GOP Senate questions impeachment

The result of the old President TrumpDonald TrumpBlinken makes the first calls as Biden’s secretary of state senators discussing Trump Dobbs’ censorship resolution: Republicans lost in 2020 because they ‘forgot who the real leader was’ MOREThe second impeachment trial was largely determined after 45 Republican senators voted in favor of a resolution that declared it unconstitutional and that a citizen’s impeachment was illegal.

Voting boxes in the overwhelming majority of the Senate Republican conference in supporting Trump’s acquittal in a single impeachment article before House administrators and Trump’s lawyers filed their pre-trial petitions.

Sen. Lisa MurkowskiLisa Ann Murkowski The Republican Party Senate signals that it is likely to acquit Trump a second time. Only five Republican Party senators vote on Trump’s impeachment trial is constitutional Portman’s departure highlights Republican identity crisis MORE (R-Alaska), one of the few Republican senators actively considering whether to vote to condemn Trump, said on Tuesday that it is now difficult to imagine that there will be anything close to the 67 votes needed to condemn Trump.

“Whether or not we will see members change their minds after taking a vote, I think it is difficult for people to do that,” she said.

“Because [people] they’re like, ‘Wait, wait, wait. Did you vote to say that it was not constitutional and is now changing your mind? ‘We didn’t get a lot of credit and we didn’t get a lot of subsidy to change our mind around here, ”he added.

“That is why I find it a bit regrettable that we had such a spontaneous vote on an extraordinarily significant issue without the debate considered, the summary and the analysis,” she said. “People had to make really quick decisions.”

Murkowski voted with just four other Republicans, Sens. Susan CollinsSusan Margaret Collins Senators discussing Trump’s censorship resolution The Senate Republican Party signals that it is likely to acquit Trump a second time. (Maine), Mitt RomneyWillard (Mitt) Mitt RomneyJust five Republican senators vote Trump impeachment trial is constitutional Senate Committee advances Biden’s DHS choice despite Republican resistance Press: The case against Citizen Trump MORE (Utah), Pat ToomeyPatrick (Pat) Joseph ToomeyThe government used the Patriot Act to collect records of website visitors in 2019 The appeals court ruled that the mass collection of telephone data from the NSA is illegal. (Pa.) And Ben SasseBen SasseOnly five Republican Party senators vote Trump’s impeachment trial is constitutional Senate Committee advances Biden’s DHS choice despite Republican resistance Juan Williams: Let America be America MORE (Neb.), To present the request for unconstitutionality of the judgment.

Sixty-seven senators or two-thirds of the Senate present in the House are expected to vote in favor of the impeachment article to condemn the former president.

Murkowski said she and her colleagues were taken “by surprise” by voting on a fundamental procedure. She said she didn’t know until Tuesday morning that she would vote on Paul’s motion later in the day.

“I think almost everyone was very surprised to be in a position to really not just take a public position, but vote for it today. And so I think that there were many who were perhaps not so prepared. I don’t feel as prepared as I wanted to, ”she said.

She said that “the issue deserved a revision more considered by us of the Senate”.

Collins told reporters on Tuesday afternoon: “I think it is quite obvious from today’s vote that it is extremely unlikely that the president will be convicted.”

“Just do the math,” she said.

Sen. Rand PaulRandal (Rand) Howard PaulSenators discussing Trump’s censorship resolution The Senate Republican Party signals that it is likely to acquit Trump a second time. Former Trump chief says Senate vote signals impeachment effort ‘dead on arrival’ MORE (R-Ky.), Who offered the motion, declared victory after the vote, although 55 senators, including five Republicans, voted to make their case that the process is unconstitutional.

“It shows that the impeachment is dead on arrival. If you voted to be unconstitutional, how in the world would you vote to condemn someone for it? ” he said.

“Forty-five of us, almost the entire bench … voted that the whole process was unconstitutional, so this is a big victory for us,” he said. “This vote indicates that it is over.”

Paul added that he last spoke to Trump about a week ago, “but not about that”.

His motion stated that “as of midday last Wednesday, Donald Trump does not hold any of the positions listed in the Constitution – he is an ordinary citizen” and therefore the trial “violates the Constitution”.

Paul’s motion also stated that the absence of Court President John Roberts in the process “demonstrates[s] that this is not a judgment of the president, but of an ordinary citizen. “

Darrell West, director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution, said Tuesday’s vote largely predetermined the outcome of the trial before it even started.

“It is a procedural move, but it is a proxy for the real thing. This result does not look very promising for Democrats, ”he said. “If so many Republicans think the trial is unconstitutional, they are unlikely to condemn because of the substance.”

West compared the vote to a prosecutor receiving an adverse summary judgment from almost half of a jury before he even had a chance to make the initial arguments.

“No promoter would like to create that kind of opportunity, so Rand Paul was smart enough to be able to exploit that,” he said.

“The battle lines are clearly drawn and it appears that there may be a majority of votes to condemn, but not two-thirds,” he added.

Other experts said Trump’s acquittal by the Senate is now a sure result.

“This points very decisively towards absolution and I don’t see any further increase in terms of people willing to find [Trump] guilty, ”said Ross K. Baker, a political science professor at Rutgers University who has served several times as a Senate fellow.

Senate Republicans held a lunch meeting just before the vote, at which they heard a long presentation by George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley about why the impeachment trial is unconstitutional.

Murkowski later said it was the only in-depth presentation that she and many of her colleagues heard about the constitutionality of the trial before voting on the same issue, although there are conflicting academic opinions on the matter.

“We knew that this issue would be raised at the trial,” she said of the question of the constitutionality of the trial. “There was a desire and a project for, hey, let’s listen to some of the constitutional scholars.

“And then he was invited, but it wasn’t just [hearing] the perspective of a constitutional scholar is, ‘Hey, we have to vote in less than an hour here.’ “

She regretted that Turley’s opinion was the only one heard before the vote.

“So, we heard one side,” she said.

Romney was the only Republican at lunch on Tuesday to stand up and oppose Turley’s arguments, according to the senator. Kevin cramerKevin John CramerOVERNIGHT ENERGY: Court upholds decision invalidating Dakota access, but does not close pipeline | Schumer asks Biden to declare climate emergency | Biden seeks to strengthen consultation with Indian court upholds decision invalidating Dakota access, but does not close pipeline Group of Republican Party senators seeks to block Biden’s movements in Paris, Keystone MORE (RN.D.), who attended the meeting.

Collins asked for clarification on some of Turley’s arguments, although his comments were not seen by colleagues as a direct criticism of the law professor.

Collins later told reporters that she determined that the trial should continue after taking “a long time” to consult with constitutional academics and legal experts.

“I spent a lot of time talking to constitutional scholars and other jurists and concluded that the text of the Constitution, the purpose of the provisions and the Senate jurisprudence said that the trial should continue, especially as the Chamber acted while the president was still in office,” he said. she.

Other potential Republican votes said they found the lunchtime presentation “appealing”.

“I think there was a lot of agreement,” said the senator. Joni ErnstJoni Kay ErnstSenate GOP signals that it is likely to acquit Trump for the second time Only five senators vote Trump impeachment trial is constitutional Senate Committee advances Biden’s DHS choice despite Republican resistance MORE (R-Iowa). “It was a convincing argument and we are chasing an ordinary citizen when perhaps there could be a criminal charge instead of Congress.”

Sen. Jerry MoranGerald (Jerry) MoranModerates promises to ‘be a force’ under Biden The Hill’s Morning Report – Biden’s crisis agenda hits headwinds NIGHT ENERGY: Biden’s Department of the Interior temporarily blocks new drilling on public land | Group of Republican Party senators try to block Biden’s actions in Paris, Keystone | Judge grants preliminary approval for water crisis solution 0M Flint MAIS (R-Kan.) He said he found the presentation “interesting” and “useful”, but added that he has not yet “concluded” on how to vote on the impeachment article itself.

Chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee Roy BluntRoy Dean BluntOnly five Republican Party senators vote Trump impeachment trial is constitutional Trump, allies increase pressure on Republican Party before impeachment This week: Senate stuck in limbo MORE (R-Mo.) He told reporters on Tuesday that the minority leader in the Senate Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellHumanist Report host criticizes ‘conservative Democrats:’ They ‘hold more power’ than progressive Dobbs: Republicans lost in 2020 because they ‘forgot who the real leader was’ Biden’s cabinet gradually confirmed by the Senate MORE (R-Ky.) He invited Turley to make the presentation to Republican senators just before the main vote.