right now –- what business do they have trying to take down President Trump for something that was well within his authority as President? With them, it’s always a case of “My rules for you, no rules for me.” Republicans have to UNIFY and stand up to this garbage, and it has to stop.

Levin: House has destroyed the Constitution, it's the Senate's job to fix it

 

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!
Captcha

Comments 26-44 of 44

  • Ray Cowden Witter

    01/17/2020 04:21 PM

    Keep writing your commentary!

  • Thomas Joseph Hussman

    01/17/2020 04:15 PM

    In Minneapolis Minnesota the entire US District Court Bench recused after a law professor sued a law school following his return to the USA from Rwanda. The case involved an employment dispute between the Prof and the Dean of the school. Both parties have confusing histories filled with political and international intrigue, which could rival any Perry Mason story or James Bond thriller.

  • Christine Dowd

    01/17/2020 03:45 PM

    Why can’t the senate just make a rule that candidates cannot be a part of the impeachment proceedings?

  • James E. McCrea

    01/17/2020 03:38 PM

    Those people never intended President Trump to have a fair trial!

  • James Robert Huffman

    01/17/2020 03:37 PM

    Amen and Amen!!! I completely agree.

  • Donna Hart

    01/17/2020 03:34 PM

    Why don't they just dismiss it like they talked about earlier? The Senate has the power to do that, right?

  • Vernon R Freeck

    01/17/2020 03:29 PM

    I am not one infavor on the impeachment and I DO NOT LIKE the democrats using my money to do so to DJ TRUMP our sitting president. The house has not done anything worthy of a salary that is paid for by my tax Dollar. If anyone should be kicked out of office should be the house democrats

  • Kay DeWitt

    01/17/2020 03:25 PM

    Mike, it is not even up for debate as to whether or not Senate Democrat candidates for President would be impartial...they WOULD not because they COULD not....not only because their self-centeredness would not be willing to suffer the loss of political benefit that they feel would be theirs if President Trump were to be impeached, but also because their hatred of President Trump is greater (therefore, has greater power OVER them) than does their "love" for justice !

    Your last statement: "Republicans have to UNIFY and stand up to this garbage, and it has to stop." reechoes my continual cry in my comments..with one small difference....which is that, instead of starting this statement with the word
    "Republicans", I start it with the word "Christians" because the so called "garbage" is the end-product of the EVIL ONE....because the "GOOD" ONE. ...our Lord Jesus Christ ..hates no person because HE only hates a person's SIN....THEREFORE...

    It is only the SUPERNATURAL power of Christ's love...THROUGH unified Christians
    ..that CAN "stand up TO this kind of garbage" , of the devil himself, and STOP him, and his garbage, because it IS true that "greater (and, therefore, more powerful) is HE that is IN Christians than he who is in the world (and hate filled Democrats)!

  • Linda Johnson

    01/17/2020 03:07 PM

    Why is Roberts the justice to preside over this trial? Isn't he partisan liberal? Where does justice for President Trump come from? When are Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, etc brought to justice for their flagrant abuse of power?

  • Richard Wieneke

    01/17/2020 02:52 PM

    Will President Trump really be convicted? Thats what Ive been hearing all morning. Whats wrong with Mitch McConnal making this into a political impeachment trial. What a stupid person.

  • James Slover

    01/17/2020 02:48 PM

    If the Democratic Senators running for President do not recuse themselves in the impeachment trial it could be argued they receive illegal campaign contributions by exercising their right to vote in this impeachment trial to gain an advantage over an opponent.

  • Marc Eisenstein

    01/17/2020 02:33 PM

    This will never end until such time as the "sheeples" in this country wake up, care about this country and do the right thing and vote. It is time that we remove career politicians (both Democrats and Republicans). Patrick Henry wrote "The Constitution is not a document for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government". I just hope it is not too late.

  • Donald Williams

    01/17/2020 02:31 PM

    Two comments: 1) let them vote as it will make no difference anyway. President Trump will be exonerated and 2) recusing oneself implies integrity and honor and those traits are sorely missing in the U.S. Congress.

  • Bobby Earl Cooper

    01/17/2020 02:30 PM

    I understand the logic but, since they are not impartial (and, I think unable to influence the outcome) being at the trial hurts their campaigning. On the other hand, if you mean they recuse themselves from voting on the outcome but need to be at the trial I am with you!

  • Ruth Ferraro

    01/17/2020 02:29 PM

    We need to keep praying for President Donald Trump and our country. Thank you for keeping us up to date on all your news.

  • rodney burke

    01/17/2020 02:23 PM

    this all stems because Joe Biden is "The chosen one" and all this stems because he is implicated in scandal and corruption. In reality, dems do NOT know who will be the opponent for DT. At this point, I don't think ANYONE can be his opponent. I think there is going to be so much in-fighting that they won't be able to make up their minds. As for recusal? There isn't ONE democrat in the senate who is NOT utterly hateful of Trump. They all cannot an have so stated that they will NOT be impartial. Marsha is dead on. Bernie et al. have no intention of being impartial. This is a one sided affair and to be "fair about it". Mitch should toss it out as having zero substance, zero crime, Nancy and schiff having zero to -25 in credibility. Let's call it what it is. A hate feast, The only crimes are on the left and they KNOW it. When Barr is thru and the Declas comes out, all will be revealed. and the stuff is gonna hit the fan. They KNOW they are exposed, and this is why all this is happening. They can make all these accusations but they don't know who the nominee will be. It's all about exposure and there is plenty coming and it's ALL on the left. Popcorn and sweet tea? ha, ha! maybe some apple pie, pecan pie?

  • Duane Lawton

    01/17/2020 02:11 PM

    Oh my. It makes no sense that the four dim senators would not recuse themselves: That would enable them to stay on the campaign trail, look good for not appearing partial in the trial, and have absolutely NO impact on the outcome of the trial ("Not Guilty"). So if they DO NOT recuse themselves, this reveals that they are totally deluded and think that there is a chance for conviction. Oh wait, we already know that...

  • Charles Simmons

    01/17/2020 02:08 PM

    If nothing comes from the Durham investigation, then USA is “over” ... including a two-tier justice system and a forever-protected class of untouchable elites ...

  • Kevin J. Cook

    01/17/2020 02:04 PM

    Dealing with democrats is like dealing with a spoiled two year old throwing a temper tantrum or a bully teenager telling his younger brother heads I win Tails you lose.
    The GOP needs to start acting like the parent

When I featured Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn’s suggestion that Senate Democrat candidates for President recuse themselves from the impeachment trial, I didn’t know how strongly the story would resonate. But the logic is impeccable. It seems only fair, given that Trump faces impeachment over the mere “presumption” (with no evidence) that he was trying to influence the 2020 election for his own personal gain. Blackburn makes a great point point: for anyone running for President, anything that damages the incumbent provides a huge personal benefit. How can they possibly be impartial in an impeachment trial that could conceivably remove the incumbent President from office (and from running for re-election)? Or, if not remove him, at least hurt his chances to remain in office for another term?

Sen. Blackburn appeared Thursday on FOX News’ HANNITY show. “...They took an oath that they’re going to give impartial justice,” she said, “and if you’re spending those millions of dollars and hundreds of hours...how in the world can you do that? And if these guys are out there in Iowa campaigning this weekend, they need to think long and hard about coming back and sitting and saying they are going to be an impartial juror in this trial.”

It wasn't mentioned, but I would add that they might have hard feelings against the accused, considering his trial is taking them off the campaign trail for as long as it goes on.

Blackburn went on to say that there is precedent for asking for recusal, stemming from the 1868 trial of Andrew Johnson (coincidentally also from Tennessee). It was brought up during that trial that certain people who had various conflicts of interest should recuse themselves, though that did not happen. Today, the people running against Trump, assuming they stay in the race, would likewise benefit greatly from Trump’s removal from office during this election year. It makes perfect sense that they should recuse themselves from the trial.

Some Democrats have called for Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to recuse himself from the trial, after he made statements that showed some manner of coordination with the White House. (Hard to know exactly what he meant by that besides what would normally happen). By that standard, all the Democrat candidates for President who are currently senators should recuse themselves. Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer should definitely recuse himself. They are all thoroughly and demonstrably biased, and they’re all “coordinating” with Madam Speaker to make sure this travesty goes forward.

As reported in the WASHINGTON TIMES, Rick Manning, president of Americans for Limited Government, said McConnell does not deserved to be tarred for prejudging the case, saying the Senate leader was merely protecting the President’s right to due process. He said, “The backlash on McConnell is simply politics as usual. This is nothing more than political gamesmanship.”

Indeed. At least Trump has a legitimate reason to look into corruption inside Ukraine, whether or not it involves someone (and/or the son of someone) who may or may not (I'm guessing NOT) turn out to be his political opponent in November. In contrast, all the Democrats running for President, as well as those who aren't, have purely political reasons for wanting to impeach Trump.

On the other hand, according to Keith Whittington, law professor at Princeton University, no member of Congress has ever been forced to sit out an impeachment trial, though some have done so voluntarily. Forcing any lawmaker to recuse him- or herself would break historic precedents, he said. It would take a motion made by another senator to put that on the floor, and it would be decided by John Roberts, though his decision could be appealed to a floor vote.

One other thing: Democrats are trying to implicate Mike Pence, too, and would like nothing better than to get both him and President Trump out. If this happened before November, our next President would be...Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi needs to recuse herself as well.

Also, the NEW YORK POST ran an editorial saying that a real court would reject Adam Schiff, for his dishonesty and "his nonstop campaign to smear President Trump."

Gosh, who's left?  I know! Let’s just acknowledge that this impeachment trial --- “the fruit of the poison tree” --- is so ridiculously partisan that EVERYONE should just recuse him- or herself and shut it down. We all know that Donald Trump’s only “high crime” was being elected President, and the idiots who have a problem with that can vote Democrat in November of this year.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/dec/16/mitch-mcconnell-impeachment-trial-recusal-would-di/

As long as we’re mentioning the HANNITY show, I would be remiss if I didn’t direct you to Thursday’s segment with Mark Levin, in which –- after noting it was Hillary Clinton’s campaign that “colluded” with Russia, to get the Steele “dossier” –- he hearkened back to the Bill Clinton era of the 1990s, when Clinton was up for re-election. Those of you who were around then surely remember that the White House was being sold to the highest bidder.

Clinton wasn’t impeached for THAT, though he arguably should have been. Remember the White House “coffees”? Johnny Chung? Charlie Trie? John Huang? Talk about foreign influence in our elections. Here’s what the LOS ANGELES TIMES wrote at the time:

"The chief of China’s military intelligence secretly directed funds from Beijing to help re-elect President Clinton in 1996. Former Democratic fundraiser Johnny Chung told federal investigators [saying he] met three times with intelligence officials, who ordered $300,000 deposited into [his] bank account to subsidize campaign donations intended for Clinton, according to sources. Chung spread around a great deal of foreign money on Democratic candidates and organizations and bought himself repeated access to the White House. He contributed more than $400,000 to various Democratic campaigns.”

This is money from the Chinese military. “Chung visited the White House more than 50 times.” the story continues, “and brought numerous Chinese associates to events with the President and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"Charlie Trie, a longtime friend of President Clinton, raised $1.2 million in foreign dollars for the Clinton Legal Defense Fund and the DNC, and in March 1996, Trie dropped off a donation of $460,000 at the Washington offices of the Clinton Defense Fund, with some of the money in sequentially numbered [bills] made out in the same handwriting.”

It goes on. (Link below.) The point is, Democrats who go on and on about their constitutional duty are a big, fat joke. Nancy Pelosi was around then; what did she have to say about all this dirty Clinton money? NOTHING. We also know, through old KGB files that have been made public, that during Ronald Reagan’s re-election campaign, Sen. Ted Kennedy tried to “collude” with the KGB to defeat Reagan.  Why, he was "the lion of the Senate."

And now, the GAO comes out with a statement that President Trump “broke the law.” We’ll address that case elsewhere, but here’s a question posed by Levin: If Trump’s small delay in sending funds to Ukraine broke the law, what about Joe Biden’s threat to withhold $1.5 billion to Ukraine unless a certain prosecutor –- who just happened to be investigating his son, Hunter –- was fired?

With all the rampant political bias and sleazy, disgraceful misconduct coming from the Democrat side –- both historically and today, right now –- what business do they have trying to take down President Trump for something that was well within his authority as President? With them, it’s always a case of “My rules for you, no rules for me.” Republicans have to UNIFY and stand up to this garbage, and it has to stop.

Levin: House has destroyed the Constitution, it's the Senate's job to fix it

 

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!
Captcha

Comments 26-44 of 44

  • Ray Cowden Witter

    01/17/2020 04:21 PM

    Keep writing your commentary!

  • Thomas Joseph Hussman

    01/17/2020 04:15 PM

    In Minneapolis Minnesota the entire US District Court Bench recused after a law professor sued a law school following his return to the USA from Rwanda. The case involved an employment dispute between the Prof and the Dean of the school. Both parties have confusing histories filled with political and international intrigue, which could rival any Perry Mason story or James Bond thriller.

  • Christine Dowd

    01/17/2020 03:45 PM

    Why can’t the senate just make a rule that candidates cannot be a part of the impeachment proceedings?

  • James E. McCrea

    01/17/2020 03:38 PM

    Those people never intended President Trump to have a fair trial!

  • James Robert Huffman

    01/17/2020 03:37 PM

    Amen and Amen!!! I completely agree.

  • Donna Hart

    01/17/2020 03:34 PM

    Why don't they just dismiss it like they talked about earlier? The Senate has the power to do that, right?

  • Vernon R Freeck

    01/17/2020 03:29 PM

    I am not one infavor on the impeachment and I DO NOT LIKE the democrats using my money to do so to DJ TRUMP our sitting president. The house has not done anything worthy of a salary that is paid for by my tax Dollar. If anyone should be kicked out of office should be the house democrats

  • Kay DeWitt

    01/17/2020 03:25 PM

    Mike, it is not even up for debate as to whether or not Senate Democrat candidates for President would be impartial...they WOULD not because they COULD not....not only because their self-centeredness would not be willing to suffer the loss of political benefit that they feel would be theirs if President Trump were to be impeached, but also because their hatred of President Trump is greater (therefore, has greater power OVER them) than does their "love" for justice !

    Your last statement: "Republicans have to UNIFY and stand up to this garbage, and it has to stop." reechoes my continual cry in my comments..with one small difference....which is that, instead of starting this statement with the word
    "Republicans", I start it with the word "Christians" because the so called "garbage" is the end-product of the EVIL ONE....because the "GOOD" ONE. ...our Lord Jesus Christ ..hates no person because HE only hates a person's SIN....THEREFORE...

    It is only the SUPERNATURAL power of Christ's love...THROUGH unified Christians
    ..that CAN "stand up TO this kind of garbage" , of the devil himself, and STOP him, and his garbage, because it IS true that "greater (and, therefore, more powerful) is HE that is IN Christians than he who is in the world (and hate filled Democrats)!

  • Linda Johnson

    01/17/2020 03:07 PM

    Why is Roberts the justice to preside over this trial? Isn't he partisan liberal? Where does justice for President Trump come from? When are Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, etc brought to justice for their flagrant abuse of power?

  • Richard Wieneke

    01/17/2020 02:52 PM

    Will President Trump really be convicted? Thats what Ive been hearing all morning. Whats wrong with Mitch McConnal making this into a political impeachment trial. What a stupid person.

  • James Slover

    01/17/2020 02:48 PM

    If the Democratic Senators running for President do not recuse themselves in the impeachment trial it could be argued they receive illegal campaign contributions by exercising their right to vote in this impeachment trial to gain an advantage over an opponent.

  • Marc Eisenstein

    01/17/2020 02:33 PM

    This will never end until such time as the "sheeples" in this country wake up, care about this country and do the right thing and vote. It is time that we remove career politicians (both Democrats and Republicans). Patrick Henry wrote "The Constitution is not a document for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government". I just hope it is not too late.

  • Donald Williams

    01/17/2020 02:31 PM

    Two comments: 1) let them vote as it will make no difference anyway. President Trump will be exonerated and 2) recusing oneself implies integrity and honor and those traits are sorely missing in the U.S. Congress.

  • Bobby Earl Cooper

    01/17/2020 02:30 PM

    I understand the logic but, since they are not impartial (and, I think unable to influence the outcome) being at the trial hurts their campaigning. On the other hand, if you mean they recuse themselves from voting on the outcome but need to be at the trial I am with you!

  • Ruth Ferraro

    01/17/2020 02:29 PM

    We need to keep praying for President Donald Trump and our country. Thank you for keeping us up to date on all your news.

  • rodney burke

    01/17/2020 02:23 PM

    this all stems because Joe Biden is "The chosen one" and all this stems because he is implicated in scandal and corruption. In reality, dems do NOT know who will be the opponent for DT. At this point, I don't think ANYONE can be his opponent. I think there is going to be so much in-fighting that they won't be able to make up their minds. As for recusal? There isn't ONE democrat in the senate who is NOT utterly hateful of Trump. They all cannot an have so stated that they will NOT be impartial. Marsha is dead on. Bernie et al. have no intention of being impartial. This is a one sided affair and to be "fair about it". Mitch should toss it out as having zero substance, zero crime, Nancy and schiff having zero to -25 in credibility. Let's call it what it is. A hate feast, The only crimes are on the left and they KNOW it. When Barr is thru and the Declas comes out, all will be revealed. and the stuff is gonna hit the fan. They KNOW they are exposed, and this is why all this is happening. They can make all these accusations but they don't know who the nominee will be. It's all about exposure and there is plenty coming and it's ALL on the left. Popcorn and sweet tea? ha, ha! maybe some apple pie, pecan pie?

  • Duane Lawton

    01/17/2020 02:11 PM

    Oh my. It makes no sense that the four dim senators would not recuse themselves: That would enable them to stay on the campaign trail, look good for not appearing partial in the trial, and have absolutely NO impact on the outcome of the trial ("Not Guilty"). So if they DO NOT recuse themselves, this reveals that they are totally deluded and think that there is a chance for conviction. Oh wait, we already know that...

  • Charles Simmons

    01/17/2020 02:08 PM

    If nothing comes from the Durham investigation, then USA is “over” ... including a two-tier justice system and a forever-protected class of untouchable elites ...

  • Kevin J. Cook

    01/17/2020 02:04 PM

    Dealing with democrats is like dealing with a spoiled two year old throwing a temper tantrum or a bully teenager telling his younger brother heads I win Tails you lose.
    The GOP needs to start acting like the parent