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.
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.