House blocks resolution to censure Adam Schiff

The House on Wednesday effectively killed a resolution to censure Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), voting for a Democratic-led motion to table the measure.

The chamber voted 225-196-7 to table the resolution. Twenty Republicans voted with Democrats to table the measure, while seven lawmakers — five Democrats, two Republicans — voted present.

“I think it says that Trump and his MAGA supporters view me as a threat,” Schiff said shortly after the resolution was tabled. “There’s a reason they signaled me out — they think I was effective in holding them accountable. And they won’t stop me.”

“And I think frankly this [is] deeply counterproductive to that goal but that’s their aim, to go after anybody that stands up to them, to try to make an example out of them. But it’s not gonna deter me for a moment,” he added.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) introduced the censure measure in May but brought it to the floor as a privileged resolution on Tuesday, forcing the House to take action on the legislation. Democratic leadership motioned to table the measure, which requires a simple majority vote.

The effort by House Republicans to censure Schiff is the latest iteration of the conference’s longtime crusade against the California Democrat, who became a bogeyman to the right after spearheading efforts against former President Trump while he was in the White House.

A resolution to censure Rep. Adam Schiff was blocked by the House after twenty Republicans voted with Democrats to table the measure. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Schiff, as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, led the first impeachment inquiry into Trump, which ended with the House impeaching him for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Schiff was also at the forefront of Democratic accusations that Trump colluded with Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign.

In January, Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) blocked Schiff and Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) from serving on the Intelligence panel, following through on a promise he made before securing the Speaker’s gavel. He said the decision was made “in order to maintain a standard worthy of this committee’s responsibilities.”

And in May, Luna filed a resolution to expel Schiff, who is running for Senate, from the House.

As Schiff was speaking to reporters in the Capitol following the vote, Luna walked by and announced that she is planning to file another resolution to censure the California Democrat next week.

“I'll be filing to censure you next week,” she said. “And we'll get the votes for that.”

Asked about the interaction, Schiff said “this is what it takes to ratify Donald Trump.”

Luna’s censure resolution, which spans four pages, calls for censuring and condemning Schiff “for conduct that misleads the American people in a way that is not befitting an elected Member of the House of Representatives.” It would also direct the Ethics Committee to conduct an investigation into Schiff’s “lies, misrepresentations, and abuses of sensitive information.”


More Adam Schiff coverage from The Hill


Luna, a staunch Trump ally, brought the measure to the floor as a privileged resolution the same day the former president pleaded not guilty to 37 counts brought against him by the Department of Justice as part of the investigation into his handling of classified documents. Prosecutors allege that Trump willfully retained classified records and then obstructed efforts by authorities to collect them.

In a letter to Democratic colleagues on Tuesday, Schiff argued that Luna was forcing a vote on the censure resolution — which he called “false and defamatory” — to distract from Trump’s legal woes. He said it would discipline him for his work “holding Donald Trump accountable.”

“This partisan resolution to censure and fine me $16 million is only the latest attempt to gratify the former President’s MAGA allies, and distract from Donald Trump’s legal troubles by retaliating against me for my role in exposing his abuses of power, and leading the first impeachment against him,” he wrote.

“The intent of this resolution goes far beyond me and my role leading investigations of Donald Trump, and his first impeachment — an effort I would undertake again, and in a heartbeat, if it were necessary,” he later added. “This resolution plainly demonstrates the lengths our GOP colleagues will go to protect Donald Trump’s infinite lies – lies that incited a violent attack on this very building.”

Sign up for the latest from The Hill here

Schiff also asserted that the censure resolution was “a clear attack on our constitutional system of checks and balances.”

“Once again, our GOP colleagues are using the leverage and resources of the House majority to rewrite history and promulgate far-right conspiracy theories — all to protect and serve Donald Trump,” he wrote.

In comments following the vote, Schiff said spending time on the floor to vote on the censure resolution was an abuse of the chamber's resources, and argued that it was a reflection of the lack of control McCarthy has over the chamber.

“But to use the House floor time this way is such an abuse of the resources of the House,” Schiff said, “and it shows how little control McCarthy has over the place that this even came to the floor.”

The resolution, which has 10 GOP cosponsors, zeroes in on Schiff’s previous comments about collusion between Trump and Russia. It cites the report from special counsel John Durham, released last month, that offered a scathing assessment of how the FBI launched and conducted an investigation into Trump’s ties to Moscow, concluding that authorities did not have sufficient information to begin the case.

It argues that Schiff “abused” the trust he was afforded as chair and ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

“By repeatedly telling these falsehoods, Representative Shiff purposely deceived his Committee, Congress, and the American people,” the resolution reads.

The measure also includes a non-binding “whereas” clause that says if the Ethics Committee finds that Schiff “lied, made misrepresentations, and abused sensitive information” that he should be fined $16 million. Luna said that dollar figure is half the amount of money that American taxpayers paid to fund the investigation into potential collusion between Trump and Russia.

The Justice Department in August 2019 said the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller cost $32 million.

Luna’s call for financial action was a point of concern for Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who signaled ahead of the vote that he would support a motion to table the resolution. He argued that the fine would violate the Constitution.

“Adam Schiff acted unethically but if a resolution to fine him $16 million comes to the floor I will vote to table it. (vote against it)” Massie wrote on Twitter.

“The Constitution says the House may make its own rules but we can’t violate other (later) provisions of the Constitution. A $16 million fine is a violation of the 27th and 8th amendments,” he wrote in a subsequent tweet.

Updated at 6:21 p.m.

House GOP inches closer to Mayorkas impeachment amid discord in conference

House Republicans inched closer this week toward impeaching Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, officially launching an investigation that would serve as the basis for any inquiry.

But conservative supporters of the effort still face enormous hurdles, including a reluctance of leadership to take such a drastic step and the continued opposition from more moderate lawmakers in the GOP conference — barriers that even the loudest Mayorkas critics have been forced to acknowledge. 

On Wednesday, Republicans on the House Homeland Security Committee said they would review Mayorkas’s performance through a five-phase plan, which Chairman Mark Green (R-Tenn.) said could be completed in a matter of 11 or 12 weeks.

“His policies have resulted in a humanitarian crisis this country has never seen,” Green said at a press conference.  

“Today's hearing will begin the process of digging into all of the details. The cause and effect of Alejandro Mayorkas’s dereliction of duty. I hope the American people will listen intently. I hope the press will report this, honestly. I hope the president of the United States, the commander in chief charged with the security and protection of this country, will listen. He can't possibly know of all of these failures of Mayorkas and have not fired him already.”

It’s a process that faces a complex path in the House — and one that’s already highlighted several layers of division within the GOP conference. Not only is there discord between impeachment supporters and opponents, but there’s also growing tension among Mayorkas’s most vocal critics, all of whom seem to want to play a prominent role in the effort to oust him. 

“We don't have the votes,” Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) said Tuesday. Asked what would change the minds of the Republican opponents, he offered a biting criticism of his centrist colleagues.  

“An embrace of logic and reason,” he said.  

Green’s presser was followed by a hearing titled “Open Borders, Closed Case: Secretary Mayorkas’ Dereliction of Duty on the Border Crisis.”

Democrats argued the hearing’s name alone shows Republicans have already reached a conclusion on whether to take the dramatic step of impeaching a cabinet secretary — an action not seen since the 1870s.

“You may have a difference of opinion as to how the United States should process our asylum applicants. But the notion that that difference of a policy opinion would be the basis for a quote unquote, ‘case closed’ that Secretary Mayorkas is violating his duty, is preposterous and it is not any basis for impeachment,” said Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.), who before entering Congress worked as lead counsel for the first impeachment inquiry against former President Trump.

The move, six months into GOP leadership of the House, follows wrangling within the conference over how speedily to pursue the topic.

While a slew of lawmakers introduced impeachment resolutions days after the contentious vote to give the gavel to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the most recent effort was offered by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), a sign of discontent among those eager to speed ahead.

It also comes as border numbers have dropped in the weeks following the May lifting of a policy that allowed the U.S. to quickly deny entry to would-be asylum seekers, bucking widespread predictions of a surge of migrants. The repeal of that policy, however, was paired with the reintroduction of consequences for those caught wrongly crossing the border.

“The number of Border Patrol encounters have plummeted by 70 percent since the Biden administration ended Title 42 last month. The number of overall border encounters have dropped by 50 percent in that time, due in large part to [Homeland Security's] hard work under Secretary Mayorkas’s leadership,” ranking member Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) said during the hearing.

“Calling a hearing and saying ‘case closed’ before you’ve heard any testimony is not legitimate oversight. ... It’s about House Republican leadership catering to its most extreme MAGA members, who want to impeach someone — anyone at all. It’s about trying to make good on GOP backroom deals to elect a Speaker, raise the debt ceiling and stave off a mutiny in the Republican ranks.”

The House Homeland Security Committee doesn’t have the power to ignite an impeachment inquiry. That task falls to the House Judiciary Committee.

Green has cast the investigation as an effort that will be handed off to the other panel and ultimately brought to fruition by Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). 

The firebrand Georgia congresswoman, however, offered her impeachment resolution with a tweet that included an emoji of a slice of cake, a reference to earlier comments that the debt ceiling package would be more appealing if it included “dessert” like an impeachment of Mayorkas or FBI Director Christopher Wray. 

The move was a reflection of impatience from some in the GOP, even as McCarthy has largely stuck to comments he made while visiting the border late last year stressing the need to investigate. 

“I know people are very frustrated with [Mayorkas],” McCarthy told CNN last month, but added that any impeachment process shouldn’t be pursued “for political reasons.”

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), former head of the far-right Freedom Caucus, suggested the Speaker is moving closer toward backing the impeachment effort. 

"McCarthy has loosened up on that. Whereas quite some time ago he was a no, now he’s kinda saying — kinda saying — yes,” Biggs said. Other reluctant Republicans are also shifting, he said. 

“There are people who were an absolute ‘no’ on it even a few weeks ago, and now told me that they're moveable,” he said. “There's probably two or three people that I'm trying to work on, see if I can move them my way. And if those two or three come along, I think then we're ready to go.”

Green sidestepped questions over whether the caucus would be able to secure the votes to impeach Mayorkas. 

“I would say it’s intuitively obvious to the casual observer, that Republicans are individualists and we think independently, we’re not robots being told by a Speaker how to vote,” he said in a nod to the standstill on the House floor led by a group of far-right members who stalled a vote on a GOP bill on gas stoves as a way to voice frustration with McCarthy's handling of the debt ceiling. 

“And so, there are many people with differences of opinions about this. And, you know, I'm in a leadership position, and from my leadership position, the direction of our committee is to get to the facts.”

The Department of Homeland Security has pushed back on GOP arguments and has largely blamed Congress for issues at the border.

“The immigration system has been terribly broken and outdated for decades. That is something about which everyone agrees, and it is my hope that they take that problem, and they fix it once and for all. In the meantime, within a broken system, we are doing everything that we can to increase its efficiency, to provide humanitarian relief when the law permits and to also deliver an enforcement consequence when the law dictates,” Mayorkas said earlier this year during an appearance on MSNBC.

“That is exactly what we are doing, and as far as I am concerned, I will continue to do that with tremendous pride with the people with whom I work."  

Green said his five-point plan includes investigations into cartels as well as the financial cost associated with migration.

“The guy has got to go,” Green said.

“We're going to hold him accountable. And if the president picks another guy that does this kind of stuff, we'll do what we have to do there too.”

Ex-Border Patrol chief says letting migrants into US was ‘only agenda’ of DHS when Mayorkas took office

Allowing more migrants to cross the border into the U.S. was the only thing on the agenda for Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas when he entered power with President Biden's administration, former Border Patrol Chief Rodney Scott testified Wednesday.

Scott made the statement under questioning from the House Homeland Security Committee during a hearing focused on Mayorkas' alleged "dereliction of duty." The former federal official testified that Mayorkas is "not incompetent," and that he knew what effect his policies would have.

"Do you know firsthand if Customs and Border Patrol agents actually advised Mr. Mayorkas and said, 'Hey you need to reverse these policies to stop this tidal wave that's coming into the United States'?" asked Rep. Carlos Gimenez, R-Fla.

"He was informed verbally. He was informed in writing," Scott said. "I think it's important for everybody to understand [that] everything fundamentally changed. When I worked for Secretary [Chad] Wolf, we had team meetings, we were asked for our input. We were told, ‘Over your career, what works and what doesn’t work?' On Jan. 20, 2021, that all got shut off."

EX-DHS CHIEF WOLF ACCUSES BIDEN ADMIN OF ‘CRISIS BY DESIGN’ AT THE BORDER, CALLS FOR NEW LEADERSHIP

"Our input was no longer solicited, and when my team and I gave it unsolicited, we were basically put in a box," he continued. "They did not want to know what we had to say. They made it very clear: Expedite processing and find new ways to let migrants into the U.S. That was the only agenda."

Scott began serving as Border Patrol head in January 2020 under President Donald Trump, and continued under Biden until August 2021.

APPEALS COURT DENIES BIDEN ADMIN REQUEST FOR STAY IN CHALLENGE TO MIGRANT RELEASE POLICY 

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rep. Mark Green, R-Tenn., launched Wednesday's hearing and laid out allegations against Mayorkas in an earlier press briefing. In addition to Scott, Republicans summoned testimony from former acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf, who served in the Trump administration, and Joe Edlow, former acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

 "What we know right now is that Secretary Mayorkas has either violated or subverted at least 10 laws passed by the Congress of the United States. He has ignored multiple court orders to cease and desist his activities. The blatant disregard for the Constitution of the United States, which states that the United States Congress passes the laws and the executive branch executes those laws, is just scratching the surface to the harm Secretary Mayorkas’ dereliction of duty has done to our country," Green said during Wednesday's press conference.

Migrant encounters have skyrocketed at the U.S.-Mexico border under the leadership of Mayorkas and President Biden. U.S. Customs and Border Protection reports say they had 100,000 monthly encounters during Biden's first full month in office. Today, however, CBP reports well over 200,000 per month, with the number exceeding 230,000 throughout late 2022 and early 2023.

While some Republicans have already pushed to impeach Mayorkas, Green has pumped the breaks on that idea. He said Wednesday's hearing was focused on obtaining facts, and he has yet to push for any impeachment action.

Biden's handling of the border crisis has long been among his least popular issues, with a May poll showing that just 33% of voters approve of his work on the issue.

Republicans use House powers to protect Trump

Every single time we have learned that sedition-backing Donald Trump likely committed a crime, it takes no more than a day for House Republicans to begin planning out how they will best defend him. Every single time, the chosen defense is not that Trump didn't do whatever astonishingly crooked thing investigators have uncovered; instead, they declare that whoever discovered the corruption is part of a vast conspiracy against the career con artist, and that the investigators are the ones who need to be punished and/or jailed.

And every damn time, a coatless Rep. Jim Jordan flings himself in front of the news cameras to be the loudest person whining about it.

Now the House Judiciary Chair, which is about as neat a summation of Republicanism's decline as you could ask for, Jordan is already leading the House Republican charge to sabotage the new federal indictment of Trump under Espionage Act charges. He and his fellow Republicans have settled into a pattern; Jordan is using his perch in Congress to demand that the Justice Department turn over documents about the active criminal case. CNN is now reporting that Jordan is "exploring ways to force [special counsel] Jack Smith to testify or provide information" about the criminal case, and that Jordan has declared that "all options are on the table" when it comes to forcing Smith and others to comply.

This is the now-standard means by which House Republicans look to undermine all investigations into Trump's various acts of corruption; Jordan and House Republicans turned to it immediately after Trump's indictment in New York for cooking Trump Organization books to hide hush money payments during his 2016 campaign. It quickly came to light that House Republicans were coordinating with Trump himself in their efforts to discredit the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

The reasons House Republicans have been demanding investigators turn over their evidence are, of course, obvious. The intent is to share that evidence with Trump, either directly or by leaking it to the general public, and to identify key witnesses against Trump so that they can be publicly marked and demonized, and to tease out the direction of any ongoing investigative threads so that those, too, can be leaked and Trump's team alerted. All while undermining federal prosecutors and the judicial system itself.

Campaign Action

The House Republican pattern is now rote, in fact. Rep. Devin Nunes made a name and career for himself before Jordan took the reins; this was the go-to Republican plan during the Robert Mueller investigation into Russian espionage and election interference and during Trump's first impeachment, as well as during every other lesser scandal.

The catch now, however, is that Jordan is not attempting to sabotage a federal probe or an impeachment trial. Jordan and his fellow House Republicans are attempting to sabotage state and federal criminal cases against Trump; in demanding that the indicting prosecutors turn over their notes, their witnesses, and their evidence, Trump's Republican allies are plainly attempting to obstruct prosecutors, not investigators. And that is usually something that is a really top-notch, prison-worthy crime for anyone who is not a sitting member of Congress.

There's really no question that the intent is obstruction, either. CNN also notes that sedition-backing House Republicans like Jordan and Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz are pushing colleagues to defund the special counsel's office and otherwise strip funding from the Justice Department in order to pressure the department into dropping the charges against Trump.

As for why attempting to obstruct an ongoing criminal probe and indictment isn't illegal if you're a member of Congress, that's a hell of a question. Republicans are relying on congressional speech and debate protections to blur the lines, but those protections wouldn't protect Matt Gaetz or the others if they were, say, indicted on federal drug charges or for participating in a sex-trafficking ring, or for taking bribes or punching reporters or any number of other actual crimes. Demanding prosecutors expose their case strategies, evidence, and path of their ongoing investigations isn't a criminal act of obstruction, though? We'll have to have the experts explain that one to us all.

It needs to be again emphasized, though, that Republicanism now defines itself around the notion that Republicans get to do crimes. The latest Trump indictment is the most serious charge against him so far; Trump was caught hoarding an array of classified documents describing some of the country's most closely guarded national security secrets and, when federal officials attempted to get them back, took repeated steps to hide the documents from the government and his own lawyers so that he could keep them. At Mar-a-Lago. In publicly accessible rooms.

This is an extraordinary crime no matter who was doing it; it is one thing to misplace such documents, but it is unquestionably a crime to intentionally attempt to keep them by lying to the federal government about their whereabouts. It's also a much more straightforward crime than "seditious conspiracy" might be, and is trivial to prove compared to charges that might revolve around "intent" when pressing state election officials to "find" new votes on Trump's behalf.

It is a big-boy crime, a big-boy federal crime that prosecutors appear to have caught Trump and his aide dead to rights on, and one that may very well be amended in the future with actual espionage charges, if Trump had the sheer audacity to share the documents not just with aides and ghostwriters but to Saudi or other foreign officials he was trying to impress. That is the investigation and indictment that House Republicans are attempting to obstruct.

They're not doing it for Trump. Nobody gives that much of a damn about Trump, not really. Jordan and the others leap to the same defenses and the same obstructive acts whenever any powerful or half-powerful Republican faces a new corruption scandal. House Republicans are devoted to the idea that Republicans get to commit crimes and get to charge their political opponents with false ones, and they've got an entire fascist movement egging them on with that.

RELATED STORIES:

Jim Jordan uses House Judiciary to sabotage Manhattan case against Donald Trump

House Republicans demanding Bragg's evidence against Trump have been coordinating with Trump himself

New York Times whitewashes Jim Jordan's part in wrestling scandal

Donald Trump is facing even more legal jeopardy and the sharks in the Republican Party seem to sense there is some blood in the water. Chris Christie has made his campaign all about going directly at Trump, and Ron DeSantis seems to be closer and closer to becoming completely isolated from the field.

Schiff ‘flattered’ by censure resolution, says GOP trying to distract from Trump legal problems

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Wednesday that he is “flattered” by a Republican push to censure him, suggesting that the resolution was driven by hopes of distracting from former President Trump’s legal woes.

“This is really an effort at the end of the day to distract from Donald Trump’s legal problems, to gratify Donald Trump by going after someone they feel was his most effective adversary,” Schiff said on “CNN This Morning.”

“I’m flattered by it,” he continued. “But the fact that Speaker [Kevin] McCarthy [R-Calif.] would take up this MAGA resolution when we have so many pressing challenges before the country is really a terrible abuse of House resources.”

Schiff also accused his Republican colleagues of bringing forward the censure resolution as retaliation for his leading the first impeachment inquiry into the former president.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), who first introduced the censure measure late last month, called it to the floor Tuesday — the same day that Trump pleaded not guilty to 37 counts related to his alleged mishandling of classified materials.

While Democrats could make a procedural motion to table the measure — which would effectively kill it — that would require a majority vote. The office of House Democratic Whip Katherine Clark (Mass.) said the House is expected to hold a procedural vote related to the resolution Wednesday.

Luna's resolution centers on Schiff’s previous allegations of collusion between Trump’s team and Russia, declaring them “falsehoods” and claiming that the congressman “purposely deceived his Committee, Congress, and the American people.”

House Republicans set to kick off ‘dereliction of duty’ hearing aimed at DHS Secretary Mayorkas

House Republicans are poised to launch an investigation into alleged "dereliction of duty" by Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas during a Wednesday hearing.

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rep. Mark Green, R-Tenn., will hold a press conference Wednesday laying out allegations against the Cabinet member. Green's committee will also hold a hearing in which several border security experts will testify regarding the secretary's handling of the border.

"I gave 24 years of my life as service as an army officer, and I know what dereliction of duty looks like. Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has been willfully derelict in his duties as secretary of Homeland Security. has disregarded his oath to the Constitution by ignoring the basic tenets of that Constitution," Green said during a Wednesday press conference. 

"The massive millions upon millions of people have crossed our southern border because the Secretary of Homeland Security removed 89 policies from two previous administrations. The cause is simple: migrants tested the system, they called home, and millions came because of the secretary's catch and release policies," he added.

EX-DHS CHIEF WOLF ACCUSES BIDEN ADMIN OF ‘CRISIS BY DESIGN’ AT THE BORDER, CALLS FOR NEW LEADERSHIP

APPEALS COURT DENIES BIDEN ADMIN REQUEST FOR STAY IN CHALLENGE TO MIGRANT RELEASE POLICY 

Those testifying in Wednesday's hearing include former acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf, who served in the Trump administration, and former Border Patrol Chief Rodney Scott. Joe Edlow, former acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, will also testify.

The investigation into Mayorkas comes amid calls from some Republicans to impeach the secretary. Green has cautioned, however, that that is not the goal of his committee's probe.

 "What we know right now is that Secretary Mayorkas has either violated or subverted at least ten laws passed by the Congress of the United States. He has ignored multiple court orders to cease and desist his activities. The blatant disregard for the Constitution of the United States, which states that the United States Congress passes the laws and the executive branch executes those laws, is just scratching the surface to the harm Secretary Mayorkas’ dereliction of duty has done to our country," Green said.

Illegal Immigration has skyrocketed at the U.S.-Mexico border under the leadership of Mayorkas and President Biden. U.S. Customs and Border Protection reports say they had 100,000 monthly encounters during Biden's first full month in office. Today, however, CBP reports well over 200,000 per month, with the number exceeding 230,000 throughout late 2022 and early 2023.

As a result, firebrand Republicans have introduced articles of impeachment against both Biden and Mayorkas, though the moves were largely symbolic.

Biden's handling of the border crisis has long been among his least popular issues, with a May poll showing that just 33% of voters approve of his work on the issue.

GOP fears Trump legal woes will boomerang on them 

Senate Republicans are worried former President Trump’s legal troubles will create a major headwind for GOP candidates in 2024.  

They say the battle between the Justice Department and Trump, who pleaded not guilty Tuesday to charges that he violated the Espionage Act and obstructed justice with his handling of classified documents, will become a primary litmus test — just as his unsubstantiated claims that the 2020 election was stolen became a prominent point of debate in last year’s GOP primaries.  

They also worry Trump’s dominance of the media spotlight will turn off swing voters — especially suburban women — and hurt their chances of taking back the Senate or protecting their small House majority.

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), who has endorsed Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) for president, told reporters on Tuesday there’s “no question” the “serious” allegations against Trump will hurt the GOP if he is the nominee.  

Rounds said voters will ultimately decide whether the charges disqualify Trump from holding office, but he predicted they will create a headwind.

“Voters are going to make that determination, but most certainly for a lot of us as you look at that, it’s not going to help,” he said. “This is not good for our party, clearly not good for our party.”

Senate Republican Whip John Thune (S.D.) also warned Republicans will pay the price if Trump and his various legal battles dominate the political debate next year. 

“I think if you look at the record, in ’18, ’20, and ’22, when he’s the issue, we lose,” Thune said, referring to Republicans’ loss of the House in the 2018 midterm election, their loss of the White House and Senate in the 2020 election and Senate Republicans’ failure to take back the upper chamber in 2022.  

“I would rather have the issue be Biden and his policies. I think the way that you do that is you have a different nominee,” said Thune, who has also endorsed Scott for president.

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.)

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) speaks during the weekly press conference following the Republican luncheon at the Capitol on Tuesday, June 13, 2023.

Asked whether he was worried the indictment could drag down the party in 2024, Thune replied: “I’m worried obviously about the Senate races.” 

“There’s no question the political environment affects that, and the top of the ticket is part of the political environment,” he said.  

Thune acknowledged the legal battle could help Trump in a primary, but he argued it would hurt the GOP at large in a general election.

“Everybody says, ‘Well, it gives him a political bump,’ and all that, and that may be true with the political base but, again, the people who decide national elections are the middle of the electorate. It’s the soccer moms, it’s the suburban voters, it’s younger voters, and I just think we’ve got a candidate who can appeal to those,” he said.  

“A lot of the drama and the chaos that seems to be happening with an ongoing basis [with Trump] makes it harder to win those types of voters,” Thune observed.


More Senate coverage from The Hill


Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters after last year’s disappointing midterm election that the “chaos” and “negativity” surrounding Trump hurt Senate GOP candidates, though he didn’t mention Trump by name.

On Tuesday, however, McConnell declined to go anywhere near Trump’s legal troubles when asked whether he would support the former president if he wins the party’s nomination. 

“I’m just simply not going to comment on the candidates,” he said when asked about supporting Trump, noting the Republican presidential primary has been playing out for the past six months and will last for another year. 

Asked about the indictment itself and whether Trump did anything wrong, McConnell replied: “I’m not going to start commenting on the various candidates we have running for president. There are a lot of them; it’s going to be interesting to watch.” 

McConnell’s caution reflects in part the fact many GOP senators and Senate Republican candidates remain ardent fans of the former president.  

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) missed an important vote Tuesday on Biden’s nominee to serve as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers; he was headed to Trump’s New Jersey golf club to attend a Trump rally.

Also on Tuesday, first-term Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) announced he would put a hold on Biden’s nominees to the Justice Department to protest the federal prosecution of Trump.  

“If Merrick Garland wants to use these officials to harass Joe Biden’s political opponents, we will grind his department to a halt,” Vance said in a statement. 

Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio)

Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) asks questions during a Senate Banking Committee hearing on Tuesday, May 16, 2023 to discuss the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank in March.

Vance’s hold will require Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to go through the time-consuming process of scheduling votes on individual nominees.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) told reporters Tuesday that the Justice Department’s indictment will have a “galvanizing effect” on Republican voters and predicted Trump, who has a big lead in national and key primary state polls, will be the party’s nominee.  

“I think voters see [the indictment] for what it is. It is politically motivated, clearly,” he said.

He noted that Trump has already faced two impeachment trials and multiple accusations over the years, including his recent indictment on 34 felony charges by the Manhattan district attorney and a jury’s decision to award author E. Jean Carroll $5 million in damages after finding the former president liable for sexual abuse and defamation.  

“There’s always a lot of a lot around President Trump,” he said.  

Sign up for the latest from The Hill here

He disagreed with Senate Republican colleagues who blame Trump for the failure to win back the majority last year.  

“If Senate Republicans want to blame somebody for that, we should go get a mirror,” he said.

A June 7-10 CBS/YouGov poll of 2,480 adults showed Trump leading his nearest rival, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, by 38 percentage points. The survey recontacted 1,798 respondents after the federal indictment was unsealed. 

The Senate GOP’s quiet but mighty Trump skeptics

Squint hard, and you might just see the outlines of an anti-Donald Trump coalition forming in the Senate GOP.

It started coming together well before the former president’s latest indictment, when seven Republican senators voted to convict after his second impeachment trial. Now as the party’s 2024 primary field is nearly set, Republican discomfort with Trump is coming more into focus.

Trump leads the field in Senate GOP endorsements, with 10 officially on board and potentially more on the way. But some Republican senators are quietly making moves: Four have endorsed non-Trump candidates, a couple more say they want a different nominee, several others grimace when asked about his electoral prospects and even some staunch defenders are staying formally neutral so far.

That includes Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.), a longtime Trump ally who — as of now — will only say that "I've endorsed his policies.”

“An official endorsement, I have not. I've been pretty clear I'd like to see someone articulate for the Republican Party what we're going to do policy-wise,” added Braun, who’s running for governor of his bright-red state. He said he wouldn’t endorse one of Trump's rivals and is waiting for the former president’s approach to “crystallize.”

In total, the number of senators who say they want someone other than Trump or who voted to bar him from office is equal to the number endorsing him. And while the primary won’t be won in the Senate GOP, Trump’s critics there represent a considerable swath of the party base, including donors, that want a different standard-bearer to take on President Joe Biden.

Take Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), who won his seat in 2016 with Trump on the ballot and then ran the Senate GOP’s campaign arm alongside Trump in 2020. He has exactly one criteria in mind for a GOP presidential endorsement: “Whoever can beat Trump.”

Inside the Senate, the former president has already lost the Dakotas. Both South Dakota senators, Minority Whip John Thune and Mike Rounds, are backing Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.). Thune’s the highest-ranking Republican lawmaker who has endorsed in the primary.

And the two North Dakota senators, Kevin Cramer and John Hoeven, are supporting Gov. Doug Burgum (R-N.D.). Hoeven didn’t explicitly connect that to worries about Trump’s electability, saying instead that Burgum is “a success at everything he does.”

“Our conference consists of smart people who realize that any nominee other than Trump is likely to win. And Trump is at best a 50/50 shot and most likely, less than 50/50. So, in their heart of hearts, they would love to see someone besides Trump be our nominee,” said Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), the only GOP senator who voted to convict Trump in both impeachment trials.

On the other hand, Romney acknowledged, Senate Republicans “also recognize he's overwhelmingly the favorite [in the primary]. And there's no upside in going out and saying that.”

Reflecting that attitude, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell declined to say Tuesday whether he would support Trump if he earned the Republican nomination, or whether Trump did anything wrong: "I simply am not going to start commenting on the various candidates we have for president."

The Kentuckian has not spoken to Trump since the 2021 Capitol riot. Former whip and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who's close to McConnell, says the GOP needs to “do better” than Trump in order to win a general election.

Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) chose her words carefully, saying she wants Scott’s forward-looking message to be “elevated” in the primary and that Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.), who has no Senate endorsements, “has hit upon issues people want addressed in this election cycle.”

Lummis doesn’t plan to endorse yet, but she’s attaching a warning label to Trump’s potential nomination.

“If Trump is our nominee, I’ll support him. But it’s so difficult to talk about him in the context of issues because he’s so wrapped up in legal proceedings,” she concluded, adding that her constituents don’t think much of the 37-count federal indictment.

Many Senate Republicans, even those not backing Trump, railed against the DOJ charging him with improperly retaining highly sensitive materials. But that’s not a unanimous view, and a significant number of GOP senators see Special Counsel Jack Smith's case as damaging.

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), the No. 5 GOP leader, said that post-indictment, Trump’s looking at general-election prospects that could differ from his pole position in the primary: “He seems to have hardened, at least early on, his support in the primary. I don’t know if it stays or not.”

“These are serious charges. And they need to be taken seriously by everybody. And as these things unfold, they tend to get bigger because there's additive information,” Capito said of the most recent indictment. Politically, she added, “I think it'll be difficult for him.”

Senate Republicans did not talk about the indictment at their party lunch on Tuesday, according to two people familiar with the discussion who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Just two of the GOP senators who objected to certifying President Joe Biden’s 2020 victory, Tommy Tuberville of Alabama and Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi, are officially backing Trump. The other Trump backers are mostly first-termers, save for Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), who chairs the conference's campaign arm this election cycle. Trump’s base of support on Capitol Hill remains the House, where he’s racked up endorsements and seen just a handful of defections.

Tuberville conceded Senate Republicans are divided on Trump 2024 and said “that’s fine” — for now.

“When all is said and done, if we're not all on the same page, we can't win. And you got people that dislike President Trump for this and that,” Tuberville said. “We all gotta forget the past experiences and go on."

Another Republican senator who objected to Biden’s certification, John Kennedy of Louisiana, said he’s not even talking about the primary for the moment: “I don’t have anything for you on that.” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a leader of those objection efforts, said simply: “I’m going to stay out of it.”

Yet no Republican senator who voted to convict Trump at his impeachment trials is offering an endorsement yet either, including Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). Romney said that at some point he “may endorse someone, but at this stage it would be the kiss of death.”

Describing his ideal candidate, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said simply: “One who can beat Biden.” And Trump, he added, cannot.

"He loses in four of the five swing states. His endorsed candidates all lost, and plausibly they lose because of his endorsement,” Cassidy said. “I’ve been trained as a physician to see things as they are, not as I wish them to be. And that seems to be as they are.

Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report.

Posted in Uncategorized