The Politicus

Create | Share | Influence

Things the Media Has Missed About Upcoming Senate Trial of Trump.

10 min read

I’m not a lawyer nor a constitutional scholar, but the Media has not being doing its job when it comes to covering the upcoming Senate trial of Trump.  I know.  “A real shocker there Merlin.  Have you thought about auditioning for the role of Captain Obvious?”

Hear me out for a few minutes.

First up, have you heard the complaints from the aggrieved Senate Republicans that the House’s investigation of the Ukraine Scandal was shoddy and rushed?  Shouldn’t the obvious questions from reporters to whinning Republican senators be, “Well, couldn’t you have investigated why military aid to the Ukraine was held up? Isn’t part of your duties on oversight to see if the approved congressional aid to the Ukraine was delivered?”

Yes, investigations are supposed to be part and parcel of the U.S. SENATE.  But somehow, it is only the House that is taking its duties seriously.  And when it comes to investigating what happened with Trump and the Ukraine, there has been no Senate investigations.  None.  Zero.  Nada.  

I am going to violate copyright here, but Huffington Post did a great job of compiling what all the Senate Republicans had to say about Trump and the Ukraine back in November of 2019.  Here is what they all said:

The Call Was Totally Fine

Lindsey Graham (S.C.): “I read the transcript and found nothing wrong with it.”

Tim Scott (S.C.): “There is nothing that I saw in the transcript that was an impeachable offense. I find him to be innocent of an impeachable offense.”

John Kennedy (La.): “Did the president have a culpable state of mind? … Based on the evidence that I see, that I’ve been allowed to see, the president does not have a culpable state of mind.”

Kevin Cramer (N.D.): “It would be troubling if any president did a quid pro quo with tax dollars … but so far we don’t have evidence that’s happened.”

Ron Johnson (Wis.): “We have proper agreements with countries to investigate potential crimes so I don’t think there’s anything improper about doing that.”

Joni Ernst (Iowa): “I’ve looked at the transcript; I don’t see anything there.”

Chuck Grassley (Iowa): “There was no quid pro quo, you’d have to have that if there was going to be anything wrong.”

Roger Wicker (Miss.): “Nothing impeachable … it’s just a huge overreach.”

Jim Inhofe (Okla.): “This happens every day.”

James Lankford (Okla.): “The phone call the president made public immediately, that came out right away … We’ll wait and see. I don’t see anyone changing their mind at this point.”

David Perdue (Ga.): “This is a partisan sham trial and nothing more.”

Rand Paul (Ky.): “Making foreign aid contingent on behavior is actually the defining reason that countries supposedly give aid — to influence the behavior of the receiving country.”

Mike Braun (Ind.): “If you read the transcript closely there is no quid pro quo. I looked at it and I thought surely there had to be more in there to invest this much time and energy.”

Richard Burr (N.C.): “I’ve read the transcript. Is that a high crimes and misdemeanors ― the conversation that went on? I don’t see it.”

Thom Tillis (N.C.): “This is yet another pathetic attempt by Democrats to destroy President Trump with falsehoods to overturn the results of the 2016 election.”

Mike Lee (Utah): The call is not “a problem” and it “certainly doesn’t serve as the basis for impeaching and removing” Trump.

Tom Cotton (Ark.): Trump’s conversation with Zelensky was “a routine diplomatic phone call.”

Rick Scott (Fla.): “I still don’t see what the crime is. I keep saying, ‘Show me what the crime is.’ No one ever says that. They say he shouldn’t have done it. Well, all of us would do things differently than other people would do it, but if we’re going to impeach somebody, there ought to be something they did wrong.”

John Hoeven (N.D.): “U.S. Ambassador to the EU Sondland, in (released) text messages, said that President Trump did not want any quid pro quo.”

Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.): “I don’t see a quid pro quo in here. I see a conversation between two leaders that is pretty broad-ranging. I just don’t think this rises to impeachable on the conversations I’ve read.”

Mike Rounds (S.D.): “After reading the transcript of the phone call between the president and President Zelensky, I do not believe the president committed an impeachable offense.”

Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.): “The Democrats want this to be a Kavanaugh circus … I got your back, @realDonald Trump.”

Josh Hawley (Mo.): “I looked at the transcript of the president’s call and don’t see any threat regarding US funding about anything. No quid pro quo.”

Bill Cassidy (La.): “Nothing in the transcript supports Democrats’ accusation that there was a quid pro quo.”

Jim Risch (Idaho): “Everybody should read that minute by minute, and it will demonstrate the hostility and vitriol that the national media has for the president.”

Deb Fischer (Neb.): “I read the full unredacted transcript of President Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian president and, contrary what we were led to believe, there was no ‘smoking gun.’”

Cindy Hyde-Smith (Miss.): “This is how they operate. Verdict first, trial later. Break the rules. Ignore due process.”

John Barrasso (Wyo.): “They didn’t get what they wanted out of the Mueller investigation. They’re hoping they have something here. I just don’t see it.”

The Call Was Bad But Not Impeachable 

Pat Toomey (Pa.): “While the conversation reported in the memo relating to alleged Ukrainian corruption and VP Biden’s son was inappropriate, it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”

Rob Portman (Ohio): “The rush to judgment by [the House] I think is totally unwarranted. We’re talking about changing the results of an election in the United States.”

John Cornyn (Texas): “Do I wish President Trump hadn’t raised the issue with the Ukrainian president?  Yes … But really, is it right for Democrats to now call for his removal for office over this?”

Ted Cruz (Texas): “Donald Trump says things frequently that I wish he wouldn’t say. I don’t have control over that. The fact that he shouldn’t have gone down that road is a long way from saying, ‘Therefore, he should be impeached and forcibly removed from office after the American people have voted in a presidential election.’”

Marco Rubio (Fla.): “I don’t think he should have raised the topic of Joe Biden with the Ukrainian president. I just don’t think our U.S. … foreign policy should be used as leverage against individuals in our domestic politics.”

Lamar Alexander (Tenn.): It is “inappropriate for the president to be talking with foreign governments about investigating his political opponents.” However, “impeachment would be a mistake.”

Dan Sullivan (Alaska): “Would I use the exact language that the President uses on some of these calls? You know, probably not, but are these impeachable offenses? No. Not from my view.”

The Call Was Wrong

John Thune (S.D.): “The picture coming out of it based on the reporting we’ve seen is, yeah, I would say is not a good one.”

Lisa Murkowski (Alaska): “You don’t hold up foreign aid that we had previously appropriated for a political initiative. Period.”

Ben Sasse (Neb.): “Republicans ought not to be rushing to circle the wagons … when there’s obviously lots that’s very troubling here.”

Mitt Romney (Utah): “Asking a leader of a foreign government to investigate a political opponent is, in my opinion, a troubling matter.”

I’m A Potential Juror And Shouldn’t Speak

Susan Collins (Maine): “If there are articles of impeachment, I would be a juror just as I was in the trial for President Clinton, and as a juror, I think it’s inappropriate for me to reach conclusions about evidence or to comment on the proceedings in the House.”

Johnny Isakson (Ga.): “I’m a member of the Senate, I’ll be in the jury if there is an impeachment.”

Todd Young (Ind.): “I’m a potential juror in this whole situation if they determine that it is. Jurors aren’t supposed to talk.”

Mike Enzi’s (Wyo.) spokesperson: “If there’s ever another impeachment, he will do what he did before — he will be a jurist, listen to the evidence, and once all the evidence is in, he will make a final decision.”

Criticized Impeachment But Have Not Weighed In On Call

Mitch McConnell (Ky.): “Any such inquiry must be conducted by the highest standards of fairness and due process. But thus far, this time around, instead of setting a high bar, House Democrats seem determined to set a new low.”

Roy Blunt (Mo.): “We have a process that’s going on in secret. We have selective leaking.”

Martha McSally (Ariz.): “My job is to be thoughtful, to look at the facts and to show good judgment, and in the meantime, do a good job for the people representing people for the things that are impacting their families every single day.”

Cory Gardner (Colo.): “The Senate Intelligence Committee is having an investigation, a bipartisan investigation. Unfortunately, though, what we’ve seen is a very political process take over.”

Steve Daines (Mont.): “This investigation remains in the hands of Adam Schiff and House Democrats who’ve had their minds made up about impeaching the president since before this investigation began.”

Richard Shelby (Ala.): “What about all the other conversations that the presidents of the United States have with foreign leaders and so forth? A lot of that is not for public consumption, I would imagine.”

Mike Crapo (Idaho): “As to the question of impeachment, our entire legal system is dependent on our ability to find the truth. I will wait for further information regarding the facts of this matter.”

Pat Roberts (Kansas): Dismissed impeachment inquiry as “political theater” but reserving judgment.

Jerry Moran (Kansas): “Absent concrete evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, Congress should not use impeachment proceedings to overturn the results of an election.”

John Boozman (Ark.): “Democrats have long sought to weaken the president, appease their base and further divide the country through impeachment. This latest action demonstrates their willingness to blindly follow this obsession regardless of the facts.”

Now, only that shithead Gardner is saying there is a Senate investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee.  But I tried searching for this said investigation, but I can’t find it.  Yes, the Senate called for the release of the Whistleblower complaint, but I don’t see any official investigation going on.  And you might have noticed what the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said:

Richard Burr (N.C.): “I’ve read the transcript. Is that a high crimes and misdemeanors ― the conversation that went on? I don’t see it.”

In fact, Burr spread the Trump lie that Ukraine was for Hillary Clinton, so how is that any different than the Russians being for Trump in 2016?  Anyone see televised hearings from any Senate committee with regards to the Ukraine Scandal?  Any subpeonas of documents and witnesses?

The only Senate investigation I have found with regards to Ukraine is with Joe and Hunter Biden:

Lindsey Graham Launches Senate Investigation Into Bidens and Ukraine

And if the Republican Senators were remotely serious on finding out the truth about Trump and the Ukraine, they could — from what I can see — delay the Senate trial and do some investigations.  Here is something from Lawfare blog:

The Senate has options for scuttling the impeachment process beyond a simple refusal to heed the House vote. The Constitution does not specify what constitutes a “trial,” and in a 1993 case involving a judicial impeachment, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Senate’s “sole power” to “try” means that it is not subject to any limitations on how it could conduct a proceeding. Senate leadership could engineer an early motion to dismiss and effectively moot the current rule’s call for the president or counsel to appear before the Senate. The rules in place provide at any rate only that “the Senate shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses”: they do not require that any other than the president be called. Moreover, the Senate could adjourn at any time, terminating the proceedings and declining to take up the House articles. This is what happened in the trial of Andrew Johnson, in which the Senate voted on three articles and then adjourned without holding votes on the remaining eight.

If Speaker Pelosi can legally delay sending the article of impeachment to the Senate, couldn’t the Senate hit the pause button on the trial while they investigate?

Yes, I know it is NOT in Moscow Mitch’s interest to investigate Trump on anything.  But the Media is letting Moscow Mitch and his cronies off the hook.  They have been so focused on the House investigation and vote for impeachment that reporters are not asking, “Where the hell is the Senate investigations and actions?”  Sole power of impeachments rests with the House, but the Senate cannot run its own investigations into Trump?  

The cover up for Trump by the Senate Republicans has been going on for months, but the Media is only now focusing on what the Senate will do with the Senate trial.  I think Senate Republicans have already spoken loudly on this matter with their inactions.

Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The Politicus is a collaborative political community that facilitates content creation directly on the site. Our goal is to make the political conversation accessible to everyone.

Any donations we receive will go into writer outreach. That could be advertising on Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit or person-to-person outreach on College campuses. Please help if you can:

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x