Get 40% Off
🚨 Volatile Markets? Find Hidden Gems for Serious OutperformanceFind Stocks Now

Senate Republicans unite behind failed effort to challenge Trump impeachment trial

Published 01/26/2021, 10:36 AM
Updated 01/26/2021, 09:06 PM
© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on "Threats to the Homeland", on Capitol Hill in Washington

By David Morgan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Forty-five Senate Republicans backed a failed effort on Tuesday to halt former President Donald Trump's impeachment trial, in a show of party unity that some cited as a clear sign he will not be convicted of inciting insurrection at the Capitol.

Republican Senator Rand Paul made a motion on the Senate floor that would have required the chamber to vote on whether Trump's trial in February violates the U.S. Constitution.

The Democratic-led Senate blocked the motion in a 55-45 vote. But only five Republican lawmakers joined Democrats to reject the move, far short of the 17 Republicans who would need to vote to convict Trump on an impeachment charge that he incited the Jan. 6 Capitol assault that left five people dead.

"It's one of the few times in Washington where a loss is actually a victory," Paul later told reporters. "Forty-five votes means the impeachment trial is dead on arrival."

Paul and other Republicans contend that the proceedings are unconstitutional because Trump left office last Wednesday and the trial will be overseen by Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy instead of by U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts.

Leahy, 80, was briefly hospitalized on Tuesday evening after not feeling well but was released after an examination, his spokesman, David Carle, said in a statement.

Some Republican senators who backed Paul's motion said their vote on Tuesday did not indicate how they might come down on Trump's guilt or innocence after a trial.

"It's a totally different issue as far as I'm concerned," Republican Senator Rob Portman told reporters.

3rd party Ad. Not an offer or recommendation by Investing.com. See disclosure here or remove ads .

The senators voted after being sworn in as jurors for the impeachment trial.

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who moved to thwart Paul's motion, dismissed the Republican constitutional claim as "flat-out wrong" and said it would provide "a constitutional get-out-of-jail-free card" for presidents guilty of misconduct.

There is a debate among scholars over whether the Senate can hold a trial for Trump now that he has left office. Many experts have said "late impeachment" is constitutional, arguing that presidents who engage in misconduct late in their terms should not be immune from the very process set out in the Constitution for holding them accountable.

The Constitution makes clear that impeachment proceedings can result in disqualification from holding office in the future, so there is still an active issue for the Senate to resolve, those scholars have said.

'MATTER OF POLITICAL CONSEQUENCE'

Fellow Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, who has been critical of Trump, rejected Paul's move.

"My review of it has led me to conclude that it is constitutional, in recognizing that impeachment is not solely about removing a president, it is also a matter of political consequence," Murkowski told reporters on Tuesday.

She joined fellow Republicans Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Ben Sasse and Patrick Toomey in opposing Paul.

Trump is the only president to have been impeached by the House of Representatives twice and the first to face a trial after leaving power, with the possibility of being disqualified from future public office if convicted by two-thirds of the Senate.

3rd party Ad. Not an offer or recommendation by Investing.com. See disclosure here or remove ads .

He was acquitted by the then Republican-controlled Senate last February on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress arising from his request that Ukraine investigate Democratic rival Joe Biden and his son.

The House approved a single article of impeachment - the equivalent of an indictment in a criminal trial - on Jan. 13, accusing him of inciting an insurrection with an incendiary speech to supporters before they stormed the Capitol. A police officer and four others died in the melee.

But reaching the two-thirds threshold required for conviction will be a steep climb. Trump remains a powerful force among Republicans and his supporters have vowed to mount election challenges to lawmakers in the party who support conviction.

Some Republicans have criticized Trump's false claims of voting fraud and his failed efforts to overturn Biden's Nov. 3 election victory. But no Senate Republicans have said definitively that they plan to vote to convict him.

Although the Constitution calls on the chief justice to preside over presidential impeachment trials, a senator presides when the impeached is not the current president, a Senate source said. First elected to the chamber in 1974, Leahy is the most senior Democrat in the chamber and holds the title of Senate president pro tempore.

The nine House Democrats who will serve as prosecutors set the trial in motion on Monday by delivering the article of impeachment to the Senate.

Latest comments

I thought once the republican senate werent the kind to support terrorism in our own country. Man was i sheltered.
Russia Russia Russia! Another crime like Russia! China Bidden is the crime president.
Yeah, keep on, don’t stop, until you see him behind bars.
The artivle of impeachment should be short and sweet “you’re fired”.
Somebody committed a crime in a postion, so people cannot hold him/her accountable after he/she leaves the postion? Give us a break!
if you live in this country, we abide by the constitution. just fyi.
FYI, your constitution is a piece of rubber band, anyone could stretch to fit on almost anything, that’s why everyone wants to nominate their own judges.
Waste of time and money. Why don't we help those that need it?
Why don’t we get rid of the whole legal system, to save much much more?
"My review of it has led me to conclude that it is constitutional, in recognizing that impeachment is not solely about removing a president, it is also a matter of political consequence," Murkowski told reporters on Tuesday. Of course, she did fail the bar exam 4 times, so there is that.
The republicans are irrelevant, soon consigned to history's scrapheap
55 is a long way from 67.
55 is far from 67. This political punch is weak and without any legal grounds. It's dead.
The two months of lies and bad losing of the republicans and their president, with the final third world firework, should not free the president or Tand Paul and other villains of his party, shame of the whole world where they have been marked forever
Agreed
Leave that man alone ...
Roberts will not preside because there is no legal ground for this circus.
only reason they want to impeach is because they know Trump is still the legal president of the US.
wrong to both comments
Randy Paul. has always been. about power the more he has the more he needs. that's why he supported Trump.for Paul it was a means to an end.
That has to be the most far off, d-e.l-u.s-i.o-n.a-l and *****i.c comment i have read this year from any one source. Congratulatons.
Rand Paul isnt really a Trump ally... this is a lie and propaganda hit piece
oh really..he certainly looks like a stooge
Obviously not an adult..
trump is surrounded by a slow financial and mental suffocation.
Meanwhile, nothing else is getting accomplished, situation normal for the dems.
says worshipper of golfer dufus in chief
Good luck lmao
it is not because your are not anymore president that the crime is vanished. imagine a policeman ***a family of...5 and then he quit his job..so he will not be procecuted because he is a policeman anymore ????Rand Paul, what is your planet? covering a irresponsable!?!
That's a very bad analogy. Impeachment is intended for the removal of a sitting president. Trump is no longer president. Therefore if a crime were committed, he is now a private citizen and should be charged by a District Attorney.
Chotzky, nor entirely correct. Yes, one purpose is to remove a sitting president, but it is also for the purpose of holding the president accountable for bad acts. He shouldn't get off without any consequences (if he is found guilty) just because he committed the act in the last few days of his term.
great way to unite the country.
It's the ONLY way to unite the country! As soon as the criminal 45 is held accountable for inciting an insurrection, we can move forward having that issue addressed and put behind us or do you eat off of dirty plates?
Let's remember, there is very little evidence against him, unless you consider encouraging a rally is a crime.  Most people who watch mainstream media don't realize this because media will choose what to emphasize and leave out, disregarding the context.  This happens in big media on both sides of the political spectrum.
there is also a two prong test that must be met for the charges of incitement to be met. trumps speech only meets one of those. to convict him based on his speech would basically open the door for many democrats to be impeached due to their speech throughout the seven plus months of terror on the streets of major cities. the federal government is lawless though so I doubt any of them will ever convict themselves.
The question is not if POTUS is above the law, obviously not, but if congress is acting in a manner that's consistent with the constitution
Question: Is a POTUS above the Law ?? Stay tuned.
Biden has only signed about 30 and that's a lot in short time period. Some are over turning Trumps and Trump signed over 200 and there are President's that signed over 400. Do your research before posting false claims about a record amount. There is an actual website with all the executive orders ever signedand they are in numerical order. The last time I looked I think it's in the 13 thousands so obviously every President signs a lot.
There is nothing illegal about signing Executive Orders, so how is that proof of thinking he's above the law?
Don't go getting logical with all your fancy facts..
When trump is convicted by the senate then trump can take the issue into the courts. The senate acts as the jury not the judge.
The senate has no authority to determine if something is constitutional or not, that falls on the supreme court.
Russian trolls
Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2024 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.