The Senate Prepares for Trump’s Trial

Why the path to 17 GOP votes is slim.

By and
230

Good morning. The House is out this week, while senators continue to consider some of President Joe Biden’s Cabinet nominees. 

The Senate approved former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen as Biden’s treasury secretary last night, with an 84-15 vote. Yellen is the first woman to lead the Treasury Department.

The Trial Kicks Off

The House impeachment managers delivered the article of impeachment accusing former President Donald Trump of inciting insurrection to the Senate last night, triggering the formal start of the trial. Still, arguments won’t begin until the week of February 8, as party leaders have agreed to delay proceedings to allow both sides more time to prepare. 

It has become increasingly evident over the past several days that pulling together the requisite 17 Republican votes to convict Trump in the Senate will prove a tall order, if not impossible. It’s likely that several GOP senators will ultimately choose to convict Trump—people like Sens. Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, Pat Toomey, and Ben Sasse—but the path to 17 votes within the Republican conference appears very narrow.

Start a Free Trial
Get every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism. Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
230
By and
Comments (230)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Robby M.

    I posted this after listening to The Remnant this morning, but I'll pose this here as well. The impeachment process includes the impeachment by the House and a trial in the Senate. Trump was impeached while still in office, therefore it should not matter if the trial occurs after he has left. The Senate is simply completing a process that occurred during his Presidency. Has there been a discussion of this argument? and other than there being no precedent, what is the argument against it other than "He has already left office therefore we can't remove him"?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      rlritt

      That's what thought.

      Collapse
  2. CWB3

    I posted this on a related article at NRO. Please excuse my cross posting, however it captures my thoughts relevant to this article as well:

    “Come on GOP Senators! Toughen up and do the right thing this time. Convict this jerk. Send the necessary message that Trump’s behavior was unacceptable now and for ever more. How can I or any honest conservative believe anything the GOP has to say going forward if the party won’t stand up and confront the evil right in front of them. You did this before in the Cold War, calling the evil empire by name. You rightly tossed the Birchers from your ranks. Now cut this tumor out of your gut before it’s too late.”

    Again sorry for the duplication. Just yelling at the clouds while sitting on my porch. Hoping for better from our elected leadership. Sadly I’ve seen how my representative (Bob Good VA 5) has played this, like a Trump sycophant. 🙄

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    Update: today 45 Senators voted to completely exonerate Trump. That's where the GOP is at circa 2021.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

      If I may channel my inner Inigo Montoya, I do not think the term exonerate means what you think it means.

      The 45 voted on the constitutionality of an trial for an impeachment trial for a former president, not a sitting one. It's a procedural question, unrelated to any perceptions of his guilt or innocence.

      If I were a betting man, I'd bet on Trump challenging the constitutionality of whether he can be tried or not. But I wouldn't take the bet on his being successful. Who knows how SCOTUS would rule (assuming it gets appealed all the way up).

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Man-Eating Cow

        Actually, it wasn't even that. The motion was to table the debate on constitutionality, so they were voting to continue debate on whether it was constitutional.

        That's still not good, of course; there is already precedent establishing it's constitutional. But perhaps not overwhelming precedent.

        Collapse
  4. Richard Fulmer

    Can Democrats file an ethics complaint against Hawley for filing an ethics complaint against Democrats for filing an ethics complaint against Hawley?

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Jen

    The bad thing about this vote is it’s going to make it much harder for any one of the 45 to convict as they’ve just said they don’t think the trial is constitutional. And worst of all, Mitch McConnell voted with them. I assume he did because he’s worried if he didn’t he wouldn’t be able to keep his leadership position? Sad!

    Collapse
    1. Scroop Moth

      The good thing about this foregone acquittal is that it invites the contempt of Republicans for their own party and reminds 81 million who voted for Biden that they made the correct choice.

      Collapse
    2. JohnO

      It's not 'that much harder' for any of the 45 to vote to convict. They are saying they will not, and I believe them. But, I would have said max 5 before this vote.

      Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      They do not think, "it's not constitutional" anymore than your teenage son didn't decide to do it, "because all of the other kids are".

      McConnell did it because corporate donors threatened to pull the plug. Nothing more. Nothing less.

      Republicans are going to bet on Corporate America not being serious, and it's not a bad bet overall. We'll see.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Jen

        You really think big corporate donors care whether Trump can run for office again?

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Pat Riot

          I think they care about their corporate image, which right now means supporting the murderous thugs at the capitol if they give Republicans money...

          Collapse
  6. SH10

    I fear it's too late, but shouldn't at least a few sematprs (read: Hawley, Cruz, maybe Paul, etc. ) who publicly fed the big lie that ultimately fueled this insurrection be forced to recuse themselves from sitting as a juror during the impeachment trial? How can they be an "impartial juror" if they are actually a part of the problem? I do not mean to imply that the GOP on the whole (or the Dems) can't fulfill their duty (though, these times of Partisanship raise the question), but specific examples of these select Senators do seem to imply that they cannot. It's like the get away driver or the planner being on the jury for the guy who got caught actually robbing the bank. They may not be on trial (at this time), but they certainly don't deserve to vote whether to acquit, IMO.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Man-Eating Cow

      It's not a legal process, and the Constitution only allows one kind of recusal -- the Vice President when it's the President being tried. There's no requjirement of impartiality whatsoever -- only an oath that amounts to swearing that the Senator will vote in the way that defends the Constitution.

      I can't look into the souls of individual Senators who vote to acquit, but it seems probably some of the bunch are looking for a warm spot in the hereafter.

      Collapse
  7. Raincheck

    Are these Senate jobs really worth it? Worth the damage to our democracy? Worth beclowning party and country? Worth encouraging the crazy conspiracies, and the neo-Nazis? Worth telling their voters the lies they want to hear? Have these people so sense of decency?

    Trump’s lies, his whipping of the base into a furor, his attempt to get Georgia officials to overturn a free and fair election, his attempt to get the VP to overturn a free and fair election, and much more, culminating in January 6.... It is all un-American, un-conservative and far more serious than anything Nixon dreamed of.

    I am a lifelong GOPer, but this vote may be the last straw for me. I live in AZ, where my party is censuring good people for not supporting the worst man I have ever seen come near the presidency. It has to stop. Honor over re-election.

    Collapse
    1. Jess

      Is it the federal employees healthcare? (I seriously wonder whether that’s part of it.)

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      SusanC

      I live in AZ, and the censure is not only sickening, crazy and disgusting, it’s stupidly self-destructive; it’s probably enough to turn the state from violet-blue to baby blue.

      Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      I've always wondered that myself. It seems like after you've been in the Senate you could land a great gig somewhere in the private sector and cash in. I don't know why these people do it.

      Of course a bunch of Senators have in fact announced they are not running again, but most haven't.

      In a lot of cases its probably the case that they couldn't hold down any other job...

      Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      rlritt

      I'm am so with you on this.

      Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Jen

    So 5 Republican senators voted against Rand Paul’s point of order to dismiss the impeachment trial - Collins, Murkowski, Romney, Sasse and Toomey. That’s all we’re getting on impeachment folks. Pathetic.

    Collapse
    1. Scott N.

      Keep in mind that's potentially 5 times more senators of the same party voting to remove a President from their own party (along with infinity times the number in the House since Amash doesn't really count as an independent when the vote happened) when none had ever voted in an impeachment before 2019 and then it was only Romney.

      It's almost certainly going to lose, but if Trump's folks can break good norms and precedents, then the good guys can also break bad norms and precedents (of party loyalty no matter what) to do good.

      I'm both disappointed and yet hopeful at the same time.

      Collapse
  9. GS

    Honestly, if Trump were still on Twitter and social media, I think there'd be more Republicans likely to convict. He wouldn't be able to stop himself from messing up his own situation. This media censorship of Trump is actually helping him because it is actually keeping him quiet.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

      Yeah, Jack Dorsey screwed up Dem plans by muzzling Trump.
      I'm still offended he left up the blue check CCP comment about brainwashing Uighur women...Either Winnie the Xi pays him a lot of money, or he supports violence against women, I don't know which it is....

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      I think the exact opposite is true. Without Twitter, Trump's political power is diminished--and Trump's political power is the reason Senators will exonerate him, not the BS reasons they state.

      Collapse
    3. JohnO

      I agree. I think there are serious issues with an oligopoly able to dictate the terms of public debate. 'Private companies can do whatever they want' is not the standard we apply to 1,000's of truly private, actually small eateries, hotels etc. We don't allow them to refuse service for any reason they want, so why would that be the standard for a giant oligopoly? But in case of Trump right now I agree their ban is saving him from himself. If allowed back on it's conceivable he'd tweet things stupid and incendiary enough to convince 17 GOP Senators to vote for conviction. Silent, there's zero chance of him being convicted.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        rlritt

        No shoes, no shirt, n service. No smoking.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          SusanC

          ...and, back in the before times, we had to turn off our cell phones during live performances.

          Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      rlritt

      He would just be spouting lies to gin up his supporters to more violence and confuse the issues.

      Collapse
  10. Jennifer Stanowski

    So lame duck now means....rabid racoon. And everybody signing off on this. okey dokey.

    Collapse
Load More