Top Republican senators argued Sunday that the Senate prosecution trial against former President Donald Trump, which begins this week, is unconstitutional – and one has even tried to suggest that Democrats may be to blame for the storms in the United States. Capitol.
The layoffs and diversionary tactics suggest that after a brief period of uncertainty over whether to oust Trump, Republicans are prepared to offer a fairly united front to reject the case that Trump should be found guilty of his role in to provoke the uprising on 6 January.
Senator Ron Johnson (D-WI) argued that 45 Republican senators already believe the Senate hearing is ‘unconstitutional’ when he spoke to Maria Bartiromo of Fox News on Sunday. He referred to the vote total on the Senate motion that Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) filed in January to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that it is unconstitutional to hold an indictment for a private citizen. Five Republicans joined the Democrats in rejecting the motion, but every other Republican voted in favor. (Many jurists believe that such a trial is entirely constitutional – more on that later.)
But Johnson’s subsequent comments on Fox took a more shocking turn – he had the unfounded idea that Nancy Pelosi, house speaker, was in some way to blame for the violent assault on the Capitol.
‘Is this another distraction? Is it meant to move away from what the speaker knew and when she knew it? “I do not know, but I am suspicious,” said Johnson.
Other senators also tried to question the legitimacy of the trial. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) said the vote on the House indictment is all-seeing – and looks like the legal process in an authoritarian state.
“There was no process. It’s almost like if it happened in the Soviet Union, you would have called it a show trial, ‘Cassidy told NBC Meet the press. “The president was not there, he did not allow any advice, they did not gather evidence. In five hours, they will be judged, an accused, ‘he said.
The indictment process of the House does not involve a trial; the Senate hearing after accusation did. Trump was invited to testify at his Senate hearing, but refused.
LOOK: “If it had happened in the Soviet Union, you would have called it a show trial,” he said. @SenBillCassidy of the second indictment of former pres. Trump. #MTP
Cassidy: “The House did an incredibly poor job of building a case before their indictment.” pic.twitter.com/5Pzlrq3ROA
– Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) 7 February 2021
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) argues over 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 punish Trump’s behavior should be handled by the conventional justice system. ‘If you believe he has committed a crime, he can be prosecuted like any other citizen; accusation is a political process, ”Graham said.
Graham rightly claimed that there was little doubt about the outcome of the trial; 17 Republicans will have to join every member of the Democratic caucus to pass a conviction, as two-thirds of the Senate is required for a conviction. As apparently Sunday, there appears to be little appetite for such a vote under the IDP.
However, accusations are about the prosecution of crimes – specifically “high crimes and transgressions”, according to the Constitution, and Trump’s indictment does not appear to be an “unconstitutional exercise”, as Graham suggested.
There are historical examples of officials being tried after leaving office
Many Republicans have argued that the trial in the Senate does not have constitutional legitimacy because Trump has already left office. But scholars and Democratic lawmakers have pointed out that the U.S. Constitution is silent on the issue, citing previous examples of federal officials, such as judges, being tried even after they leave office.
According to the Wall Street Journal, a report from the Congressional Research Service – the internal research organization of the Congress – found that “although the matter is open to debate, the weight of scientific authority agrees that former officials can be charged and tried.”
The CRS report cites the example of War Secretary William Belknap, who was indicted by the House and tried in the Senate in 1876, although he had already resigned after evidence emerged that he had acted corruptly.
Laurence Tribe, a lawyer at Harvard Law School, wrote in the Washington Post in January that ‘the clear weight of history, original understanding and congressional practice reinforces the case to conclude that the end of Donald Trump his presidency would not end his Senate hearing. ”
Tribe wrote that the references to the accusation of the Constitution do not limit the power of accusation, based on the question of whether an official holds office. “Nothing in the Constitution indicates that a president who has shown himself to be a deadly threat to our existence as a constitutional republic has the ability to condemn his conduct and ensure that it can never happen again. not, “he wrote.
This is not to say that there is consensus on this view. Former Federal Court of Appeal Judge J. Michael Luttig argued that the Senate hearing would be unconstitutional, saying that he was of the opinion that only the Supreme Court could rule on it.
There are still many who are unsure about the trial
An open question is whether any GOP senator will vote to convict Trump, especially since 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 Sunday was constitutional.
‘I think it’s clearly constitutional to conduct a Senate hearing on an indictment. “In this case, the accusation was made before the president left office,” Toomey told CNN. State of the Union. “I still think the best result would have been for the president to resign. He, of course, chose not to do so. ”
“I am going to listen to the arguments from both sides and make the decision that I think is right,” he added.
Although there is a question about possible Republican convictions, Democrats seem much more united on the issue. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) summed up the Democrats’ argument Sunday and defended the trial as something that is not only allowed by the Constitution, but also required on it.
“There is a clear precedent for the Senate to continue on accusation when articles are sent, even after an official leaves office, and therefore my analysis here begins and ends with my constitutional responsibility,” he said. Fox News Sunday.
“Accusations come not only with the provision to remove an official from office, but also to disqualify them from the future office,” Murphy said.
Murphy also noted that there are still some major questions about how the trial will take place – including if witnesses will be brought in. He argued that it was not as necessary to call witnesses as during Trump’s first senate, since the riot was public. accusation, but that “if the House [impeachment] drivers want to call witnesses, I think we should allow them to do that. ”
One broad point of agreement between the two parties is that both Democrats and Republicans want the trial – which begins Tuesday – to be speedy. Republicans will prefer a short trial as a damages measure to reduce the public discussion of Trump’s behavior. Democrats, on the other hand, have an ambitious legislative agenda and a confirmation schedule being appointed, and cannot afford to have senators wrapped up in accusation for too long without delaying it.