Trump censure faces tough odds in Senate

Senators are discussing a long-shot bipartisan effort to censure former President TrumpDonald TrumpRonny Jackson, former White House doctor, predicts Biden will resign McCarthy: Pelosi appointing members of Jan. 6 panel who share 'pre-conceived narrative' Kinzinger denounces 'lies and conspiracy theories' while accepting spot on Jan. 6 panel MORE over the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.

Members of the upper chamber are pitching their colleagues on the idea as it becomes increasingly clear that Trump’s impeachment trial will hand him a second acquittal after 45 GOP senators backed an effort this week to declare it unconstitutional because the former president is no longer in office.

But the idea is facing both political and procedural roadblocks, with the Senate currently locked into holding an impeachment trial and few GOP senators openly interested.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sen. Susan CollinsSusan Margaret CollinsTransit funding, broadband holding up infrastructure deal The Hill's Morning Report - Infrastructure vote fails; partisan feud erupts over Jan. 6 panel Senate falling behind on infrastructure MORE (R-Maine) told reporters that the resolution would be “in lieu” of holding the trial.

“It seems to me that there is some value in looking at an alternative to proceeding with the trial. ... I realize the two leaders have already locked in a schedule. But it seems to me there is benefit in looking at an alternative that might be able to garner bipartisan support. I don't know whether it would or not,” said Collins, who is working with Sen. Tim KaineTimothy (Tim) Michael KaineSenate GOP likely to nix plan Schumer feels pressure from all sides on spending strategy Manchin signals he'll be team player on spending deal MORE (D-Va.).

A censure resolution, unlike impeachment, would require only 60 votes to pass the Senate, and it would amount to a historic rebuke of Trump. The Senate has censured only one president previously — Andrew Jackson — a decision it reversed three years later.

“I have been talking with a handful of my colleagues, a handful, not 40,” Kaine said. “I think the Paul motion yesterday was completely clarifying that we’re not going to get near 67 votes. So I think there’s maybe a little more interest in could this be an alternative.”

“To do a trial knowing you’ll get 55 votes at the max seems to me to be not the right prioritization of our time right now,” Kaine added.

But Democratic leadership is showing no public interest in backing down from the impeachment trial, even though it likely doesn't have the votes to ultimately convict Trump despite Republicans expressing broad frustration following the Jan. 6 attack.

ADVERTISEMENT

Senate Majority Leader Charles SchumerChuck SchumerCould Andrew Cuomo — despite scandals — be re-elected because of Trump? Democratic negotiator: 'I believe we will' have infrastructure bill ready on Monday DACA court ruling puts weight of immigration reform on Democrats MORE (D-N.Y.) is vowing to move forward with the trial, wanting to put Republicans on the record about Trump’s rhetoric.

“I would simply say to all of my colleagues: Make no mistake, there will be a trial, and the evidence against the former president will be presented, in living color, for the nation and every one of us to see,” Schumer said.

Sen. Dick DurbinDick DurbinBiden: Pathway to citizenship in reconciliation package 'remains to be seen' DACA court ruling puts weight of immigration reform on Democrats New York gun rights case before Supreme Court with massive consequences  MORE (D-Ill.) said he agreed “completely” with Schumer.

“We have a constitutional responsibility to accept this impeach article and hold a trial,” Durbin said.

Durbin, however, did acknowledge that Democrats will discuss a censure if they fail to convict Trump. Several senators have suggested the GOP support for conviction is likely capped at five — the number who voted against a bid by Sen. Rand PaulRandal (Rand) Howard PaulGOP Rep. Cawthorn says he wants to 'prosecute' Fauci Writer: Fauci, Paul clash shouldn't distract from probe into COVID-19 origins S.E. Cupp: 'The politicization of science and health safety has inarguably cost lives' MORE (R-Ky.) to declare the trial unconstitutional.

“We’re going to talk about it,” Durbin said about the censure measure. “I hope enough Republicans join us to impeach this president. If they don’t, perhaps we’ll consider some alternatives.”

Sen. Joe ManchinJoe ManchinTo break the corporate tax logjam, tax overinflated CEO pay Six months in, two challenges could define Biden's presidency DACA court ruling puts weight of immigration reform on Democrats MORE (D-W.Va.) also appeared to signal that he didn’t think a censure resolution was a strong enough response to the Capitol attack.

“I thought the censure was definitely the way to go back on Ukraine. ... This is much, much more serious than anything we've ever seen in our lifetime, and it's really the purpose of having articles of impeachment in the Constitution,” Manchin said.

Speaking to a crowd near the White House on Jan. 6, Trump repeated his false claims that the election was “rigged” and urged his supporters to march to the Capitol. A mob subsequently breached the building as former Vice President Mike PenceMichael (Mike) Richard PenceWant to evaluate Donald Trump's judgment? Listen to Donald Trump Will Pence primary Trump — and win? Poll: 73 percent of Democratic voters would consider voting for Biden in the 2024 primary MORE and lawmakers were counting the Electoral College votes.

The language of the censure is still being finalized, but Kaine told CNN that it would mirror language from the 14th Amendment. Democrats, including Kaine, have floated using Section 3 to try to bar Trump from holding future office.

“Here’s what it does: It declares that the attack on the Capitol was an insurrection against the Constitution of the United States. ... It then finds that President Trump gave aid and comfort to those who carried out the insurrection by repeatedly lying about the election, slandering election officials, pressuring others to come to Washington for a wild event and encouraging them to come up to Congress,” Kaine said.

“Those two findings, that it was an insurrection and that President Trump gave aid and comfort to the insurrectionists, is language pulled right out of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution,” he added.

ADVERTISEMENT

But it’s unclear if censure would get much support beyond the five Republicans who voted against an effort to declare Trump’s trial unconstitutional. If there aren’t 10 Republican votes for a censure resolution, Kaine indicated that there would be a “strong desire” among Democrats to not move forward with it at all.

"I just think it's so hypothetical at this point. ... I've heard some rumblings but not serious discussion that had support from enough Democrats or Republicans for that matter to make this a realistic option,” said Sen. John ThuneJohn Randolph ThuneFrustration builds as infrastructure talks drag On The Money: Senate braces for nasty debt ceiling fight | Democrats pushing for changes to bipartisan deal | Housing prices hit new high in June Transit funding, broadband holding up infrastructure deal MORE (S.D.), the No. 2 Senate Republican.

In addition to Collins, Sen. Lisa MurkowskiLisa Ann MurkowskiWhy Biden's Interior Department isn't shutting down oil and gas Biden signs bill to bolster crime victims fund Bipartisan group says it's still on track after setback on Senate floor MORE (R-Alaska), who was also one of the five to vote against declaring the trial unconstitutional, said she would be “interested” in looking at what the language of the censure would be. A spokeswoman for Sen. Mitt RomneyWillard (Mitt) Mitt RomneyTransit funding, broadband holding up infrastructure deal Schumer leaves door open for second vote on bipartisan infrastructure deal Bipartisan group says it's still on track after setback on Senate floor MORE (R-Utah), who also opposed the Paul effort, said he would be looking at the resolution.

But other Republicans argued that the time to discuss a censure would have been before the House moved forward with its impeachment article and the Senate was locked in to start a trial in less than two weeks.

“I appreciate their thinking outside the box. We’re past that point,” said Sen. Roger WickerRoger Frederick WickerHere's evidence the Senate confirmation process is broken Commerce office used racial profiling operating as 'rogue' police force: Senate report Rand Paul introducing measure to repeal public transportation mask mandates MORE (R-Miss.).

Asked about a censure resolution after a trial, Sen. John CornynJohn CornynDACA court ruling puts weight of immigration reform on Democrats Schumer feels pressure from all sides on spending strategy Data reveal big opportunity to finish the vaccine job MORE (R-Texas) replied, “I don’t know why in the world we would do that.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Sen. Kevin CramerKevin John CramerTransit funding, broadband holding up infrastructure deal Senate falling behind on infrastructure Bipartisan group says it's still on track after setback on Senate floor MORE (R-N.D.) floated that if a censure resolution had been brought up before the House moved forward with impeachment, “there probably would have been a lot of support for it, but at this point I don’t know why we would bail them out.”

Sen. Roy BluntRoy Dean BluntThe Hill's Morning Report - Will Schumer back down on his deadline? GOP fumes over Schumer hardball strategy Cybersecurity bills gain new urgency after rash of attacks MORE (R-Mo.) noted that censure was also discussed during the Clinton impeachment trial as well as the first Trump impeachment trial but went nowhere.

“I think it's unlikely that you can unspool one thing and reel another thing out there,” Blunt added. “But we'll see.”