Sorry, when the oath you take says you promise to be impartial and you've already stated that you cannot and will not be, there is no rule that's necessary for that. That's disqualification. Plain and simple. if you think that someone can say to the American public I am not going to be impartial and then take an oath saying that they're going to be impartial and that doesn't bother you then I can guess what you think about our president.

I'll make it easy for you. Let's say you're a defendant in a murder trial alleged to have killed a cop. Two of the jurors have family members in law enforcement and say they cannot be impartial. Are you ok with those jurors sitting on your trial? If you don't see the unfairness and somehow think this is different, you must also believe that a president can do whatever they want--as he said he can. Welcome to a dictatorship.

Yep. That's also why the federal criminal statutes don't apply, although I've read an article that essentially asserts criminal statutes could inform articles of impeachment.

It occurred to me earlier tonight that the Declaration of Independence is probably a good example both of how the Framers probably viewed impeachment and how impeachable offences don't necessarily reflect criminal statutes, given its long list of "injuries and usurpations."

@lerlo i agree with @bingst here. Youre comparing apples to oranges, to use a truism.

@MarkiusMahamius does that mean you won't answer my question or you can't? you're saying the oath a juror takes in a trial in the u.s. is different than the oath a senator takes in the impeachment trial? I'll try to make it easy once again, when is an oath not an oath?

@lerlo the two oaths are different and the two jobs are different. You can't reduce the role of senators, to the role of jurors. And stop hasseling me like youre a lawyer, trying to force some unalienable truth. Youre not "making it easy" for anyone, by trying to subsitute your beliefs for actual reality. Reality is complex and ugly, and this level of debate is far beyond the jury process youve seen on Perry Mason or Matlock. You need to look no further than the complexities we face now, to realize that. Blathering insistance on some make believe, absolutist process, and refusal to see the situation we must navigate in real life, is nothing but refusal to participate in resolution and growth.

@MarkiusMahamius here's the oath the Senators will take:
According to Rule XXV of the Senate Rules in Impeachment Trials, all senators must make the following oath: "I solemnly swear [or affirm, as the case may be] that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of [the person being impeached], now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God."
I know you don't want to face the reality that's apparent and turning a blind eye just makes it all scarier. So big shot, when a senator says I will not be impartial can they take that oath?
By the way I am an attorney who has tried almost 100 jury trials and I know what Oath a juror takes. I'm pretty sure you're the one who refuses to see reality.
In a federal criminal trial they have voire dire of the jurors to find out if they're impartial, something they won't have in the Senate they'll just jump right to the oath. From the federal trial court handbook: "Questions are then asked to find out
whether any individuals on the panel have any personal interest in the case or know of any reason why they cannot render an impartial verdict."
I know you're playing deaf and dumb but maybe when you open your eyes and ears you will understand what I'm talking about. My guess is you'll just call it a Witch Hunt and not care what the truth is.

@lerlo good luck with clinging to your belief system. Itll take some serious mental flexibility.

@MarkiusMahamius maybe you just can't read. Or is it too embarrassing for you to have to admit that the idiot should have been impeached and that the Senators who say they aren't impartial will just forget about it all. Is it difficult not to have a defense at all to anything I've said? I'm guessing not because you got your head in sand like every other person who's saying" boy none of this is happening." I'll be here as long as you keep saying you have to have the last word until you can come up with some defense any defense got anything at all? Now that you know that I know how the system works and you haven't a clue? Oh that's right you think the Senators are the smartest people in the world, smarter than your president? Could that be? Or maybe it's just not true but we know you don't care about the truth.

@lerlo whatever you say

@MarkiusMahamius like I said big shot you have no clue what's going on and can't admit it. You gave your band of blind people a good showing. But as usual you came up against someone with a clue and then you have to hide. Tell me again how the oaths are different?

@lerlo i have no idea why youre talking to me

@MarkiusMahamius Wondering myself since I normally only converse with intelligent people. Maybe I think you might open your eyes and your brain (if that's possible)

Yes the Supreme Court Justice does oversee the trial however allowing someone who already says they can't be impartial to take an oath saying that they will be impartial cannot happen and should not happen.