As Trump’s impeachment trial approaches, the GOP is framing it as a Democratic plot

Republican senators argued on Sunday that former President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate, scheduled to start this week, is not constitutionally legitimate – and one even tried to suggest that Democrats may be to blame for the invasion of the U.S. Capitol.

The layoffs and distraction tactics suggest that after a brief period of uncertainty about censoring Trump, Republicans are positioned to present a tightly-knit front in rejecting the case that Trump should be condemned for his role in inciting the January 6 uprising.

Senator Ron Johnson (D-WI) argued that 45 Republican senators already believe that the Senate judgment is “unconstitutional” when speaking to Fox News’s Maria Bartiromo on Sunday. He was referring to the total votes in the Senate motion brought by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) in January to reject the impeachment trial based on the fact that it is unconstitutional to conduct an impeachment trial for an ordinary citizen. Five Republicans joined the Democrats in rejecting the motion, but all other Republicans voted in favor. (Many jurists believe that such a judgment is perfectly constitutional – more on that later.)

But Johnson’s subsequent comments about Fox took a more shocking turn – he launched the baseless idea that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was somehow to blame for the violent attack on the Capitol.

“Is it another diversified operation? Does this mean avoiding what the speaker potentially knew and when she knew it? I don’t know, but I’m suspicious, ”said Johnson.

Other senators also tried to question the legitimacy of the trial. Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) said the House’s vote on impeachment was just for show – and resembles the legal process in an authoritarian state.

“There was no process. It’s almost like it happened in the Soviet Union, you would have called it a show trial, ”said Cassidy on NBC Meet the press. “The president was not there, he had no right to a lawyer, they didn’t gather evidence, in five hours they sort of tried and boom, he was impeached,” he said.

The impeachment process of the Chamber, in fact, does not involve judgment; the Senate trial after the impeachment yes. Trump was asked to testify at his Senate trial, but he refused.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) argued about CBS ‘ Face the Nation that the trial was an “unconstitutional exercise” and that “the outcome is really not in doubt”.

He suggested that attempts to sanction Trump’s behavior should be addressed through the conventional legal system. “If you believe that he committed a crime, he can be prosecuted just like any other citizen; impeachment is a political process, ”said Graham.

Graham is correct in claiming that the outcome of the trial has little doubt; 17 Republicans would have to join all members of the Democratic caucus for a conviction to be successful, since a conviction requires two-thirds of the Senate. As was evident on Sunday, there appears to be little appetite for such a vote among the GOP.

Impeachment, however, is about the criminal prosecution – specifically, “serious crimes and misdemeanors,” according to the Constitution, and Trump’s impeachment trial does not appear to be an “unconstitutional exercise”, as Graham suggested.

There are historical examples of employees who were tried after leaving office

Many Republicans have argued that the Senate trial lacks constitutional legitimacy because Trump has already stepped down. But Democratic academics and lawmakers have pointed out that the US Constitution is silent on the matter and point to earlier examples of federal officials, as judges, being tried even after leaving office.

According to the Wall Street Journal, a report by the Congressional Research Service – Congressional internal research organization – concluded that “although the subject is open for debate, the weight of academic authority agrees that former employees can be accused of impeachment. and tried “.

The CRS report cited the example of War Secretary William Belknap, who was impeached by the House and tried in the Senate in 1876, although he had already resigned after evidence emerged that he acted in a corrupt manner.

Laurence Tribe, a legal scholar at Harvard Law School, wrote in the Washington Post in January that “the clear weight of history, the original understanding and the practice of Congress reinforces the case to conclude that the end of Donald Trump’s presidency would not end his trial. in the Senate. “

Tribe wrote that the Constitution’s references to impeachment do not limit the power of impeachment based on whether an officer is in office or not. “Nothing in the Constitution suggests that a president who has shown himself to be a deadly threat to our survival as a constitutional republic should be able to exhaust our ability to condemn his conduct and ensure that it never repeats itself.” He wrote.

This does not mean that there is a consensus on this view. Former federal appeals judge J. Michael Luttig argued that the Senate judgment would be unconstitutional and says he believes that only the Supreme Court can make a final judgment on the matter.

There is still a lot of uncertainty about the trial

An open question is whether any Republican senators will vote to condemn Trump, especially considering that not all Republican senators have tried to undermine the legitimacy of the Senate trial.

Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey – one of five Republican senators who voted against Paul’s motion – said he believed the process was constitutional on Sunday.

“I think it is clearly constitutional to conduct a trial in the Senate regarding an impeachment. In this case, the impeachment occurred before the president stepped down, ”said Toomey on CNN state of the Union. “I still think the best result would have been the president’s resignation. Obviously, he chose not to do that. “

“I will listen to the arguments from both sides and make the decision that I think is right,” he added.

While there is some doubt about the Republicans’ possible vows of conviction, Democrats seem much more united on the issue. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) summed up the Democrats’ argument on Sunday, defending the trial as something that is not only allowed by the Constitution – but demanded by it.

“There is a clear precedent for the Senate to advance the impeachment trial once the articles are sent, even after an official has left office, so my analysis here kind of starts and ends with what is my constitutional responsibility,” he said. He in Fox News Sunday.

“Impeachment comes not only with a willingness to remove an employee from the position, but also to disqualify him from a future position,” said Murphy.

Murphy also noted that some big questions remain about how the trial will be conducted – including whether witnesses will be brought in. He argued that, since the riot was public, it was not as necessary to call witnesses as during the first Trump Senate impeachment process, but that “if the House [impeachment] managers want to call witnesses, I think we should allow them to do so ”.

A broad point of agreement between the two parties is that both Democrats and Republicans want the trial – which starts Tuesday – to be quick. Republicans will favor a short trial as a damage control measure to reduce public discussion of Trump’s behavior. Democrats, on the other hand, have an ambitious legislative agenda and a nominee confirmation schedule, and they cannot afford to have senators involved in impeachment issues for long without delaying them.