Hiding...

Vow of impeachment silence spreads in Senate

Senators from both parties are using their roles as potential jurors to remain silent on impeachment.

By MARIANNE LEVINE and BURGESS EVERETT

Susan Collins won’t shy away from criticizing President Donald Trump. But when it comes to impeachment, the Maine Republican is staying quiet.

Collins is among a group of senators from both parties who are increasingly citing their role as possible jurors in an impeachment trial. They argue that as impartial jurors, they shouldn't make any foregone conclusion — especially about a scandal that could force Trump out of office.

“It’s important not to prejudge until we have the entire picture,” Collins said Wednesday when asked about a damning testimony from a top U.S. diplomat this week. “I am very likely to be a juror so to make a predetermined decision on whether or not to convict a president of the United States does not fulfill one’s constitutional responsibilities."

Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee agrees, saying jurors shouldn’t be “running around announcing their decision until they’ve heard the arguments."

“That’s what we will be if the House impeaches the president, we’ll be jurors. And we should act like jurors,” he says.

The reserved nature of Republicans like Alexander, who is retiring, and the moderate Collins suggests some in the president's own party are legitimately open to Democrats' arguments — an ominous sign for Trump as he faces a possible impeachment trial in the Senate. It also has the added side benefit of excusing senators from the noisy, day-to-day chaos of the president’s investigation by Congress.

Many Senate Democrats are almost certain to back their House counterparts if Trump is impeached but are wary of appearing eager to oust the president. So some, including Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, say they aren’t rushing to make any predictions about how the impeachment inquiry might end.

“We’re jurors,” said Schumer said in a brief interview. “We can push as hard as we can to get all the facts out but … we should wait until we see all the facts to make a determination.”

By citing their role as jurors, senators can appear above the rancorous House proceedings — and demonstrate that they are taking their constitutional responsibilities seriously.

“I’ve been very disappointed in some who have chosen to talk about this from a political perspective,” said Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), a moderate Democrat. “There are senators on both sides of the aisle who have said things that are highly partisan. And have talked about this as a political endeavor rather than ... to approach it as our job which is a potential jurist."

But partisanship on impeachment appears inevitable, with Republicans questioning the legitimacy of the impeachment inquiry and some Democrats, like 2020 candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) already saying that Trump should be impeached. Even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a recent campaign ad that impeachment stops with him as long as he remains the GOP leader.

And some senators don’t agree that their role as jurors prevents them from discussing the latest developments unfolding in the Ukraine scandal.

“It’s a false and spurious argument,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a former federal prosecutor. “We’re not in a jury trial in the classic criminal sense. It is a political proceeding and we shirk our duty to the nation if we fail to talk.”

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) has emphasized that he will be an independent juror. But that’s not going to stop him from defending Trump “as long as he deserves defending."

“I don’t think we should shirk our responsibilities as senators ... just because one day we might be a juror, ” Cramer said. “For some people it’s fairly convenient to say that, I understand that, their situation is different. But I’ve never been very good at shrinking."

While many senators have refrained from commenting on the evidence presented before House investigators, that hasn’t stopped Senate Republicans from attacking the House’s impeachment proceedings.

Following explosive testimony from top Ukraine diplomat Bill Taylor, many Republicans argued Wednesday they couldn’t fairly evaluate Taylor’s opening statement without having access to his full deposition.

"I'm not going to give any legitimacy to these proceedings," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

But some say they can maintain their criticism of the House impeachment process without revealing where they’d come down in a final verdict.

“It’s still fair game to be concerned about the process," said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) "But I think not trying to reach a conclusion before the House does, or before you have all the information that the House would be likely to present, is the right place for senators to be.”

Many senators also see no up-side to commenting this early on the impeachment proceedings. With the House impeachment inquiry moving full steam ahead, more damning information about the president could be revealed in the coming weeks. And there’s no benefit to jumping to a conclusion, especially given that the Senate may not take up impeachment proceedings until early next year.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said he plans to wait on an impeachment decision until he is presented with all of the relevant evidence at the Senate’s trial.

“It’s a mistake to take testimony until it’s all out there,” Rubio said. “Put it all together and view it in the full context of it.”

Even though a trial could still be months away, some are already tired of getting asked on a daily basis about the House’s impeachment inquiry.

“I’m not going to do a thing until we see the facts, if it comes to us,” said Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.). “It wears me out when I hear them talking about all that [day-to-day impeachment reporting]. I usually turn stations.”