Louisiana GOP issues stinging rebuke of Sen. Bill Cassidy after he votes for constitutionality of trial against Trump



The Louisiana state Republican Party issued a stinging rebuke of one of their U.S. senators after he voted in favor of the constitutionality of the impeachment trial against former President Donald Trump.

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said that the House managers arguing for the constitutionality of the trial persuaded him to vote in favor of the resolution and the lawyers defending Trump did a poor job.

"It was disorganized, random. They talked about many things but they didn't talk about the issue at hand, and so, if I'm an impartial juror, and I'm trying to make a decision based upon the facts as presented on this issue, then the House managers did a much better job," Cassidy said to reporters.

The motion passed 56-44 with six Republicans, including Cassidy, voting with the Democrats.

"The issue at hand is, is it constitutional to impeach a president who has left office, and the House managers made a compelling, cogent case and the president's team did not," Cassidy explained.

He went on to say that he was approaching the trial as an impartial juror when asked if he was open to convicting Trump.

The Republican Party of Louisiana immediately issued a statement rebuking Cassidy for his vote.

"The Republican Party of Louisiana is profoundly disappointed by Senator Bill Cassidy's vote on the constitutionality of the impeachment trial now underway against former President, now private citizen, Donald J. Trump. We feel that an impeachment trial of a private citizen is not only an unconstitutional act, but also an attack on the very foundation of American democracy, which will have far reaching and unforeseen consequences for our republic," the statement read.

"We also remind all Americans that former President Trump is innocent of the politically motivated, bogus charges now pending against him in a kangaroo court presided over by an openly hostile, political opponent. How far justice has fallen in the short time that Democrats have been in control of the federal government!" the statement concluded.

One Trump lawyer said he remained confident that they would win regardless of Cassidy's unexpected vote.

"We had a good day," Bruce Castor said.

When asked about Cassidy's vote, he responded, "I don't think anything of it. If it leaks down to 34 then I'll start to worry."

The former president is not likely to be convicted by the Senate given that Republicans control 50 seats and two-thirds (or 67 members) of the Senate needs to vote in favor of conviction in order for it to pass the constitutional threshold.

When Cassidy was asked what was so bad about the attorneys' argument, he responded, "Did you listen to it? It speaks for itself."

Here's the statement from Cassidy to the media:

'Disorganized': GOP senator rips Trump's defense teamwww.youtube.com

Breaking: Senate votes that impeachment trial against Trump is constitutional and can move ahead



The U.S. Senate voted to continue the impeachment trial against former President Donald Trump after hearing arguments from his defense lawyers that it would be unconstitutional to do so.

The Senate voted 56-44 roughly along partisan lines to continue. All Democrats voted to continue the trial, while six Republicans broke rank and voted with the Democrats.

The six Republicans who voted to continue the trial were:

  • Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana
  • Sen. Susan Collins of Maine
  • Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
  • Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah
  • Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska
  • Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) voted that the trial was unconstitutional. A previous report claimed that he was in favor of the impeachment in the House by the Democrats.

Murkowski, a key swing vote, expressed confusion at the arguments presented by Trump attorney Bruce Castor against the constitutionality of the proceeding.

"I was really stunned at the first attorney who presented for former President Trump," said Murkowski. "I couldn't figure out where he was going."

Collins appeared to agree.

"It did not seem to make any arguments at all, which was an unusual approach to take," she said.

Cassidy defended his vote in a statement to the media.

"If anyone disagrees with my vote and would like an explanation I ask them to listen to the arguments presented by the House Managers and former Pres. Trump's lawyers," Cassidy said. "The House managers had much stronger constitutional arguments. The president's team did not."

In response to the criticism from some Republicans, Castor replied, "We had a good day."

In order for Trump to be convicted, two-thirds of the Senate would need to vote against him, which would be 67 senators. Most believe that is highly unlikely given how many Republicans have openly opposed the trial.

Here's more about the Senate vote:

Senate votes Trump impeachment trial is constitutional, will move forwardwww.youtube.com

Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images

WATCH: President Trump's second impeachment trial begins



The Senate will begin its second impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump at 1 p.m. ET Tuesday with the first day dedicated to a debate over the constitutionality of the trial.

You can watch the proceedings below live the minute they begin.

The U.S. House of Representatives voted to impeach Trump on Jan. 13 with a vote of 232-197 on a single article of impeachment on the charge of "incitement of insurrection." Ten Republicans joined the entire House Democratic caucus to approve the resolution. The vote made Trump the first president to be impeached twice.

Trump's impeachment came as a response to the Jan. 6 deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol, which the former president's critics have blamed him for inciting.

The House did not send its impeachment article to the Senate until Jan. 25, five days after Trump left office.

Trump's lawyers, as well as a slew of GOP seniors, have argued that an impeachment trial of a president no longer in office is unconstitutional.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) forced a procedural vote last month objecting to constitutionality of the impeachment trial on the grounds that Trump is no longer a sitting president. His move garnered the support of 45 of the 50 Republican senators, signaling that the Democrats clearly do not have the votes to convict the former president.

As evidence that this trial is illegitimate "from top to bottom," Paul pointed out that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will not be presiding over the trial, as required by the Constitution. Instead, Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), the president pro tempore of the Senate, will oversee the trial.

Day one of the impeachment trial will again consider the constitutionality of the trial, with House impeachment managers and Trump's lawyers evenly splitting up to four hours of debate on the question, The debate will be followed by a simple majority vote on whether to move forward, the New York Times reported.

Beginning Wednesday, both sides will have 16 hours each to make their case to the Senate, with arguments extending through at least Friday — and maybe into early next week. Trump's attorneys have said they plan to use Democrats' own inflammatory words against them during the trial

After arguments have concluded, senators will likely have at least a day to ask questions, if the upper chamber sticks to tradition, the Times said.

Watch day one of the impeachment trial:

U.S. Senate Impeachment Trial of Former President Trump www.youtube.com

Nebraska GOP drafts censure against Ben Sasse in anticipation of his vote in the impeachment trial and he just responded



Republican Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska is the target of a draft resolution by the Republican party in his home state in anticipation of his vote in the Senate impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump.

Sasse has been a vocal critic of the president but even though he hasn't declared how he will vote in the Senate trial, the Republican party of Nebraska has readied itself to express their disapproval.

"Senator Ben Sasse has persistently engaged in public acts of ridicule and calumny against President Donald J. Trump, through both the spoken and written word, questioning the president's agenda, decisions, motives, and competency," the resolution says according to a draft copy obtained by News Channel Nebraska.

On Thursday, Sasse responded in a video posted to social media.

"I listen to Nebraskans every day, and very few them are as angry about life, as some of the people on this committee. Not all of you, but a lot," said Sasse.

"Political addicts don't represent most Nebraska conservatives. When Melissa and I first ran back in '14, we spoke with hundreds of thousands across this gorgeous state and we promised to speak out when our leaders, not just Democrats, but any leader in any party crossed the line. We pledged to put the constitution above party politics. You have me standing ovations," he added.

"But many of the same party officials who applauded in '14 cussed me out in '16 when I refused to vote for candidate Trump, and again when I declined to serve on his re-election committee in '19, and again when I didn't vote for him in '20," he continued.

Sasse went on to accuse Trump of causing the "shameful mob violence" at the U.S. Capitol because of the false claims he made about the results of the election.

He lied about the election results for 60 days, despite losing 60 straight court challenges — many handed down by wonderful Trump-appointed judges.
He lied by saying that the vice president could violate his constitutional oath and just declare a new winner.
He then riled a mob that attacked the Capitol — many chanting 'Hang Pence.'
If that president were a Democrat, we both know how you'd respond. But, because he had 'Republican' behind his name, you're defending him.

He then touted his conservative record and pointed out that more Nebraskans voted for him than voted for Trump in the 2020 election.

"You are welcome to censure me again, but let's be clear about why this is happening. It's because I still believe, as you used to, that politics is not about the weird worship of one dude. The party could purge Trump skeptics, but I'd like to convince you that not only is that civic cancer for our nation, but it's terrible for our party," he continued.

"We can lead again, but only if our party is willing to change," Sasse concluded. "We're gonna have to choose between conservatism and madness. Between just trolling and actually persuading the rising generation of Americans again. That's what I'm focused on."

Trump is unlikely to be convicted since the Constitution stipulates two-thirds of the Senate are needed, and many have already Republicans have signaled that they support the former president.

Here's the video of Sasse's respond to the Nebraska GOP:

Message to Nebraska GOP State Central Committeewww.youtube.com

Trump's impeachment lawyers deny charges that the president incited violence, sought to overturn election; say the process is unconstitutional



The legal team defending former President Donald Trump in the upcoming Senate impeachment trial denied that Trump incited the crowd to violence in the Capitol building at his Jan. 6 rally and denied that the former president attempted to pressure state election officials to overturn President Joe Biden's electoral victories.

In legal documents filed Tuesday, Trump's lawyers responded to arguments put forth by the nine Democratic House impeachment managers who will prosecute the case against Trump next week when the unprecedented second impeachment trial of a former U.S. president begins. House Democrats filed impeachment articles for the second time against President Trump last month, this time on charges that he incited an insurrection against the U.S. government by falsely claiming the 2020 election was fraudulent.

According to CNBC, Democrats argue in their 80-page trial briefing that Trump was "personally responsible" for the violence at the Capitol building, which left five people dead and dozens of police officers injured after an unruly mob stormed the building in an attempt to prevent Congress from certifying the results of the Electoral College.

"President Trump's conduct offends everything that the Constitution stands for," the Democratic brief said.

"The Senate must make clear to him and all who follow that a President who provokes armed violence against the government of the United States in an effort to overturn the results of an election will face trial and judgment."

Before the mob stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, President Trump spoke to the crowd, blasting "weak" Republicans who he said had failed to stand up to the Democratic Party's policy agenda and repeating his allegations that the 2020 election was "rigged"

"You can't vote on fraud. And fraud breaks up everything, doesn't it? When you catch somebody in a fraud, you're allowed to go by very different rules," Trump said.

"If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country any more," Trump also told the crowd.

Democrats claim that statement and others the president made were "calculated to incite violence."

Trump's defense lawyers, Bruce Castor Jr. and David Schoen, dispute this in their filing. They deny that Trump's comments "had anything to do with the action at the Capitol as it was clearly about the need to fight for election security in general."

"It is denied that President Trump incited the crowd to engage in destructive behavior," they wrote. "It is denied that President Trump intended to interfere with the counting of Electoral votes."

Trump's lawyers also defended the president's claims of widespread voter fraud, which were never proven in a court of law or confirmed by the Department of Justice.

"The 45th President exercised his First Amendment right under the Constitution to express his belief that the election results were suspect," Trump's lawyers state.

"Insufficient evidence exists upon which a reasonable jurist could conclude that the 45th President's statements were accurate or not, and he therefore denies they were false," they added.

They further denied claims that President Trump told Georgia election officials to illegally overturn Biden's victory.

From the Washington Post:

Trump's defense team also denied that the president sought to pressure state election officials to overturn President Biden's victory, addressing an episode cited in the House impeachment article in which he called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger early this year to discuss that state's election results.

They argued that Trump's exhortation during the Jan. 2 phone call that Raffensperger "find" the votes to overturn President Biden's victory was simply an expression of the president's belief that a careful examination of the evidence would produce a more accurate vote count that favored Trump.

Trump's lawyers also argue that the process of impeaching a president after he has already vacated office is unconstitutional, a claim that 45 Republican senators agreed with by voting for an amendment offered by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to declare it as such.

Democrats vigorously argued that the impeachment trial is constitutional.

"There is no 'January exception' to the Constitution that allows a President to organize a coup or incite an armed insurrection in his final weeks in office. The Senate must convict President Trump, who has already been impeached by the House of Representatives, and disqualify him from ever holding federal office again. We must protect the Republic from any future dangerous attacks he could level against our constitutional order," Democrats said in the brief.

Sen. Rand Paul will force a Senate vote to declare impeachment trial unconstitutional



Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday told BlazeTV host Glenn Beck that he will act to force a procedural vote in the Senate on whether the impending impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump is constitutional.

The trial is currently scheduled to begin the week of Feb. 8. Senators will be officially sworn in as jurors today, but before that Paul intends to make the argument that an impeachment trial of a former president is unconstitutional.

"Republican leadership has made a deal. And wants to make a deal with Schumer, to allow a Democrat to preside over this hearing," Paul told Beck, referring to Monday's announcement that Senate president pro tempore Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) will preside over the trial, not Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. "But my point is, if you're impeaching the president, the chief justice needs to be there. But if the person is no longer president, he's a private citizen. It is an impeachment."

"If someone has committed a crime, and they're no longer the president, the Department of Justice has to accuse them of a crime that you go to a court," Paul continued. "But this is only for impeaching somebody. And the Constitution says, when you impeach and later on, you can disqualify. But it's 'and.' It isn't 'or.'

"If you can't impeach him any longer, we're doing something that's never been to a president before. It's going to divide the country further. It's a huge mistake."

Paul speculated that Chief Justice Roberts and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) have had conversations about the impeachment trial, suggesting that Roberts may have told Schumer he will not preside over the impeachment trial because Donald Trump is no longer the president, and therefore Roberts is not constitutionally obligated to do so.

"It goes to the very nature and legitimacy of this thing. With John Roberts not showing up, the chief justice not being here," Paul said. "I think this is an illegitimate process, from top to bottom."

Former President Trump was the first president to be impeached twice and would be the first ex-president to be tried by the Senate after he has already left office. The uniqueness of Trump's situation has triggered legal and scholarly debate over whether the Senate has the constitutional power to try Trump after he has left office.

Many Republicans like Paul argue the Senate does not have such power. George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley, former Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, and other respected lawyers and judges have argued the Senate trial is unconstitutional. Still others like Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) argue that the trial is constitutional and that the impeachment power to remove a civil officer from office and disqualify him from future office are separate powers, meaning the Senate can still bar Trump from running for re-election in 2024.

Paul predicted that his maneuver to object to the impeachment proceedings will fail but was adamant that he still needed to stand up for what he believes is right.

"Today, if I don't say anything, Republicans and Democrats will agree by unanimous consent to install a Democrat to preside over this proceeding. An illegitimate proceeding with an illegitimate Democrat overseeing it. So I'm going to object to that and call out the double standard," Paul said.

"And I don't think we'll win," he added. "The Democrats will win. But I'll force them to vote on it. My hope is I get 40 Republicans to vote with me."

"If I do, that shows they don't have the votes to impeach at that point. And so basically, the trial is over," Paul said. "They can go through the manipulations, but if 40 of us vote that this is an unconstitutional use of the impeachment power, then they're done. They can do whatever they want. But we will show them. If I don't do this, our leadership will acquiesce with Schumer. There will be no votes. And they will go through the whole trial, as if this sham is actually a real impeachment. So I do say, we do to have fight them."

Watch:

Rand Paul: Trump Impeachment Push is 'Most Divisive Thing' Dems Could Do youtu.be

Republicans object after Sen. Leahy announces he, not Chief Justice Roberts, will preside over impeachment trial



As the Senate prepares to conduct an impeachment trial for former President Donald Trump, Republicans are criticizing the procedural development — that Chief Justice John Roberts will not preside over the trial.

Instead, Senate President Pro Tempore Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) will preside over the trial. Leahy, the most senior Democrat in the chamber, announced Monday he will hold the gavel and pledged to deliver "impartial justice."

"The president pro tempore has historically presided over Senate impeachment trials of non-presidents. When presiding over an impeachment trial, the president pro tempore takes an additional special oath to do impartial justice according to the Constitution and its laws. It is an oath that I take extraordinarily seriously," Leahy said.

"I consider holding the office of the president pro tempore and the responsibilities that come with it to be one of the highest honors and most serious responsibilities of my career. When I preside over the impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump, I will not waver from my constitutional and sworn obligations to administer the trial with fairness, in accordance with the Constitution and the laws."

When presiding over an impeachment trial, the president pro tempore takes a special oath to do impartial justice ac… https://t.co/Sx6hGfzQ2Y
— Sen. Patrick Leahy (@Sen. Patrick Leahy)1611605506.0

The Hill reports that the procedures for the trial are currently being negotiated by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

"Leaders have been negotiating all process issues about the trial, and all along we have deferred to them for any announcements about this and all other process matters," a spokesman for Leahy told The Hill.

Several Republican senators have spoken out against the decision to have Leahy preside, given that he's previously voted to convict Trump the first time the Senate impeached the former president. Some have raised constitutional objections.

"There's only one constitutional process for impeachment and it is of the president, not a president," said Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.). "It requires the chief justice to preside."

Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the U.S. Constitution states:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Leahy's statement explains there is historical precedent for having the Senate president pro tempore preside over impeachment trials as a "neutral arbiter" for impeachment cases that do not involve a U.S. president. Because Trump is no longer the president, the logic goes that Chief Justice Roberts is not lawfully obligated to preside over the trial. And because what the Senate is doing is unprecedented, there's plenty of room for the Senate to interpret its own rules.

However, that does not preclude Republicans from complaining. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) told The Hill that having Leahy preside over the trial "really undermines the legitimacy."

"The Constitution requires that the chief justice preside over the impeachment trial of a president but that's not what we're doing. To me that's indicative of the fact that we're in uncharted waters," he said.

"I just think it looks very petty and vindictive and I understand there are a lot of people who are mad but the process itself already looks like a railroad job," Cornyn added.

"If the chief justice doesn't preside, I think it's an illegitimate hearing and really goes to show that it's not really constitutional to impeach someone who's not president," said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

Leahy defended his role in the process, claiming that it's not his job to present evidence for or against Trump but to simply ensure that procedures are followed and that the trial is civil.

"I have presided over hundreds of hours in my time in the Senate. I don't think anybody has ever suggested I was anything but impartial in those hundreds of hours," Leahy said.

"I don't think there's any senator who over the 40-plus years I've been here that would say that I am anything but impartial in voting on procedure."

Chuck Schumer: House to hand Senate impeachment article Monday; 'make no mistake,' a trial will happen



House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will transmit the single article of impeachment against former President Donald Trump to the Senate on Monday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced Friday.

Schumer, speaking on the Senate floor, said in no uncertain terms that there will be an impeachment trial and a Senate vote on whether to convict Trump, whose term as president ended Wednesday when President Joe Biden was inaugurated.

"Make no mistake: A trial will be held in the United States Senate, and there will be a vote on whether to convict the president," Schumer said.

Schumer dismissed arguments advanced by some Republican lawmakers and legal experts that an impeachment trial for a former civil officer is unconstitutional once said officer has left office.

"It makes no sense whatsoever that a president or any official could commit a heinous crime against our country and then be permitted to resign so as to avoid accountability and a vote to disbar them from future office," Schumer argued. "Makes no sense."

JUST IN: Majority Leader Schumer says Speaker Pelosi will deliver article of impeachment against former Pres. Trump… https://t.co/5EcqstCW0c
— ABC News Politics (@ABC News Politics)1611328752.0

Senate Democrats and Republicans are in the midst of negotiations on when the impeachment trial should start, with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) pushing for the trial to be delayed until February, according to multiple reports.

On Thursday, Politico's Playbook email reported that lawmakers were privately discussing a three-day impeachment trial for Trump, which would be the fastest of any trial for a president in U.S. history. However, Republicans want their impeachment managers and Trump's lawyers to have adequate time to prepare for the trial, which is why McConnell is reportedly asking for a delay.

"Senate Republicans are strongly united behind the principle that the institution of the Senate, the office of the presidency, and former President Trump himself all deserve a full and fair process that respects his rights and the serious factual, legal, and constitutional questions at stake," McConnell said in a statement. "Given the unprecedented speed of the House's process, our proposed timeline for the initial phases includes a modest and reasonable amount of additional time for both sides to assemble their arguments before the Senate would begin to hear them."

At least some Democrats are open to the possibility of delaying the impeachment trial.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) told CNN on Friday that Democrats may be open to a quid pro quo where Republicans work to confirm Biden's Cabinet nominees before the trial starts, giving Trump's legal team time to mount a defense.

"I think Democrats will be open to considering a delay that allows former President Trump time to assemble his legal team and his defense for the impeachment trial if we are making progress on confirming the very talented, seasoned, and diverse team that President Joe Biden has nominated to serve in his cabinet," Coons said.

@mkraju @wolfblitzer Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) thinks Democrats "will be open to considering a delay" of Trump's seco… https://t.co/TwdPlusW4I
— The Recount (@The Recount)1611270442.0

Sen. Kevin Cramer: There are no GOP 'wimps' who will vote to impeach Trump just because Mitch McConnell might



Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) on Wednesday told CNBC's "The News with Shepard Smith" that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) doesn't have the power to sway how he or other Republican senators will vote concerning President Donald Trump's second impeachment.

Earlier Wednesday, the House of Representatives voted to impeach the president on charges of inciting an insurrection against the United States government for his inflammatory rhetoric disputing the results of the 2020 election. On Jan. 6, a mob of the president's supporters, believing his claims that the election was stolen, stormed the U.S. Capitol as lawmakers were in the middle of a debate on certifying the results of the Electoral College.

On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that Majority Leader McConnell was "pleased" by the Democrat-led effort to impeach the president, claiming that McConnell viewed impeachment as an opportunity to "purge" Trump from the Republican Party. Anonymous sources that spoke to CNN claimed that if McConnell supports convicting Trump in an impeachment trial, other Republicans will follow.

"If Mitch is a yes, he's done," one Senate GOP source reportedly said.

Cramer disagrees.

"Mitch McConnell has a lot of influence, I don't know that he has a lot of power," Cramer said during an interview with Shepard Smith. "He has a lot of power over the schedule, obviously, and the process, but I don't know many wimps in the United States Senate who are going to vote one way or another just because Mitch McConnell does.

"This would a vote of conscience for sure. Hopefully it would be a vote based on facts and evidence that might be presented," he added.

“Mitch McConnell has a lot of influence, I don’t know that he has a lot of power,” Sen. Kevin Cramer says, adding t… https://t.co/yZR0zIYphQ
— The News with Shepard Smith (@The News with Shepard Smith)1610653537.0

Responding to speculation in the media, McConnell said Wednesday that he had not yet made a decision on how he would vote during a second Senate impeachment trial for Trump.

"While the press has been full of speculation, I have not made a final decision on how I will vote and I intend to listen to the legal arguments when they are presented to the Senate," McConnell said.

In a statement he squashed a Democratic effort to rush through the impeachment trial before Trump leaves office on Jan. 20, indicating that the trial will take place after President-elect Joe Biden is sworn into office, if at all.

Cramer was doubtful that the Senate has enough votes to convict the president.

"It seems unlikely to me that 67 people would vote to impeach," he said.

Cramer added that in his opinion, under "a clear reading of the Constitution, it even seems a little bit iffy" as to whether Congress can even impeach a president after he has left office.