re: Just went off on Bill Cassidy's Staffer

quote:

---

Why would he listen to the evidence if he has already expressed his opinion that the Articles were unconstitutional?

---

That does raise an interesting question. If his side loses on a procedural issue, does a Senator then have an obligation to set that disagreement aside and then judge the substantive facts objectively. Given the oath they take before sitting in judgment, as follows:

quote:

---

I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be,) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of __________, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: so help me God.

---

you would think that the answer is "yes," but ...

In the impeachment and trial of Republican Secretary of War Belknap, more than twenty Senators voted AGAINST trying the case after receiving it from the House, due to the fact that the House did not impeach Belknap until after he had already resigned ... believing (correctly) that the Senate had no jurisdiction.

The question of jurisdiction was to be decided by a simple majority, so they lost on that point.

At the Senate trial, ALL of those Senators voted against conviction for exactly that reason (jurisdiction), and they were the margin that Belknap needed to avoid conviction by a 2/3 majority in the Senate.

Clearly, THOSE Senators did not feel compelled to serve as objective jurors once they lost on the jurisdictional question. They were overwhelmingly-Republican, as was Belknap.

So there WOULD have been precedent for Cassidy to say "I will vote against conviction regardless of the facts, because I think that the Senate lacks jurisdiction."