FAIRNESS FOR ALL?: U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., says that the president’s second impeachment trial will be done “with fairness to all” despite his prior statements to the contrary.
After indicating that he already considers former President Donald Trump guilty, U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt, is now attempting to walk back any notion that he is biased.
“As many of you know, I did not ask or seek to preside over this trial,” Leahy said in a statement released Tuesday during the initial hours of the Senate impeachment trial.
Leahy now insists the trial will be fair.
“My intention and solemn obligation is to conduct this trial with fairness to all,” he said. “I will adhere, as have my predecessors in the Senate who have presided over impeachment trials, to the Constitution and to applicable Senate rules, precedent, and governing resolutions.”
Leahy’s recent statements have caused some to doubt whether he can provide a fair trial. In early January, the senator said “President Trump has not simply failed to uphold his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, which itself would be sufficient to warrant his impeachment and removal; he has emerged as the greatest threat to the Constitution and to American democracy in a generation.”
The early analysis of the impeachment trial seems favorable for Trump. John Solomon reported Wednesday it’s now widely expected the impeachment effort will fail. President Biden has made a similar prediction that Trump will be acquitted.
Any decisions that Leahy makes can be reviewed by the whole body of the Senate. He plans to submit any constitutional questions that he has to the whole Senate.
Trump continues to remain very popular with the general public. A Hill-HarrisX poll has almost two-thirds of Republicans and more than 1 in 7 Democrats saying they would join a new party if one is created by Trump.
Leaders of the Democratic party have made the trial about the Jan. 6 Capitol riots, which saw hundreds of Trump supporters breach the building, along with at least 20 participants who are suspected or confirmed to be from other organizations such as Antifa.
U.S. Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Colo., is among those arguing in favor of impeachment.
“He was impeached for inciting a violent insurrection — an insurrection where people died, in this building,” he said. “If Congress stands by, it would invite future presidents to use their power without any fear of accountability.”
Additional reporting by John Solomon significantly undermines the narrative that the former president had anything to do with inciting the riots.
“Days before former President Trump’s impeachment trial begins, newly filed federal charges against anti-government activists offer fresh, compelling evidence that the accused perpetrators of the Capitol riots pre-planned their attack days and weeks in advance and in plain sight of an FBI that vowed to be vigilant to extremist threats,” he wrote.
Some of the rhetoric against the president has been extreme. Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., compared the event to 9/11: “Osama Bin Laden did not enter US soil on September 11, but it was widely acknowledged that he was responsible for inspiring the attack on our country and the president, with his words, using the word fight.”
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, is among the outspoken GOP leaders who say the impeachment trial is not constitutional.
“This proceeding, which would try a private citizen and not a president, a vice president or civil officer violates the Constitution, and is not an order,” Paul said.
Alan Dershowitz, Trump’s lawyer during the first impeachment trial, said he was unimpressed with Trump’s defense lawyer, Bruce Castor, during his first performance this week.
“I have no idea what he is doing,” Dershowitz told Newsmax. “The American people are entitled to an argument … but this, just, after all kinds of very strong presentations on the part of the House managers … it does not appear to me to be effective advocacy.”
Michael Bielawski is a reporter for True North. Send him news tips at bielawski82@yahoo.com and follow him on Twitter @TrueNorthMikeB.
Leahy was biting at the bit to be asked seeing the traitor Roberts wouldn’t do it. Leahy has hated President Trump from day one.He voted to impeach him the first time.
He will be FAIR.. I call BS. Leahy is one of the swamps bottom dwellers. He isn’t biased. MY a$$
The violent storming of the capitol in which over 100 police officers were injured in order to prevent the certification of a duly elected President is a defining moment in our nations history. The chants as the rioters stormed their way through the capitol of “Hang Mike Pence” after having erected a gallows were truly chilling.
Over the years I have become increasingly more conservative, in a Edmund Burke type way, with a greater appreciation for our societies traditions and institutions and of the dangers of the mobocracy which he saw in the French Revolution. To have a “conservative” news source like True North Reports focus on the relatively insignificant institutional role played by Patrick Leahy rather than the broader implications for our Republic on this tragic event including how best to hold those responsible accountable, and what are the lessons for our nations going forward, is a bit of disappointment.
Mr. Freitag speaks of “this tragic event including how to best hold those responsible accountable”. Seems to me that this question should have been asked last May and every day after for the rest of the year following the death of George Floyd when rioters and looters burned and attacked cities, businesses and police stations across this country.
Could it be that there’s a difference in rioting depending on who’s doing the rioting? Is there good rioting and bad rioting? Or is Mr. Freitag just late in becoming aware of what’s been going on in this country for the past year as cities burned and people died?
Leahy doesn’t want to preside over this circus because he’s missing his chance to be in ANTOHER Batman movie. We’re paying him with our tax dollars so that he can pretend to be a senator and an actor.
AL in VT;… lol you got that right..
Here is a good article about Pat’s impartiality.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/02/patrick_leahys_disgrace.html
I wonder if Leaky slept thru most of the circus. Cameras didn’t show him much. Surprising as he always wants a camera in his face.
I also wonder if he lives in the DC area constantly and not VT. If so he represents the DC mindset. I have a Air Force friend Jim in South Dakota, very sharp and conservative He was heavily involved in local politics and was a mayor many years. At that time Sen Daschle was their senator and a very left liberal, could say had corrupt dealings, very shady One year he ran for reelection Jim hated Daschle and had dirt information about Daschle.
Daschle lived in the DC area and hardly returned to SD, Jim knew this. A month before the election Jim released a video to TV stations and various medias showing Daschle saying he lived in DC. Daschle lost. Shortly afterwards, Jim and his wife received a no sender addressed envelope in the mail. Upon opening a white powder spelled out, being harmless but raised concerns. Guess Daschle was PO’d.
From Wikipedia About Daschle.
In the 2004 Senate election, John Thune defeated Daschle by 4,508 votes, 50.5% to 49.4%. It was the first time that a Senate party leader had lost a bid for reelection since 1952
Daschle remained in DC, lobbyist and adviser.
The same could happen to Leaky Leahy. Represents liberal DC not VT. Fits the mold.
Leahy lives in VA.. he still has his house in Middlesex from what I am told. but he’s hardly there.. He graces us with his presents once in a while. To me, if you are going to be a senator of a state you should be LIVING in THAT state.
Fairness ? How is unconstitutional fair ?
Chief Justice Leahy, will go down in history as one of the guys that presided over a kangaroo court that wasted critical time during a pandemic conducting an unconstitutional proceeding. I hope the Democrats continue long into the night; angering mainstream Americans even further. These people are fanatics. Fanatics are people who won’t change their mind and won’t change the subject.
Cheers during this Maunder Minimum
Not enough people are pointing that out. Tucker Carlson was the only person who I saw talking about the imminent spread of the China virus during the first impeachment sham. Our representatives are clowns.
You couldn’t even understand him. he was most of the time mumbling. Sounded like he was dying…
Lead kangaroo.
We need more representatives like Rand Paul.
We have 17 in Vermont, has anybody been giving them any press coverage? What are they up to?
If people who defend our state never get their voices heard and we have to listen to propaganda from propagandists extraordinaire like Mr. Leahy, that absolute poster child for term limits against deep state operatives how can do no wrong….EB5 anyone…..
Then how are we ever going to rid our selves of corruption. This title protects somebody who is orchestrating a sham event. We can do better than this…we have to do better or we’re gonna get flushed.
Putting Rand Paul as the head photo, as the lead topic, as he calls it unconstitutional might do wonders for people discovering the truth…..parroting the most partisan politician for the most partisan event to happen in our country is doing no service to the truth or the debate in finding the truth…..
Read the Constitution or take a civics class before you comment on Rand Paul and this sham impeachment. It is a kangaroo court. The political double standard in DC is vomitious. If you are a Democrat you can say and do ANYTHING with no questions asked and the full blessings of the media. I.e.. Maxine Waters, AOC, Schumer and Pelosi, Kamala Harris, and many more.
I don’t think Rand Paul is impeaching or suggesting impeachment, that is why I’m suggesting we need more people like Rand Paul in office, that is why I’m suggesting his argument should be the head line and not leahy’s propaganda. Perhaps I wasn’t clear, my apologies for that.
He hates DJT as much as the rest of the democrats. He knows it’s a farce but not take another shot at a public persecution? It’s not like there’s more important issues than having a fraudulent trial. At least this could make for a flipping of quite a few seats so it won’t be a total waste then.
I assume he will not be voting – else BS
Ha! He indeed has voted- on Feb. 9th, as to the constitutionality of the impeachment trial.
The results of the vote were 56-44, with 6 Republicans voting yes. So, yeah Leaky Leahy is judge and member of the jury. Except he’s not much of a judge, needing to consult with boss man schumer regarding points of order. Maybe he nodded off for a second….
Kinda invalidates the whole circus show, doesn’t it?
“As many of you know, I did not ask or seek to preside over this trial,” Leahy said in a statement released Tuesday during the initial hours of the Senate impeachment trial.
But he didn’t want to turn down the chance to grandstand, once last time, in the progressive ‘woke’ cancel culture with which he has become accustom.
Fair? Not to me.
What a glaring lack of integrity on his part. He said, “…I did not ask or seek to preside…” Yet he took the position anyway. He could have said have “No” and would probably have been better remembered for it. This is indeed a dark night for him, but this is not “Batman.” No one should ask for his autograph on this one…
I can imagine what Senator George Aiken would have had to say about Leahy’s games and Leahy’s views and actions. My father was a close friend of Senator Aiken’s for over 30 years and they often talked about very similar situations, namely, the unconstitutional desire for ever more power in DC and how easily DC forgets about freedom of speech, fair and equal justice, and the Constitution! He would have walked out of this impeachment charade. All the Republicans should do the same!!!
Letting Leahy preside over this illegal sham impeachment trial is like having a judge in a felony trial say the person being tried is guilty, then presiding over the trial and afterwards walking over and joining the jury and voting guilty on the verdict. Could anything be more discriminatory and a bigger violation of one’s legal rights? NO!