Republican senators are discouraging Donald Trump’s lawyers from raising discredited election fraud claims to defend the former president during the Senate’s upcoming trial, a day after Trump’s defense team advanced those arguments in its first official response to the House’s impeachment charge.

GOP senators warned Trump’s lawyers on Wednesday that re-litigating the false claims would backfire, urging them to instead focus squarely on the procedural objections that have already united Republicans.

“The point here is to avoid conviction. It’s not a great moment for trying to score political points,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), who has criticized the House’s case for convicting Trump. “And I don’t think litigating the election is a winning strategy. I think it’s got lower percentage of success than a Hail Mary in the Super Bowl.”

Last week, 45 out of 50 GOP senators voted in favor of a procedural motion arguing that it was unconstitutional for the Senate to hold an impeachment trial for a former president because that individual is already out of office. Cramer said Trump’s lawyers should treat that vote as a victory, noting that “you already have a winning score on the constitutional message.”

“I’d take the cue from what worked with the first vote in the Senate: it’s unconstitutional,” added Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.), who said the procedural arguments are the most potent defense and are already working, as Trump is on a glide path to an acquittal.

The overwhelming sentiment from Republican senators, who will serve as jurors in the trial when it begins next week, reflects their near-unity on the question of whether putting a former president on trial for impeachment charges is unconstitutional. It also allows them to avoid scrutinizing Trump’s conduct leading up to the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol, which the House’s impeachment article alleges he incited.

Trump’s lead defense attorney Bruce Castor said earlier Wednesday that he has not been pressured to reprise the unsubstantiated claim that the election was “stolen” from Trump, and insisted that his defense of the ex-president will focus strictly on the “technical” arguments. But just a day earlier, in his team’s first official response to the impeachment charge, they explicitly doubled down on the false allegations about widespread fraud in the 2020 election.

Appearing on KYW Newsradio Philadelphia, Castor maintained that the fraud claims will not be a part of his defense of Trump on the Senate floor and said the Senate has no jurisdiction over a private citizen because “it would be almost the equivalent of the president having died — they can’t remove him from office because he simply is unable to be removed because he’s not there.”

“There are plenty of questions about how the election was conducted throughout the country, but that’s for a different forum, and I don’t believe that’s important to litigate in the Senate trial because you don’t need it,” Castor said. “President Trump has plenty to win with what he has.”

Trump cut ties with his initial legal team over the weekend in part because they refused to advance the fraud claims, but Castor insisted he was not pressured to adopt that strategy ahead of the trial, which begins next Tuesday.

“I don’t know where people got that notion that was some sort of litmus test to get to defend the president, because as you saw from the document I filed, which had to be approved by the president personally, there isn’t anything in there about the election being stolen,” Castor said.

Indeed, Tuesday’s filing, written by Castor and his co-counsel David Schoen, does not argue that the election was “stolen” from Trump. But it does state that Trump “denies” the House managers’ assertion that it was false for the former president to say he won the election in a “landslide.”

The filing also maintains that Trump has a First Amendment right to express his opinion that the election results were inaccurate or disputed. The House impeachment managers argued in a separate filing Tuesday that Trump’s continued advancement of that false claim backs up their charge that he indicted the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol, which left five people dead.

Upon learning of those passages in Castor’s filing, Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said: “If they start trying to prove that Georgia and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were stolen, that’s when you’re going to lose everybody.”

At least one Senate Republican, though, disagrees. Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), who voted against certifying some Electoral College results on Jan. 6, said Trump’s lawyers should “throw the barn door at them.”

“How else are you going to defend yourself?” Tuberville asked, noting that the House managers’ case relies on Trump’s conduct in the months leading up to Jan. 6, not just the events of that day. “There’s no other way.”

While Republicans have coalesced around the idea that the trial itself is unconstitutional, Democrats unanimously oppose that view, and they’ve been joined by legal scholars from across the political spectrum. They note that the Constitution gives the Senate the “sole power to try all impeachments,” and that one of the potential punishments for conviction is barring that former president from holding federal office again. Moreover, they say, under Trump's standard an official subject to impeachment could simply resign before the trial begins in order to evade accountability.

Based on last week’s vote, it is highly unlikely that the Senate will reach the two-thirds threshold required to convict Trump on the House’s charge that he incited the Jan. 6 attack. If all 50 Democratic senators vote in favor of conviction, at least 17 Republicans would need to join them in order for Trump to face punishments including a ban on holding office in the future.

In his radio interview Wednesday, Castor outlined the procedural arguments against a conviction, after the House impeachment managers wrote on Tuesday that Trump bears “unmistakable” responsibility for the attack on the Capitol.

“Just because somebody gave a speech and people got excited, it doesn’t mean it’s the speechmaker’s fault — it’s the people who got excited and did what they know is wrong,” Castor said, referring to Trump’s remarks to the crowd the just hours before it stormed the Capitol.

Senate Republicans are coalescing around a long-shot bid to dismiss the impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump before it even begins, relying on a disputed legal argument that says putting an ex-president on trial is unconstitutional.

Interviews with more than a dozen GOP senators revealed broad support for the claim that the Senate has no constitutional authority to put a private citizen on trial, which could translate into a substantial number of votes to scrap the trial altogether. The issue came up several times during a Senate GOP conference call Thursday afternoon, according to multiple senators.

Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) said in an interview that concerns about the constitutionality of putting a former officeholder on trial were top of mind among GOP senators — even those who are open to voting to convict Trump on the House’s charge that he incited the insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6 that left five people dead.

“Our members, irrespective of what they might think about the merits, just believe that this is an exercise that really isn’t grounded constitutionally and, from a practical standpoint, just makes no sense,” Thune said.

But critics — including scholars from the conservative Federalist Society and other right-leaning organizations — maintain that the argument is on flimsy legal ground. Moreover, federal courts have consistently deferred to Congress’ “sole power” to set its own rules and procedures, including over impeachment proceedings.

Still, Republicans’ contention is shaping up to be a central theme of the ex-president’s defense strategy in the Senate’s upcoming trial, with several GOP senators publicly echoing it in recent days even as they signal increased hostility toward Trump over the attack on the Capitol.

“I think the key point is, is it constitutional to do this when somebody is out of office — and then, is it purely retribution when you try to push it forward,” Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) said. “[That’s] not to dismiss any of the enormity of the day itself.”

“I think it is one of the most potent arguments [for Trump], absolutely,” added Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a top Trump ally who has been pushing for a vote on dismissing the trial at its outset.

Indeed, the Senate has never put a former president on trial on impeachment charges, though in 1876 the Senate tried former Secretary of War William Belknap after he had already resigned. Supporters of the Senate’s authority to try an ex-official have pointed to the Belknap trial to underscore that a president or any other person subject to impeachment could simply resign or otherwise leave office to evade punishment.

“If an official could only be disqualified while he or she still held office, then an official who betrayed the public trust and was impeached could avoid accountability simply by resigning one minute before the Senate’s final conviction vote,” a bipartisan group of legal scholars, including prominent conservatives, wrote on Thursday.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) still need to iron out a framework, which will outline the rules and procedures of the trial. McConnell on Thursday also proposed delaying the start of the trial by two weeks to allow Trump to prepare his defense strategy, though it’s unclear if Schumer will agree.

The framework will spell out whether to allow for a motion to dismiss the trial at its outset — a vote that could signal the likelihood of the Senate convicting Trump. Seventeen Republicans would need to join all Democrats for Trump to be convicted. Some senators said they are considering supporting such a motion, if one is offered, as a way of voicing their objections to putting a former president on trial.

“I don’t think, once a person has left office, that impeachment is available. I think it’s a moot issue at that point,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said. “Constitutionally, it’s the wrong thing to do.”

In this case, as Republicans note, there is no office from which to remove Trump, though convicting him could lead to other punishments such as barring him from seeking federal office in the future.

“Let the voters decide whether they want President Trump to run again,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said. “There’s nothing I see in the Constitution that allows you to impeach a president after he’s already left office.”

Johnson said he would “definitely” vote to dismiss the trial, adding that the House’s impeachment article “shouldn’t even be sent over here.” Transmitting the article from the House to the Senate triggers the beginning of the trial.

But Democrats, who now control the Senate, are intent on holding a trial, even as Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not yet formally transmitted the impeachment article to the other side of the Capitol. Schumer declared as much after the House impeached Trump last week, though Democrats have not yet decided how long the trial should last, which will be dictated by whether they decide to call witnesses as part of the proceedings.

Top lawmakers from both parties, though, are predicting a relatively short trial. Trump’s first impeachment trial lasted three weeks, but that was only after a weeks-long impeachment inquiry in the House that yielded hundreds of pages of evidence and legal arguments. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the House’s lead impeachment manager, said Thursday that the upcoming trial will not last as long as the previous one.

That’s in part because, this time, the House did not conduct a formal investigation, and several senators have said calling witnesses is not necessary because lawmakers were all witnesses to the siege on the Capitol and because Trump’s actions and statements were on full public display.

“It’s not like we need much information on the merits of the case,” Braun said. “We were here.”

“I guess the public record is your television screen,” Graham quipped. “I don't see why this would take a long time.”

Apart from the constitutional arguments, Republicans are questioning why Democrats want to put Trump on trial while President Joe Biden is emphasizing unity and bipartisanship, noting that an impeachment trial is among the most divisive undertakings on Capitol Hill.

“I’m not sure why it helps the Dems either. I know there’s an awful lot of antipathy for the former president. But they’ve got a new lease on life,” Thune said. “They’ve got the White House, they’ve got the majority in the Senate. They’ve got a lot of stuff they want to do. They want to rehash the last four years, and it doesn’t seem like it makes a lot of sense.”

Republicans have been urging Biden to step in to halt or otherwise impede the Senate trial on the grounds that it will delay consideration of Biden’s Cabinet nominees as well as his legislative agenda, which includes another round of Covid-19 relief.

“It’ll be incredibly divisive for the country if we go through that,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said. “We’re in the middle of this massive pandemic. We’ve got all these nominations that we need to do. We’ve got all these threats around the world that we’ve got to be focused on. There’s a lot to be done. The notion that we’re going to spend a week or two weeks on a trial on somebody who’s not even in office — it sounds to me like a waste of time.”

Pelosi pushed back against that contention earlier Thursday, saying bluntly: “The president of the United States committed an act of incitement of insurrection. I don't think it's very unifying to say, 'Oh, let's just forget it and move on.' That's not how you unify.”

Burgess Everett contributed to this report.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday said President Donald Trump “provoked” the rioters who stormed the Capitol earlier this month as Congress was certifying the presidential election results, his strongest condemnation yet of the outgoing president’s actions that led to the violent insurrection targeting lawmakers.

McConnell’s remarks come as the Senate is awaiting formal transmission of the House’s impeachment article passed last week, which charged Trump with “willful incitement of insurrection.” The Kentucky Republican, who will soon become the minority leader when Democrats take control of the chamber later this week, has not yet said whether he would vote to convict the president in the Senate’s upcoming trial, which will begin after President-elect Joe Biden is inaugurated and immediately once Pelosi sends the article across the Capitol.

“The mob was fed lies,” McConnell said on the Senate floor on the last full day of Trump’s presidency. “They were provoked by the president and other powerful people. And they tried to use fear and violence to stop a specific proceeding of the first branch of the federal government which they did not like. But we pressed on.”

The House impeached Trump last week in a bipartisan vote, with 10 Republicans joining all Democrats. After the House vote, McConnell signaled to his fellow Republicans that he is open to conviction, even as some GOP senators have questioned whether the Constitution allows the Senate to put a former president on trial.

Several Republicans have similarly critiqued the president’s rhetoric, in particular his speech the morning of the Jan. 6 riots in which he repeated his false claims of voter fraud and continued to insist, without evidence, that the election was “stolen” from him. Even many of the House Republicans who opposed impeaching Trump said his posture was “reckless,” and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said the president bears responsibility for the attack on the Capitol.

McConnell has done little to help the president or defend him in the wake of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Last year, McConnell vigorously defended the president ahead of his first impeachment trial and declared that there was “no chance” that Trump would be removed from office. This time around, he is keeping an open mind, raising the possibility that the Senate could reach the two-thirds threshold required to convict the president and force a vote to bar him from holding federal office in the future.

Conviction in the Senate would require the support of all 50 Democrats plus at least 17 Republicans.

Even before the mob stormed the Capitol, McConnell was vigorously opposed to the Trump-backed efforts to object to the Electoral College certifications from a handful of swing states where Biden won. Ultimately, eight GOP senators and more than 130 House members objected to a slate of electors — even after the Capitol was violently desecrated. The objections went nowhere, though, and the House and Senate certified Biden’s victory.

“We stood together and said an angry mob would not get veto power over the rule of law in our nation, not even for one night,” McConnell added on Tuesday. “We certified the people’s choice for their 46th president.”

McConnell initially defended Trump’s right to challenge the election results in individual states, deferring to the president’s long-shot lawsuits. But those legal challenges eventually crumbled in court, prompting Republicans to acknowledge that Biden would indeed be sworn in on Jan. 20.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the incoming majority leader, insisted that despite Pelosi’s delay, the Senate will soon hold an impeachment trial. He said Trump should be barred from ever holding office again.

Schumer and other top Democrats have sought to focus the opening days of their Senate majority on staffing Biden’s Cabinet and passing additional Covid-19 relief measures alongside holding an impeachment trial, though that could prove to be difficult given the all-encompassing nature of the trial process.

GOP Sen. Josh Hawley announced on Tuesday that he plans to object to swift consideration of President-elect Joe Biden’s nominee to lead the Department of Homeland Security, a move that will delay the installment of Biden’s national-security team.

Hawley, who has come under heavy scrutiny for leading a push to object to the Electoral College certification of Biden’s victory, cited the incoming administration’s immigration policies. The Missouri senator argued that the nominee, Alejandro Mayorkas, “has not adequately explained how he will enforce federal law and secure the southern border given President-elect Biden’s promise to roll back major enforcement and security measures.”

Senate Democrats had been pushing for quick floor votes on Biden’s national-security nominees in light of the insurrection at the Capitol earlier this month. Mayorkas is still likely to be confirmed by the full Senate, but Hawley’s move effectively delays a floor vote.

Sean Savett, a spokesman for the Biden transition, said the nation “urgently needs” a Senate-confirmed DHS secretary on day one of Biden’s presidency given the extensive and complicated national-security challenges of late.

“Senator Hawley's threat to disrupt historical practice and try to leave this vital position vacant is dangerous, especially in this time of overlapping crises when there is not a moment to waste,” Savett added.

Appearing before the Senate Homeland Security Committee for his confirmation hearing Tuesday, Mayorkas vowed to do everything in his power to prevent attacks like the one that targeted the Capitol — an insurrection based on unsubstantiated claims that the 2020 presidential election was “stolen” from President Donald Trump.

Mayorkas addressed the recent insurrection head-on, less than two weeks after a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol in a series of riots that left five people dead and resulted in the president’s second impeachment. It was the dominant theme in the 2 1/2 hour hearing that also touched on immigration policies and corruption allegations.

“If I should have the honor of being confirmed, I will do everything I can to ensure that the tragic loss of life, the assault on law enforcement, the desecration of the building that stands as one of the three pillars of our democracy, and the terror felt by you, your colleagues, staff, and everyone present, will not happen again,” Mayorkas, 61, told senators.

Mayorkas’ confirmation hearing comes as Washington is locking down ahead of Biden’s inauguration on Wednesday, with fences blocking off large swaths of the city and 25,000 National Guard troops patrolling the streets.

Senate Democrats had been pushing to confirm Mayorkas to lead DHS as soon as this week, noting that the recent national security challenges in the nation’s capital demand steady leadership atop a department that has seen unprecedented turnover at the leadership level during Trump’s administration.

Democrats, who are set to step into the Senate majority later this week, will soon have the power to set the Senate’s schedule, but any one senator can object to swift consideration of a nominee, which allowed Hawley to pump the brakes on the entire process.

While Mayorkas will likely have enough votes to secure confirmation on the Senate floor, he was pressed during the hearing Tuesday about a 2015 inspector general report charging that he displayed “an appearance of favoritism and special access” for certain visa recipients. The report alleged serious abuses with the EB-5 visa process in particular, accusing Mayorkas of giving preferential treatment to political allies.

While Republicans were not adversarial with Mayorkas, they focused intently on the IG report. Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, the top Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, said the report was “concerning” and detailed the claims in his opening statement. Portman added that he recently spoke with John Roth, the DHS inspector general at the time, who told him that he stands by the 2015 report.

“There is a troubling inspector general [report] with regard to his previous job,” Portman told reporters after the hearing, though he acknowledged that Mayorkas has “a lot of experience” in the national security field.

Mayorkas has pushed back against the favoritism allegations, which first surfaced in a 2012 whistleblower complaint, calling them false and unfounded. A Biden transition official said Mayorkas inherited a “badly broken” visa system and “took a series of steps to proactively reform the EB-5 program and strengthen the quality and integrity of the process.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) suggested he might even delay quick confirmation of Mayorkas over the controversy, with which he has been intensely involved since the initial whistleblower complaint was filed. Democrats are hoping to confirm Mayorkas as soon as Wednesday, hailing Mayorkas as an experienced and steady leader of a department that has been under siege.

Biden will enter office with zero Cabinet confirmations, which is highly unusual for an incoming president. The Senate usually processes high-level national-security nominations in early January as a show of deference toward the new president.

Mayorkas’ hearing came on the final full day of Trump’s presidency, when the outgoing commander-in-chief has been avoiding the spotlight and hunkering down in the White House ahead of his departure on Wednesday morning. Trump was barely mentioned during the hearing, but GOP senators pressed Mayorkas on preserving at least some of Trump’s DHS policies, particularly with regard to immigration.

Mayorkas acknowledged the “horrifying” nature of the Jan. 6 attack and noted that there remains much to be learned about the full extent of the violent attack. He drew on his experience as an immigrant fleeing a communist country as he seeks to lead a department of more than a quarter-million employees.

Mayorkas, who was born in Cuba and grew up in Miami and Los Angeles, has an extensive resumé of government service. He served as U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California from 1998 to 2001, and led U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for the first four years of Barack Obama’s administration. He later served as deputy Homeland security secretary from 2013 to 2016.

“The love for this country that I learned from my parents made the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol all the more horrifying,” Mayorkas told senators.

In addition to Mayorkas, Biden’s nominees to lead the Treasury Department, State Department, Pentagon, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence also appeared for confirmation hearings on Tuesday as Biden pushes for swift approval of his picks, specifically those involving U.S. national security. That could prove to be difficult for Biden, though, as the Senate is set to soon put Trump on trial again after the House impeached him last week for inciting the riots at the Capitol.

Biden’s administration is expected to depart significantly from the Trump administration’s DHS policies, most notably on immigration and border security. Biden has vowed to hold accountable the officials responsible for the so-called “zero tolerance” policy at the southern border, which resulted in migrant children being separated from their parents and housed in cages. The policy was pushed by Trump and his first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, in particular.

Biden is expected to unveil a sweeping new immigration plan when he takes office, and he has pledged more broadly to rollback the Trump administration’s hardline immigration policies. Last week, a new wave of migrants began a trip toward the U.S. southern border from Central America, heightening security concerns.

As director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Mayorkas was critical in implementing the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which provides a legal shield to undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. by their parents. Trump has repeatedly sought to scrap the program, and Biden is seeking to codify it into law.

Biden is also aiming for stability with his Cabinet after four years of firings and resignations that led to several departments and agencies not having a Senate-confirmed leader. The Department of Homeland Security, for example, had six secretaries throughout Trump’s four years, and only two of them were confirmed by the Senate.

Democrats stepping into the Senate majority this month are weighing stiff penalties for Republican Sens. Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz over their objections to the 2020 presidential election results.

Hawley (R-Mo.) and Cruz (R-Texas) spearheaded objections to Pennsylvania’s Electoral College votes even after a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol demanding that the election be overturned, prompting Democrats to accuse them of inciting violence for political gain — claims the senators have vigorously denied.

The House impeached President Donald Trump earlier this week for inciting the deadly insurrection at the Capitol, and Democrats argue that Hawley and Cruz should face similar consequences. Some have called on them to resign or be expelled from the Senate altogether, which is unlikely to happen; but others are coalescing around an official rebuke in the form of a censure.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) this week joined the growing calls for Hawley and Cruz to be censured, but said the penalties under consideration should also extend to the six other GOP senators who joined them in objecting to the election results, including Sens. Rick Scott of Florida and Tommy Tuberville of Alabama. Even though the others were less vocal about their objections, Murphy said they were all “legitimizing this view amongst the crowd [of rioters] that Congress had the power to overturn the election.”

“If it really was only the two of them, maybe the unreasonable expectation that all these rioters had would have been dampened,” Murphy said, adding: “So I also don’t love the idea that all of the shame is being targeted to just those two senators. I think everybody who signed onto that letter deserves blame as well.”

Some Democrats have gone even further. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said the pair should resign and that if they don’t, the Senate should expel them from the chamber, adding that they “have betrayed their oaths of office and abetted a violent insurrection on our democracy.” Even Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, a centrist Democrat who works closely with Republicans, called on Hawley and Cruz to step down.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) was even more direct, accusing them of trying to “foment a violent mob for personal gain.”

The push for consequences comes as the Senate is about to kick off Trump’s second impeachment trial and begin processing President-elect Joe Biden’s Cabinet nominees as well as his Covid-19 relief plan.

A spokesman for incoming Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) declined to comment on what Democrats might pursue as punishment for the two GOP senators once they take control of the chamber later this month, though several options remain on the table.

Amid the backlash, Hawley and Cruz are doubling down on their objections and their rhetoric leading up to the violent riots at the Capitol, which resulted in the deaths of five people including a police officer.

Cruz told POLITICO last week that he was simply seeking a debate on the Senate floor, and that “what I was doing was the exact opposite of inciting violence.” Hawley penned an op-ed this week stating that he maintained his objections even after the riots at the Capitol because “I will not bow to a lawless mob, or allow criminals to drown out the legitimate concerns of my constituents.”

Still, their fellow Republicans viewed the senators’ election objections as more of a bid to cater to the GOP base with Trump on his way out, and position themselves for presidential runs in 2024. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) opposed their efforts and had tried to persuade members of the GOP Conference to vote to certify the election results, in part to avoid putting senators facing re-election in 2022 in a difficult spot.

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) said the group of senators who objected “will forever be seen as being complicit in an unprecedented attack on our democracy,” while Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) described Hawley’s conduct as “really dumbass.”

But most Republicans aren’t likely to back a formal condemnation on the Senate floor.

“I think it’d be a partisan exercise,” said a GOP senator who was granted anonymity to candidly assess the situation. “They appear to be getting de facto censured out in the public.”

Even if Democrats opt against a formal penalty, they could still charge the Senate Ethics Committee with investigating Hawley and Cruz. Additionally, several Democratic senators have already said they don’t intend to work with the pair again on legislation. Hawley, for example, has partnered with Democrats on his push for stimulus checks.

“I won’t work with those Republicans,” Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) said bluntly. “However, it’s important to remember that there are many, many a majority in the Senate of Republicans who I work with on a daily basis, and I will continue to do that.”

And independent of congressional action, both senators have already faced significant blowback. Simon & Schuster canceled publication of Hawley’s forthcoming book, and Cruz’s communications director resigned.

Moreover, former aides to Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), whom Hawley defeated in 2018, launched a super PAC aimed at blocking Hawley’s ambitions for higher office or for re-election to his Senate seat. And former Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.), Hawley’s mentor, renounced his support and said his effort to help groom Hawley for public office “was the biggest mistake I’ve ever made in my life.”

Burgess Everett and Marianne LeVine contributed to this report.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski lashed President Donald Trump on Thursday for inciting violence at the Capitol last week and praised the House for impeaching him — but the Alaska Republican will not yet reveal whether she plans to vote to convict Trump in the Senate’s upcoming trial.

Murkowski, who last week said Trump should resign in the aftermath of the deadly insurrection at the Capitol, is among a group of GOP senators that appears likely to vote in favor of conviction when the Senate puts Trump on trial beginning next week.

In a statement, she noted that Wednesday’s House vote impeaching the president drew bipartisan support and had the highest number of votes for any impeachment of a president. Ten House GOP members voted in favor of impeaching Trump, including Rep. Liz Cheney, the No. 3 House Republican. Murkowski slammed Trump for his “false rhetoric” asserting that the election was “rigged” against him, as well as for his attempt to pressure state elections officials into overturning President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.

“On the day of the riots, President Trump’s words incited violence, which led to the injury and deaths of Americans — including a Capitol Police officer — the desecration of the Capitol, and briefly interfered with the government’s ability to ensure a peaceful transfer of power,” Murkowski said. “Such unlawful actions cannot go without consequence and the House has responded swiftly, and I believe, appropriately, with impeachment.”

Murkowski’s statement represents the strongest denunciation of Trump since the House voted 232 to 197 on Wednesday evening to impeach the president for “incitement of insurrection.” But she emphasized that she will not announce her vote on whether to convict Trump until after the House impeachment managers and the president’s lawyers present their arguments.

Last week, Murkowski told the Anchorage Daily News that Trump should resign and said that “if the Republican Party has become nothing more than the party of Trump, I sincerely question whether this is the party for me.”

The Senate is set to begin the impeachment trial next week once the Senate returns to Washington, though the current timeline overlaps with Biden’s inauguration, which is slated for Wednesday.

A top Republican congressional aide is resigning over his party’s support for President Donald Trump’s bid to overturn the 2020 election after it fueled deadly riots at the Capitol.

In a scathing resignation letter obtained by POLITICO, Jason Schmid, a longtime senior House Armed Services Committee staffer, slammed the GOP members of the panel who objected to President-elect Joe Biden’s Electoral College win, particularly after a mob incited by Trump stormed the Capitol last Wednesday and left five people dead.

“Anyone who watched those horrible hours unfold should have been galvanized to rebuke these insurrectionists in the strongest terms,” Schmid wrote in a letter addressed to the committee’s top Republican. “Instead, some members whom I believed to be leaders in the defense of the nation chose to put political theater ahead of the defense of the Constitution and the republic.”

That included 13 members of the Armed Services Committee, where Schmid has worked for four and a half years as a top policy staffer. The panel’s incoming top Republican, Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, was also among that group.

Ultimately, 138 House Republicans — more than half the GOP Conference — voted against certifying Biden’s Electoral College votes from Arizona, Pennsylvania or both states based on unsubstantiated claims of widespread voter fraud that were parroted for months by Trump and his allies.

In his letter, Schmid said the GOP lawmakers “harmed the ability of every service member, intelligence officer, and diplomat to defend the nation and advance American interests.” He said they “disregarded” American democratic ideals “for cynical political purposes.”

“Regardless of the motivations behind the vote, these members bear the consequences that the men and women in harm’s way will face for many years to come,” Schmid wrote. “I cannot imagine any series of events more damaging to the already fragile US led post-World War II order that has brought more peace and prosperity to the world than at any other time in history.”

He added: “Congressional enablers of this mob have made future foreign conflict more likely, not less.”

His resignation also comes as the House is on track to impeach Trump this week for inciting the insurrection at the Capitol. Several Republicans are considering signing onto the impeachment effort, and Trump’s support on Capitol Hill has taken a major hit in recent days as more GOP lawmakers have called for him to step down and others have slammed his conduct as reckless.

Trump has falsely claimed that the presidential election was “stolen” from him, a contention that inspired his supporters to violently storm into the Capitol building last week while Congress was certifying Biden’s Electoral College votes. Ahead of the riots, Trump addressed the crowd in front of the White House and urged them to “fight like hell.”

Before working on Capitol Hill, Schmid did two tours of duty in Iraq as an Army intelligence analyst. He was wounded there while embedded with an Iraqi infantry battalion.

He later worked as chief of congressional affairs for the Defense Department’s Special Programs Office. As an Armed Services Committee staffer, he has advised lawmakers on some of the Pentagon’s most sensitive capabilities and operations.

Schmid expressed particular outrage over the fact that the insurrection at the Capitol included members of the military, and he urged the committee to ensure that the Pentagon pursues those individuals.

“These extremist influences are a grave threat to our ability to defend the nation, and they must be expelled from the force immediately,” Schmid wrote. “I deeply regret some members may no longer have the credibility needed to accomplish this work.”

Top administration officials, including three Cabinet secretaries, have stepped down in the days following the riots at the Capitol, saying Trump’s instigation of the mob was a turning point for them.

Even though most House Republicans supported Trump’s bid to overturn the election results, only eight GOP senators objected last week. That number was set to be higher before the riots at the Capitol, but a few Republicans pulled back.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell delivered an impassioned plea against the Trump-inspired objections to Biden’s victory, warning that Congress would “hasten down a poisonous path where only the winners of an election actually accept the results.”

“If this election were overturned by mere allegations from the losing side, our democracy would enter a death spiral,” McConnell said.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death on Friday kicked off what is sure to be the most consequential Supreme Court confirmation fight in decades — and puts a spotlight on the handful of senators whose votes will determine the future of the court.

The universe of potential swing votes in the Senate is surprisingly small considering how high the stakes are. The following senators will be under enormous pressure — from Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and President Donald Trump — to either fall in line, or break from their party in the most dramatic fashion.

McConnell’s decision to hold a vote on Ginsburg's replacement forces him to balance his long-standing desire to cement a conservative legacy in the federal judiciary, while also retaining his power as majority leader.

That there are so few potentially in play lawmakers reflects the hyperpartisan nature of the political landscape in 2020. With less than 45 days left until the election, both sides have largely retreated to their respective sides.

In the coming days, these senators will be forced to answer several important questions. Would you vote to confirm a Supreme Court nominee before the election? If a confirmation vote is held in the lame-duck period, would your decision hinge on whether the presidency and the Senate flip?

With 53 Republicans in the Senate, McConnell can afford to lose only three votes. Vice President Mike Pence could break a 50-50 tie if needed. Here’s who to watch:

The true swing votes

During Trump’s impeachment trial, these GOP senators — Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah — were among those deciding whether the trial would feature testimony from witnesses, as Democrats had been pushing.

This time around, the “Three Amigos” are equally as important, and they each find themselves with a slew of factors to consider.

In a statement on Saturday, Collins said the winner of the Nov. 3 presidential election should choose Ginsburg’s replacement, adding that she “would have no objection” to the Senate Judiciary Committee beginning to review the credentials of Trump’s eventual nominee.

“Given the proximity of the presidential election, however, I do not believe that the Senate should vote on the nominee prior to the election,” Collins said.

Collins was a key vote in confirming Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, and she faced a torrent of angry Democrats back in Maine for her decision to back Trump’s nominee. She’s already locked in a tight reelection battle with her Democratic challenger, Maine House Speaker Sara Gideon, in what is shaping up to be one of the more expensive races this cycle.

Collins has long championed her moderate credentials; she supports abortion rights, for example, and has also voted in favor of Supreme Court nominees chosen by presidents of both parties. But the stakes are perhaps the highest they have been for the future of abortion rights in the United States.

She’s also facing pressure from fellow Republicans. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, a hard-line conservative who himself is on Trump’s short list for the Supreme Court, issued a direct plea to Republican senators like Collins, tweeting on Saturday: “Two months ago, I pledged to vote only for #SCOTUS nominees who understand and acknowledge that Roe was wrongly decided. I stand by that commitment, and I call on my fellow Republican senators to take the same stand.”

Murkowski, too, supports abortion rights and is a true centrist within the GOP Conference; she was the only Republican to oppose Kavanaugh's nomination. And on Sunday, she announced she would oppose moving forward with Trump's next nominee. “For weeks, I have stated that I would not support taking up a potential Supreme Court vacancy this close to the election,” the Alaska Republican said in a statement. “Sadly, what was then a hypothetical is now our reality, but my position has not changed.”

And then there’s Romney. The 2012 GOP presidential nominee joined Collins as the only Republicans to vote in favor of calling witnesses in Trump’s impeachment trial — and he was the only GOP senator to vote to convict the president.

His spokesperson pushed back against a rumor Friday that the senator would oppose seating a new Supreme Court justice before the inauguration in January. Romney’s statement on Ginsburg’s passing did not hint at his thinking on the possible confirmation fight.

Cory Gardner

The Colorado Republican gets his own section because, as a moderate who faces an increasingly difficult reelection fight in a blue state, the upcoming skirmish could make or break him.

His fellow vulnerable Republicans — including Martha McSally of Arizona and Thom Tillis of North Carolina — have already said they plan to support McConnell’s efforts to put a Trump nominee on the Senate floor as soon as possible. For Gardner, the political calculation is much more difficult. But on Monday, he became the latest Republican to come out in favor of holding a vote.

“I have and will continue to support judicial nominees who will protect our Constitution, not legislate from the bench, and uphold the law. Should a qualified nominee who meets this criteria be put forward, I will vote to confirm,” he said.

The institutionalists

You’ve heard this word thrown around before, especially during the impeachment trial and other Trump-fueled controversies that have tested the Senate. But this time, there are two we’re keeping a close eye on: Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Pat Roberts (R-Kan.).

Alexander, who has been serving in the Senate since 2003, and Roberts, who entered the upper chamber in 1997, are both retiring and have less than a few months left in office. They’re viewed as pragmatic institutionalists, who might worry about long-term fallout to the Senate. And the timing of the Supreme Court vacancy means they won’t have to worry about a bombastic tweet from the president hurting their political future.

Both men initially offered tributes and condolences for Ginsburg’s loss, but didn't comment on how they viewed the upcoming battle. However, on Sept. 20, Alexander issued a statement saying he thought a vote should take place.

There is another group of senators McConnell will stay in close touch with during this process to see how they feel, although they're very unlikely to publicly oppose Trump or the majority leader. Instead, McConnell will consult them privately about the mood inside the GOP Conference — some are already part of the GOP leadership team — and the chances for success for any Trump nominee.

This group includes Sens. Roy Blunt of Missouri, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Rob Portman of Ohio, Marco Rubio of Florida and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

All of these Republicans have good relationships with McConnell and are loyal to the party, but they also care about the Senate as an institution. McConnell will not be able to move forward without their support, and some are already giving him backup, including Blunt and Portman.

John Bresnahan contributed to this report.

Lindsey Graham once said he had no interest in hearing from Robert Mueller.

Now, 100 days out from Election Day, the South Carolina Republican and Senate Judiciary Committee chairman is teasing a blockbuster hearing with the former special counsel, joining Democrats’ monthslong push for Mueller to appear before the panel.

But hauling Mueller back to the Capitol won’t be easy. And some doubt it will even happen so close to the election, in part because of the political land mines such an event would create for both Republicans and Democrats.

“I’ll believe it when I see it,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a Judiciary Committee member, said in a brief interview. “I have seen nothing since that leads me to think [Graham] is actually going to call Mueller.”

Despite the public bipartisan agreement, there are real obstacles and risks to securing Mueller’s testimony. For Republicans, a strong defense by Mueller could shed unwelcome light on President Donald Trump’s previous statements and conduct in the final stretch of the election. For Democrats, another halting performance by the ex-FBI chief could give Trump and his allies more ammunition for their attacks on the investigations that have dogged Trump and his associates for years.

Then, there’s the logistical hurdles.

House Democrats faced an uphill battle to pressure a reluctant Mueller to testify last year; it took weeks of talks, and eventually a subpoena, for Mueller to appear before the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees — an appearance Graham later called “not pretty.”

Negotiating with Mueller a second time won’t be any easier, and Graham said his staff isn’t yet in contact with Mueller or his team.

Graham is spearheading a comprehensive review of the origins of the Russia investigation, which ensnared President Donald Trump and his allies for years. And he’s eyeing testimony from former FBI bigwigs in the coming months, including former FBI Director James Comey and the ex-FBI deputy director, Andrew McCabe, even before hearing from Mueller.

That puts a potential Mueller hearing just weeks before Americans head to the polls. Democrats view Graham's posture as simply an effort to discredit Mueller's investigation and, in the process, boost a key theme of Trump's reelection campaign as close to the November election as possible. Graham has maintained that his investigation has nothing to do with the election.

“He’ll be invited,” Graham reiterated last week. “[But] that’ll come at the end. I’m just working through the nuts and bolts.”

A spokesman for Mueller and former deputy special counsel Aaron Zebley, declined to comment on possible testimony before the panel.

With Graham’s investigation, Democrats also see an election-year plot by Republican senators to run cover for Trump, who has sought to hit back against those who spearheaded the various investigations that targeted him and his associates. To this day, Trump continues to remind Americans of the probes that he believes unfairly targeted him — an effort that invigorates his loyal base of supporters.

At the same time, Democrats still welcome Mueller’s appearance before the committee and dismiss the notion that it would be politically risky for them, leaning on Mueller to push back on Republicans’ characterizations of his investigation as unfounded and to defend what they believe was a properly predicated inquiry.

“They’ll hear more of the truth. It’s the old Harry Truman story — someone from the crowd called out, ‘Give ‘em hell, Harry.’ And he said, ‘I’m just going to tell them the truth and they’ll think it’s hell,’” Blumenthal quipped.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), another member of the panel, talked up Mueller as a skilled professional who is “more than capable” of defending his probe, which yielded 34 criminal indictments.

“I would think for people who are trafficking in these conspiracy theories and these unfounded allegations about Mueller, the risk is that he’ll be forceful and clear, and demonstrate that it was a well-predicated investigation,” Coons said in a brief interview.

In justifying their investigation into the origins of the Russia probe, Republicans point to several pieces of recently declassified information that calls into question the genesis of the investigation into potential ties between Trump associates and the Kremlin. That includes a Justice Department inspector general report that documented serious errors and abuses as part of the warrant application process for a former Trump campaign adviser.

Earlier this month, Graham released documents suggesting that senior FBI officials were initially skeptical of the emerging narrative early in Trump’s presidency that his campaign was in contact with Russian intelligence officers. Republicans assert that the risks of hearing from Mueller instead lie with Democrats, whom they say will be forced to defend an investigation riddled with biases and corruption.

“I want to know how, [did] this become a fishing expedition — and we got plenty of evidence that it should have never started in the first place,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the former Judiciary Committee chairman.

“Now, that’s probably not his fault. He didn’t make the decision to set up his job,” Grassley added of Mueller. “But it’s just kind of irritating that the president has gone through two years of Russia-gate, $30 million, and then you’ve got impeachment and I don’t know how many other things that ever since before he was elected president, they were going to get him out of office.”

Indeed, Republicans concede that their concerns about the Russia investigation have less to do with Mueller himself and focus more on the Justice Department officials who spearheaded the counterintelligence investigation that eventually spun off into the Mueller probe, after then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel.

Republicans have focused more of their ire on the Obama administration, specifically the senior FBI agents who opened and continued pursuing an investigation that Trump has said was a “hoax” and a “witch hunt,” even as more evidence began to emerge that Russia was interfering in the 2016 campaign to boost Trump’s prospects against Hillary Clinton.

“More and more disturbing evidence has come up about the politicization and corruption of the Obama FBI and Department of Justice, and I think it’s important for Mr. Mueller to describe what they knew and when they knew it,” said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a one-time Trump foe who has used his perch on the Judiciary Committee to hammer the Obama administration for its handling of the Russia probe.

Graham announced earlier this month that he would grant Democrats’ request for Mueller to appear before the committee, citing Mueller’s July 11 Washington Post op-ed in which he strongly defended his nearly two-year investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

In the op-ed, Mueller also defended his office’s prosecution of Roger Stone, the longtime Trump confidant whose prison sentence the president had commuted just a day earlier. Stone was convicted on seven counts including obstruction, witness tampering and making false statements.

“Bottom line is, I had no intention of calling Mr. Mueller. He testified before the House. It was not pretty to watch. But at the end of the day, Trey, he decided to interject himself into the Roger Stone case,” Graham said recently on a Fox News podcast with former Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.).

Democrats had said they were eager for Mueller to appear before the committee to allow him to more thoroughly justify his investigation, which has drawn consistent attacks from Trump and his allies, particularly as the committee continues to release new information about the probe’s origins.

Asked about the timing of Mueller’s possible appearance before the Senate, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), a Judiciary Committee member, said her party’s initial calls for Mueller to testify came months ago, noting that Democrats have since sought testimony from other central figures in the Russia investigation like Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and his former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort — only to be shut down by the committee’s Republican majority.

“That pretty much gives you an idea of where Lindsey is coming from with regard to getting to the truth of anything,” Hirono added.

Democrats insist they’re not afraid of what could come out of a Mueller hearing, even if it happens so close to the election. They said Americans would see through what they perceive to be a partisan stunt.

“Everything that Lindsey has been doing lately is really, in my view, for political purposes,” Hirono said. “And he’s very much in step with the president, who does nothing without a political motive behind it, which has to do with protecting — as we say in Hawaii — his okole.”

Sens. Mitt Romney and Pat Toomey condemned President Donald Trump’s decision to commute the prison sentence of his longtime confidant Roger Stone — the first elected Republicans to denounce the president’s Friday night move.

“Unprecedented, historic corruption: an American president commutes the sentence of a person convicted by a jury of lying to shield that very president,” Romney (R-Utah) wrote on Twitter Saturday.

GOP lawmakers have been mostly silent about the commutation, which came just after a federal appeals court panel rejected Stone’s last-ditch bid to delay the start of his 40-month prison sentence set to begin next week. Stone was convicted on seven felony charges brought by special counsel Robert Mueller, including obstruction, witness tampering, and making false statements.

In a statement, Toomey (R-Pa.) noted that the president “clearly has the legal and constitutional authority to grant clemency for federal crimes,” but said commuting Stone’s sentence was a “mistake” due in part to the severity of the charges against him.

“While I understand the frustration with the badly flawed Russia-collusion investigation, in my view, commuting Roger Stone’s sentence is a mistake,” Toomey said. “He was duly convicted of lying to Congress, witness tampering, and obstruction a congressional investigation conducted by a Republican-led committee.”

Toomey also noted that Attorney General William Barr earlier this week called the prosecution of Stone “righteous” and said his prison sentence of three years and four months was “fair.”

Romney was the lone Republican to vote to convict Trump in his impeachment trial in the Senate, and has openly criticized Trump in ways that his fellow Republicans have avoided. Toomey has occasionally broken with the president, in particular over trade policies.

Barr previously intervened in the Stone case to urge a more lenient sentence for Stone after prosecutors initially asked for seven to nine years behind bars. At the time, Barr expressed rare frustration with Trump, saying that the president’s public comments on Justice Department cases, including Stone’s, was making his job more difficult.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was supportive of the sentence commutation in part because “this was a non-violent, first-time offense” for Stone.

Similarly, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, in announcing the commutation on Friday, said Stone was “a victim of the Russia Hoax that the Left and its allies in the media perpetuated for years.” McEnany also dismissed the charges against Stone as “process-based” and said they “were the product of recklessness borne of frustration and malice.”

Shortly after Romney and Toomey commented, Mueller himself spoke out in rare form, writing a Washington Post op-ed in which he defended his investigation from Trump’s frequent attacks and said Stone “remains a convicted felon, and rightly so,” despite Trump’s move.

“I feel compelled to respond both to broad claims that our investigation was illegitimate and our motives were improper, and to specific claims that Roger Stone was a victim of our office,” Mueller wrote, calling Stone a “central figure” in the investigation.

“When a subject lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s efforts to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable,” Mueller said of Stone making false statements to Congress. “It may ultimately impede those efforts.”