Agnostic.com

11 8

Posting this in the general forum, because I think the topic goes far beyond mere politics.
I'm curious about how any of the republican members of the Senate, who have taken an oath to be impartial jurors, can make public statements regarding how they feel about the case being made by the House managers?

The question of whether this trial is Constitutional has been answered.
It is.
Given that decision, aren't the Senate jurors bound by the oath they took to move forward knowing the trial is Constitutional?
Even if they voted against the question previously, aren't they now bound to accept its Constitutionality?

I've personally heard Cruz, Paul, and Graham all insist that they still believe the trial is un-Constititional, even as some of them praised the job being done by House managers.
Don't their comments indicate they're violating their oath as impartial jurors?
Can anything be done to remove them as jurors due to these violations?

I've tried contacting their individual offices to ask these questions, but since I don't live in their states, my questions have been dismissed by the staffers I've spoken to.

KKGator 9 Feb 11
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

11 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Just goes to show words (oaths) have little meaning to some especially when doing as they say, promise means it might come at a cost. To most reasonable, decent people this sort of thing has become rampant with the republican party.

2

It's called a trial but really it's not, just a name and it is nothing to do with a trial in the criminal sense of the word. The only real thing to do is try and work towards getting those gop members currently in office replaced with either a dem, progressive or a decent republican-an Eisenhower republican would be fine.

0

[I have to say I am sorry I am stating this in the manner I am. Apparently you have not been paying attention to current events. Trump is innocent of any wrong doing because that is the way he wants it. Every one of his supporters is afraid of him as they will not even question what he is doing. The Senate is going to support not impeaching him because he want that to happen. I have another question and that is what are these people going to do after the first part of March when there is supposed to be another insurrection and he will be placed into his rightful place. Since the Senate will not go against trump they are going to have to live through all the other shit he pulls to get put back as King of all. That is the way he wants it and no one else matters. Thoughts?

I understand what you're saying, and I know the truth of it.

As far as March goes, if any of them show up in DC and try this shit again, I hope the National Guard shoot them.

I also hope that every single Senator who votes to acquit, is never permitted to forget it, and is shamed perpetually for it.

2

i complain to my reps once every week or two of which Hawley is one. None of them do anything other than form letters. No town hall events, etc. Hawley doesn't even own property in Missouri any longer and uses his sister's address as a connection.

He's such a dick.

2

There was a short-lived movement to get Cruz and Hawley to recuse themsrlves as jurors due to their own involvement in the insurrection. The refusal was based on the outside probability that they could be called as witness. That makes them ineligible to be a juror and a witness simultaneously.

A law or rule is as good as non-existant if their is no enforcement or consequences.

1

WHy do you tell them you are not from their state? I would just say I am a concerned citizen who has an interest in what my representative is doing. If they bring up caller ID, internet phones are funny like that, especially when going through a VPN. Actually, none of that is a lie either, so see, just don't have to give all the info. If it works for them for something that doesn't matter worth a damned, why not use it to your advantage for something that does matter?

I understand your point, but I can't bring myself to lie about that.
Especially when I'm questioning THEIR ethics, or lack thereof.

1

I feel and understand your frustrations and as always your logic...the problem is this "trial" is not going to go anywhere because it takes 2/3 Majority and you know as well as anyone that there aren't enough Republicans on our side to convict this POS. Trump OWNS the Senate at this point...so unless you believe in miracles(😒) the only hope we have is flipping more House and Senate seats in 2022. That still doesn't solve the problem of how to stop the POS from running in 2024...somehow we have to find SOMETHING that will "once and for all spoil him for the Republicans.

The GOP would LOVE to get rid of Trump but they haven't found anyone who can manipulate the GOP Base as well as he can. When they do we are in for even worse problems...imagine how far someone with Brains could have gotten...and the sad truth is the only reason I think he lost was because of the Pandemic...this is a ROYAL, FUCKING NIGHTMARE.

In truth, I don't expect 45 to be convicted.
It's clear most Senate republicans lack the integrity to go against 45 or his base.

My point is how can the Senators, who all took an oath to be impartial jurors, be held accountable for the clear violation of that oath?
Several have already made public comments which indicate they have already made up their minds.
I just heard that Cruz, Graham, and Lee met with 45's attorneys this afternoon.
How does that translate to being impartial?

I don't understand how they can be allowed to get away with blatantly violating their oath as jurors.
There must be consequences for this.
It cannot be allowed to go unaddressed.

@KKGator the whole thing is a sham...how can you have a "fair Trial" with a "Jury of unbiased peers" when 50% of the jury were the very people helping to perpetrate this crime...I mean FUCKING CHRIST...this would be like having 50% of the Judges in the Nuremberg Trials be NAZI's...

@phoenixone1 100% agreed.

2

I have the same frustrations with all this as you do, Gator. I believe they are in violation of their oath.

3

In a democracy the vote decides the question and. yes, it becomes answered. They are in violation of their oath.

Further, because conviction is still in question, it feels necessary for me to point this out to ALL gop/MAGA: Our current President, the man with the power to incite insurrection and murder police, is a Democrat. I would authorize that President to not lose office, or allow the seating of ANY gop/MAGA who managed to get elected (which wouldn't be likely under the rules I'd create for elections), BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. One of us is going to live by armed threat and legal murder and I'd rather it not be me. If you don't insist on conviction then that would be your consequence. Suck on it.

Further, on September 11th, 44 passengers on United Flight 93 sacrificed their lives to prevent a hijacked plane from attacking the Capitol. On February 11th, today, 44 Republican Senators won't even raise their voice a vote to prevent future attacks on the Capitol. We honor the heroes of September 11th and we will remember the cowards of February 14th.

1

Party trumps the Constitution?!

MizJ Level 8 Feb 11, 2021

Yeah, they've definitely made that abundantly clear.

Ethics have apparently ceased to matter with these people. If they ever even did.

@KKGator I cried when I saw some of the video from 6 January, somewhere I read that many of the Rs stared at their shoes while it played. Denial!

4

Graham, Cruz , and Paul do not really believe that the impeachment is unconstitutional. That is simply the false excuse that they are hiding behind.

I know. You're both right.
I'm just wondering, if they've said publicly that they still believe the trial is un-Constitutional, how can they be allowed to continue to be jurors?
What consequences can be brought against them?

@KKGator Good questions. I do not know the answeres.

@KKGator Their biases would disqualify them from serving on a jury in a traditional criminal court. Good points.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:575740
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.