When it comes to stacking the deck in their favor, Democrats are willing to break precedence, rules and, in many cases the law, in order to obtain power.
One of their favorite tactics is to call on Republicans and political opponents to recuse themselves from investigations when there is no good reason to do so.
Democrats really stepped up their use of this tactic when Donald Trump became president. One of the earliest and most successful examples was when they managed to convince then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to recuse himself from the “Russian collusion” investigation after reports that Sessions, who was still a senator, had a meeting with Moscow’s ambassador to the U.S.
The recusal so early in his administration angered President Trump who was counting on Sessions as an ally. Worse, Sessions didn’t even correctly cite the law when he recused. (Related: Leftists planning to “protest” over resignation of Jeff Sessions who they hated when he was enforcing immigration laws.)
The Russian Witch Hunt Hoax continues, all because Jeff Sessions didn’t tell me he was going to recuse himself…I would have quickly picked someone else. So much time and money wasted, so many lives ruined…and Sessions knew better than most that there was No Collusion!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 5, 2018
In October, Democrats were again calling on a Trump administration official to recuse himself from an investigation, this one into possible corruption involving Joe and Hunter Biden and the country of Ukraine.
Senate Democrats are calling for Attorney General William P. Barr to recuse himself from all investigations related to Ukraine, suggesting he played a role in President Trump’s alleged efforts to undermine a political opponent with the help of foreign officials.
Barr has yet to do so and isn’t likely to, but that hasn’t stopped Democrats from repeating their demand. And again, Barr hasn’t done anything to justify recusal; as AG, his job is to oversee criminal investigations no matter who may be involved.
But do you know who should recuse themselves from Trump’s Senate impeachment trial because they have a huge conflict of interest in the outcome? Every Democrat (and Independent) senator who ran, or is still running, for the party’s 2020 presidential nomination.
Writing in The Hill, U.S. Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) said it is incumbent on those senators to quit the impeachment trial because they cannot — and will not — be impartial (as they are demanding of Republicans).
They have a vested interest in seeing Trump removed from office because, theoretically, it would help them and their campaigns if the incumbent were to be deposed.
Smith argued in December ahead of the House’s impeachment vote:
It is important to note, Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the United States Constitution requires senators to swear an oath when sitting on a trial of impeachment. This oath, which is enshrined in our Constitution and laid out in Rule XXV of the Senate Rules in Impeachment Trials, requires senators to, “do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.” It is simply impossible for those senators running for office with the sole purpose of removing Donald Trump to uphold that oath.
As such, Smith wrote that he and more than two dozen House colleagues are calling on all of the Democratic senators running for the party’s presidential nomination recuse themselves immediate because they cannot be impartial.
There is no doubt that Smith and his colleagues are right. It is unreasonable to expect any of these candidates — Sens. Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, or Elizabeth Warren — to be fair to the president they are trying to defeat.
The same is true for Sens. Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, both of whom have dropped out of the 2020 race but who nevertheless has his biases against Trump.
“During an impeachment trial, the vice president is required to relinquish his position as president of the Senate to the chief justice due to the clear conflict of interest. Senators actively seeking election to the presidency of the United States should be required to do the same,” Smith wrote.
We couldn’t agree more.