House impeachment managers sent a letter to Donald Trump strongly suggesting the former president testify at the Senate impeachment trial.
The trial, slated to begin on Tuesday of next week, involves a charge from the House that Trump incited a mob of supporters who stormed the Capitol on January 6th.
A formal response from Trump’s lawyers “denied” that he “ever engaged in a violation of his oath of office,” and instead he, “at all times acted to the best of his ability to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Lead impeachment manager Jamie Raskin (D-MD) essentially defied Trump to prove his innocence in his own words.
“In light of your disputing these factual allegations, I write to invite you to provide testimony under oath, either before or during the Senate impeachment trial, concerning your conduct on January 6, 2021,” Raskin wrote.
The Democrat then argued that not testifying would be used against him.
“If you decline this invitation, we reserve any and all rights, including the right to establish at trial that your refusal to testify supports a strong adverse inference regarding your actions (and inaction) on January 6, 2021,” added Raskin.
5) Impeachment mgrs: “If you decline this invitation, we reserve any and all rights, including the right to establish at trial that your refusal to testify supports a strong adverse inference regarding your actions (and inaction) on January 6, 2021.”
Lindsey Graham – Not Likely Trump Will Testify at Impeachment Trial
Forbes reporter Andrew Solender tweeted a response from Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) in which he dismissed Raskin’s demand as little more than a “political ploy.”
“I don’t think that would be in anybody’s interest,” Graham said according to Solender, adding that it would be a “nightmare for the country.”
“This is just a political showboat move. They didn’t call him in the House,” Graham pointed out.
Raskin’s letter attempts to argue that there is precedent for Presidents testifying at their impeachment trial.
“Presidents Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton both provided testimony while in office—and the Supreme Court held just last year that you were not immune from legal process while serving as President—so there is no doubt that you can testify in these proceedings,” he said.
Raskin is seemingly unaware that Trump is no longer the President.
Solender reports that Graham spoke to the former President a couple of days ago and he’s in “pretty good spirits, trying to get adjusted to his new life.”
Lindsey Graham says Dems asking Trump to testify is a “political ploy,” per Hill pool. “I don’t think that would be in anybody’s interest,” he says, calling it a “nightmare for the country” and predicting Trump won’t do it.
Raskin’s letter is rich, not only with political ploys but with irony. Tremendously thick irony, at that.
The Maryland Democrat is “guilty” of the very same thing he is tasked with proving is a high crime and misdemeanor in Trump’s impeachment trial.
Raskin objected to the certification of Florida’s electoral votes in 2017. In fact, House Democrats tried objecting to the certification of electoral votes for Donald Trump that year on 11 separate occasions.
Lead impeachment manager Jamie Raskin objected to Florida’s electoral votes in 2017. pic.twitter.com/FsLvJLvA8v
One could argue, using the Democrat party’s own standard today, that the constant insistence that Trump didn’t really win the election in 2016 led to an incitement of violence on inauguration day.
House managers do not have independent authority to subpoena Trump so they must invite him to make his case.
The Senate, according to the New York Post, could subpoena him with a simple majority.
Wednesday was coward night for the House GOP Conference. Republicans met for five hours to vote on whether to strip Rep. Liz Cheney of her leadership position and to talk over whether to take action against Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. A secret vote gave Cheney a big win, with 145 Republicans voting to keep her as their conference chair, and just 61 voting against. In other words, many of the Republicans who not only voted against impeachment but voted to overturn election results in the hours after the attack on the Capitol also voted to keep Cheney in leadership. That gives some credence to claims that there were Republicans who were motivated solely by fear to give Donald Trump the votes he demanded on those. Cowards.
The next coward was Marjorie Taylor Greene herself. After days of hardcore Twitter posturing about how “I won’t back down. I’ll never apologize,” she … backed down and apologized. That was the right thing to do all along, but doing it in private to keep her colleagues from taking action against her while saying the opposite in public to keep the base riled up and the campaign contributions flowing? Dishonest coward. Not that we’d expect better of someone with her abysmal morals.
Greene expressed “contrition for some of her most outrageous comments made on social media—including questioning the 9/11 attacks, blaming a space ray directed by a Jewish cabal for a deadly wildfire and doubting school shootings,” The Washington Post reports. “She also, according to Republicans in the room, apologized for putting her colleagues in a difficult spot.”
The next coward is House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who orchestrated the whole thing, and who defended Greene’s position on the education committee despite her claims that school shootings are hoaxes and her harassment of a survivor of the Parkland shooting. McCarthy is approaching peak wanting to have it both ways, saying he disapproves of Greene’s comments, hailing her for apologizing in secret, and most of all being angry that Democrats would dare take action where he won’t—Democrats have a vote planned to strip Greene of committee assignments.
McCarthy also came out of that long GOP meeting and lied to reporters, saying “I think it would be helpful if you could hear exactly what she told all of us. Denouncing Q-on, I don't know if I say it right, I don't even know what it is—any from the shootings, she said she knew nothing about lasers, all of the different things that have been brought up about her.” McCarthy knew how to say QAnon, and what it was, perfectly well last summer when he denounced Greene—then not yet part of his caucus—for her promotion of it. And going with Greene’s denial that she said the things she said? Uber-coward.
McCarthy’s big pitch to Republicans to support Cheney but also Greene was that “We need to unite for us to take the majority and govern.” It’s the Republican version of a big tent: You can promote insurrection or oppose insurrection, as long as you’ll vote to slash government spending, cut taxes for the wealthy, and support punitive policies toward marginalized communities.
The full House will vote on Greene’s committee assignments on Thursday. It is an unprecedented step. But so is having a member saying the kinds of things she’s said while having helped to incite an insurrection that left five dead at the U.S. Capitol, and their party refusing to take action of its own against them.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the sponsor of the resolution, said earlier in the week, “I am in the process of talking to Republicans, and although I don't have a lot of hope that I will attract Republican co-sponsors, I do expect that when we bring the resolution to the floor as a privilege resolution that it will attract Republican support, but not much.” After Wednesday night’s rallying-the-troops moment for Republicans, we’ll see about that.
The Republican Parties of ten different Wyoming counties have voted to censure House Republican Conference Chair Liz Cheney. According to the Casper Star-Tribune, that number could still rise.
Since Cheney and nine other Republicans voted in favor of impeaching President Donald Trump, who they blame for inciting the Capitol Hill riots on January 6, Cheney has faced significant criticism in Wyoming and Washington, D.C.
Ten of Wyoming’s 23 county Republican Party organizations have voted to censure Rep. Liz Cheney over her impeachment vote – https://t.co/ES0iko4Jle
County GOP: Cheney ‘Betrayed The Trust’ Of Her Voters
Wyoming Republicans haven’t minced words in their descriptions of Cheney’s behavior.
The Sweetwater County Republican Party censure states that Cheney had “betrayed the trust and failed to honor the will of the very large majority of motivated Wyoming voters who elected her.”
Part of their statement read:
“Because she voted in an anarchic proceeding against President Donald J. Trump which was conducted in contravention of established principles of due process — a proceeding that provided no probative evidence for consideration, called no witnesses to testify under oath, permitted no questioning of the accusers by the accused — Representative Liz Cheney stood in defiance of the quantifiable will of the substantial majority of Wyoming citizens and devalued the political influence of the State of Wyoming.”
Cheney, once Republican gold in Wyoming, is now facing backlash for her vote to impeach Trump. She faces the possibly of being censured or stripped of her job as House Republican Conference Chair, and there is even a movement to remove her from office. https://t.co/kA8UHj0y9Ppic.twitter.com/nuRDpy9bb7
Cheney On Impeachment Vote: ‘This Is A Vote Of Conscience’
Over half of the House Republican Conference has said they plan to vote to remove Cheney from her leadership role.
Still, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has implied that he will not support ousting Cheney from her post, and Cheney herself declared last month, “I’m not going anywhere.”
“This is a vote of conscience,” Cheney added. “It’s one where there are different views in our conference.”
She did not explain how President Trump was responsible for some people breaking in to the Capitol building.
Republicans in 10 of 23 Wyoming counties have now censured Rep. Liz Cheney — and more could soon follow suit. https://t.co/b9opQqhYmz
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell gave his support to Cheney on Monday, describing her as an “important leader.”
“Liz Cheney is a leader with deep convictions and the courage to act on them,” McConnell told CNN.
“She is an important leader in our party and in our nation,” McConnell added. “I am grateful for her service and look forward to continuing to work with her on the crucial issues facing our nation.”
Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz, a regular Cheney foe, traveled to Wyoming last week to denounce her to the cheers of many Trump supporters.
Donald Trump To Focus On Defeating ‘Never Trump’ Republicans
Gaetz isn’t the only Republican taking steps to defeat Cheney in her 2022 re-election bid.
Former President Trump, considering his political future, had reportedly talked of creating a third party.
However, he is apparently changing that focus in favor of primarying ‘Never Trump’ Republicans – like Liz Cheney.
Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) is facing a growing number of critics from within the Republican party over controversial words and actions she engaged in prior to becoming a congresswoman.
No top Republicans, however, have thus far called for Greene to be punished either with expulsion or censure, nor have they stated she should resign.
CNN reported that in 2019 Greene ‘liked’ controversial comments on social media, including one that said “a bullet to the head would be quicker” in a discussion to remove House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).
Following that report, a video re-emerged showing Greene harassing anti-gun zealot David Hogg near the Capitol.
Greene faces mounting calls for repercussions over her words, actions and social media behavior https://t.co/NVrHNNGqMU
Republicans Turn Their Back on Marjorie Taylor Greene
Some Republicans have voiced their concerns over Marjorie Taylor Green’s past which dabbled in Qanon conspiracy theories, liking violent comments, and harassing political opponents.
Michele Exner, a spokesperson for House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, indicated he would be having a “conversation” with Greene over these comments and actions.
Exner also called the reports on Greene “deeply disturbing.”
Meanwhile, a spokesperson for GOP Conference Chairwoman Liz Cheney (R-WY) described the comments as “repugnant” in a statement to CNN, while Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) condemned them in a statement.
Democrats Refuse to Condemn Their Own Extreme Rhetoric
The timing of the media attacks against Marjorie Taylor Greene can hardly be ignored.
Last week, on President Joe Biden’s first full day in office, Greene officially filed articles of impeachment in the House of Representatives, as she promised she would.
“President Joe Biden is unfit to hold the office of the Presidency,” she said in a statement. “His pattern of abuse of power as President Obama’s Vice President is lengthy and disturbing.”
None of her accusations are untrue, so the media has instead pivoted to dredging up past controversial statements.
All the while, they allow current extremist rhetoric from Democrats to poison the political well.
Greene liking a comment about using a “bullet” to remove Pelosi from office is indeed reprehensible.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said lawmakers would likely need more funding for security to protect them not just from outside threats, but also potentially from their own colleagues, whom she described as ‘the enemy within’ https://t.co/aPSyvvEMfOpic.twitter.com/jRYqHMekdz
On Thursday, House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy met with former President Trump in Florida where the two discussed plans at Mar-a-Lago on how Republicans could take back the House in 2022.
McCarthy’s meeting was “very good and cordial” with the former President, according to Trump’s team.
After the meeting, McCarthy tweeted, “United and ready to win in ’22”
‘President Trump Has Agreed To Work With Leader McCarthy’ On 2022
A statement from the Trump-backed Save America PAC read, “President Trump has agreed to work with Leader McCarthy on helping the Republican Party to become a majority in the House.”
“They worked very well together in the last election and picked up at least 15 seats when most predicted it would be the opposite,” it continued. “They will do so again, and the work has already started.”
A statement from McCarthy’s team on the meeting read, “For the sake of our country, the radical Democrat agenda must be stopped.”
“A united conservative movement will strengthen the bonds of our citizens and uphold the freedoms our country was founded on.”
Fox News reports that an aide familiar the meeting said its purpose was to move the Republican Party forward.
The aide told Fox News, “They are catching up as McCarthy will be in the neighborhood.”
“They’ve been on good terms for a while, and that will be important for the party moving forward” the aide added.
Fact check… True! “President Trump's popularity has never been stronger than it is today, and his endorsement means more than perhaps any endorsement at any time.'” https://t.co/nz9bUhctaO
CNN reports that Trump will bring his energy to bear on neoconservative Rep. Liz Cheney, the #3 Republican in the House.
Cheney, along with nine other Republicans, voted with Democrats to impeach Trump in January.
According to CNN, Trump has been following the effort by House Republicans to remove Cheney from her leadership position.
Just this week, America First Congressman Matt Gaetz, a top ally of Trump, flew to Wyoming to encourage Republicans to toss Cheney and elect someone else to Congress.
The Meeting Indicates GOP Needs Very Popular Trump
The meeting was reportedly set up after Trump’s team learned McCarthy would be fundraising in Florida.
It is no secret McCarthy would like to replace Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker if his party can take back the House in two years.
Trump invited McCarthy to Mar-a-Lago and the House Republican Leader was quick to accept.
What this also signifies besides the upcoming midterm is that top Republican leaders appear to have no plans to break away from Trump following the January 6 Capitol Hill attacks.
McCarthy had said that Trump bore some responsibility for the attack.
INBOX: Statement from President. Trump’s Save America PAC says he and @GOPLeader McCarthy met today. “President Trump’s popularity has never been stronger than it is today, and his endorsement means more than perhaps any endorsement at any time.” (Photo came with press release) pic.twitter.com/Ar2GxaaVRD
Opposing impeachment on the House floor on January 13, McCarthy still said “the President bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on Congress by mob rioters.”
“He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding,” McCarthy added. “These facts require immediate action by President Trump.”
As for whether or not Trump’s speech that day provoked the attack, McCarthy said last week, “I don’t believe he provoked it if you listen to what he said at the rally.”
It is likely that this subject was not a focus when McCarthy and Trump met Thursday at the former president’s resort.
Whether Republican leaders like it or not, Republican voters still very much support President Trump.
An Axios poll from the week after the Capitol incident showed that 92% of Republican voters want to see Trump run for President again in 2024.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer indicated President Trump’s impeachment trial would be “quick” adding no decision has been made on the need for witnesses.
Schumer (D-NY) made the comments during an interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.
“The trial will be done in a way that is fair but … relatively quickly,” he said.
Schumer added, “I don’t think there’s a need for a whole lot of witnesses,” insisting the trial will be “fair.”
The Hill reports that Schumer “added that no decision had been made on whether or not there would be witnesses,” but his call for a swift process indicates he “didn’t think many witnesses are needed.”
President Trump’s first Senate impeachment trial took just 21 days. Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial lasted 36 days.
But Democrats have argued the second Trump impeachment would be quicker due to the riots he allegedly incited having played out in real-time in public.
Or, perhaps it indicates they have less proof of a high crime or misdemeanor than they did with the first minimal-evidence impeachment effort.
Schumer has indicated a desire to move quickly due to concerns that the impeachment trial would interfere with President Biden implementing his 100-day agenda.
“We have so much else to do,” he lamented.
Donald Trump will be facing his second impeachment trial — making him the first US President to have this proceeding — in the first few weeks of Februaryhttps://t.co/6mUqK4pdO1
At the very moment the historic article of impeachment was being delivered to the Senate, President Biden indicated the trial would likely not lead to a conviction because Democrats simply don’t have the votes.
Biden, according to CNN, said he doesn’t believe 17 Republican senators – the number necessary to lead to a successful effort by Nancy Pelosi’s manager – will vote to convict Trump.
“The Senate has changed since I was there, but it hasn’t changed that much,” Biden said.
“Joe Biden dooms Democrats’ bid to convict Donald Trump saying they DON’T have enough votes in the Senate – at the very moment they deliver article of impeachment”
While some Republicans have indicated they might join the effort to convict, several others have said the move would be disastrous for the GOP.
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) voiced his opinion that having GOP leadership move forward with Trump’s impeachment would be a “huge mistake” and would “destroy” the Republican Party.
Other senators warned Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) that he “could face backlash if he votes to convict Trump.”
Still, Biden said the trial “has to happen” and that there would be “a worse effect if it didn’t happen.”
Wallace asked Romney, “Senator, do you support holding this impeachment trial, and what do you think the rules should be on the length of the trial and whether or not to call witnesses?”
Romney replied, “Well, we’re certainly going to have a trial. I wish that weren’t necessary, with the president’s conduct with regard to the call to the secretary of state in Georgia as well as the incitation towards the insurrection that led to the attack on the Capital calls for a trial.”
Then the anti-Trump Republican suggested that the impeachment could bring more unity for the U.S.
“If we are going to have unity in our country, I think it’s important to recognize the need for accountability, for truth, and justice,” Romney said.
Chris Wallace: "Senator, it sure sounds like you're going to vote to convict."
Sen. Mitt Romney: "There's no question that the article of impeachment sent over by the House suggests impeachable conduct, but we have not yet heard either from the prosecution or from the defense." pic.twitter.com/Kq0NuAgy2s
Romney: ‘Pretty Clear’ Trump Spent A Year Trying To ‘Corrupt The Election’
He added, “So I think there will be a trial, and I hope it goes as quickly as possible, but that’s up to the council on both sides.”
Romney said it has been “pretty clear” over the last year and Trump had been trying to corrupt the election.
“I think it’s pretty clear that over the last year or so there has been an effort to corrupt the election of the United States and it was not by President Biden, it was by President Trump and that corruption we saw with regards to the conduct in Ukraine as well as the call to Secretary of state Raffensperger as well as the in citation to insurrection.”
Romney has a long history of anti-Trump sentiment.
Romney was the only Republican Senator to vote to convict President Trump during the first impeachment trial.
In 2016, Romney famously gave a “Never Trump” speech when it became clear that Trump was likely to win the Republican nomination for President.
Chris Wallace: [D]o you believe that Donald Trump is unfit to serve as president and should be removed from office?
The Utah senator finished his interview with Wallace by saying Trump provoked an attack on American democracy.
“I mean, this is obviously very serious and an attack on the very foundation of our democracy, and it is something that has to be considered and resolved,” Romney added.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi confirmed a dear colleague letter to Democrats that the House will send the article of impeachment of Donald Trump to the Senate on Monday, a "momentous and solemn day, as the House sadly transmits the Article of Impeachment."
"Our Constitution and country are well-served by our outstanding impeachment managers – lead manager Rep. Jamie Raskin and Reps. Diana DeGette, David Cicilline, Joaquin Castro, Eric Swalwell, Ted Lieu, Stacey Plaskett, Madeleine Dean, and Joe Neguse," she wrote. She also low-key slammed Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who had tried to dictate the timing of the impeachment by telling Pelosi to wait until the last half of February to start the process. "The House has been respectful of the Senate’s constitutional power over the trial and always attentive to the fairness of the process," she wrote. "When the Article of Impeachment is transmitted to the Senate, the former President will have had nearly two weeks since we passed the Article."
Pelosi also informed her colleagues about security at the Capitol, informing them that "General Russel Honoré is preparing his assessment of the security of the campus, and we expect to have updates soon." She also reminded them that when they return, they'll vote on a rule change to impose fines on any member trying to bypass the metal detectors to get to the House chamber. The issue escalated this week when Rep. Andy Harris, a Maryland Republican, tried to bring a concealed gun onto the House floor, which is a violation of House rules. A number of Republicans have blown off the detectors and disrespected Capitol Police trying to enforce the new protocols.
"It is sad that this step is necessary," Pelosi wrote of the fines, "but the disrespectful and dangerous refusal of some Republican Members to adhere to basic safety precautions for our Congressional Community—including our Capitol Police—is unacceptable." Any House member will face a $5,000 fine if they refuse to cooperate with the screening. If they do it again, they'll pay a $10,000 fine. That money will be withheld from their paychecks—they can't use campaign funds or their expense accounts to pay them. The precedent for this new rule is the mask rule passed last week, which fines members not wearing masks on the floor—$500 on a first offense and $2,500 for a second offense.
Pelosi ends her missive on a hopeful note. "I am confident that, strengthened by the new Biden-Harris Administration and Senate Democratic Majority, we can restore healing, unity and optimism to our nation, so that—as Joe Biden quotes Seamus Heaney—'The longed for tidal wave of justice can rise up, and hope and history can rhyme.'"
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced Friday morning that the impeachment of Donald Trump in the Senate is imminent. "I have spoken to Speaker Pelosi who informed me that the articles will be delivered to the Senate on Monday," and promised "It will be a full trial, it will be a fair trial." That's a rebuff to Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who attempted to dictate the schedule to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Schumer in a proposal released late Thursday. McConnell argued that Trump needed time to plan a defense and that "At this time of strong political passions, Senate Republicans believe it is absolutely imperative that we do not allow a half-baked process to short-circuit the due process that former President Trump deserves or damage the Senate or the presidency."
A reminder: Trump sent a mob to the Capitol to hunt leadership, including former Vice President Mike Pence, down and kill them. Which is what the House impeachment managers intend to keep at the forefront. A Democratic source told Washington Post's Greg Sargent that their presentation will include "a lot of video of the assault on the Capitol … to dramatize the former president’s incitement role in a way that even GOP senators cannot avoid grappling with." Maybe that will keep them awake during the proceeding.
"If they‘re going to vote against it, they're going to vote against it knowing what actually happened," the aide told Sargent. "A lot of senators" were "very upset angry about what happened,” the aide continued, saying the managers' goal is to "remind them of why." Among those needing the reminder is Trump's caddy, Sen. Lindsey Graham. Remember Graham on January 6, in the aftermath of the attack when the Senate reconvened. He said the effort to challenge the Electoral College vote was "the most offensive concept in the world." He said that he and Trump had been on "a hell of a journey. I hate it to end this way. Oh, my god, I hate it." He said Trump's attempt to challenge the result in Congress was "not going to do any good." That's Graham, essentially admitting that Trump set the insurrection in motion.
Here's what Graham said just two weeks later. "For the party to move forward, we got to move the party with Donald Trump." So much for the end of the journey. "There’s no way to be a successful Republican Party without having President Trump working with all of us and all of us working with him. […] [W]e got a decent chance of coming back in 2022. But we can't do it without the President." He's not alone. There'a a whole cadre of Republicans senators who are actually threatening McConnell's leadership if he votes to convict Trump.
They're not going to be able to hide from what Trump did, the House Democrats will make sure of that. "The president of the United States committed an act of incitement of insurrection," Pelosi reminded everyone Thursday. "Just because he's now gone—thank God—you don't say to a president, 'Do whatever you want in the last months of your administration. You're going to get a get-out-of-jail card free' because people think you should make nice, nice, and forget that people died here on Jan. 6."
It took two tries, but we finally saw something out of Congress that would have been unthinkable just over a week ago: Republican House members actually voted “yes” on impeaching Donald Trump—not a lot of them, but enough to squeak into the double digits. That’s not only a change from the first impeachment a year ago when the GOP voted in lockstep against it, but a serious departure from the Beltway media’s conventional wisdom, which relies on depictions of a House Republican caucus that’s well-disciplined and a Democratic bloc that’s in a constant state of disarray.
It wasn’t just the impeachment vote that delivered a serious hit to that stale CW, though. Three other votes taken in the past few weeks also show a Republican coalition that’s fracturing along multiple axes, and in rather unpredictable ways. It’s not entirely unusual to see, for instance, a few dozen Republicans peel off from the rest of the party from one end of the ideological spectrum or the other—either the most pragmatic or most extreme members—on a particular vote. But this quartet of recent votes have seen Republicans splitting off in every possible direction, and those splits haven’t always been on a predictable left/right scale.
That suggests two things: first, that there’s a significant leadership vacuum in the Republican caucus right now, and second, that there’s also a growing divide between authoritarians and non-authoritarians split within the party that doesn’t quite map onto traditional policy preferences. Both have serious implications for the GOP’s future.
The four roll calls where we’re investigating Republican voting patterns are the votes to:
This time, Trump was impeached by a vote of 232-197, with all 222 Democrats voting for it and Republicans voting against it 197-10. The Electoral College objection, meanwhile, failed 282-138, with Democrats again unanimously opposed but Republicans in favor 138-64. (Republicans also tried to repudiate Arizona’s electoral votes, but that garnered slightly less support, and in any case, no one voted to reject Arizona’s votes but accept Pennsylvania’s, making the latter a more meaningful vote to analyze.)
The second pair of votes both required two-thirds majorities. The $2,000 stimulus checks, which had to hit that threshold because the legislation was brought up on an expedited basis, narrowly exceeded the mark, 275-134. Forty-four Republicans voted for it but 130 voted against the plan, despite Trump’s support for the measure, while Democrats were 231-2 in support.
The override of Trump’s NDAA veto passed by a considerably wider 322-87 margin, with 109 Republicans actually opposing Trump and just 66 sticking with him. This was the only vote of the four that saw a sizable numbers of Democrats go against their party, with 20 opposing the override while 212 backed it. However, as we’ll discuss at the end of this piece, these dissenters were mostly from the party’s left-most flank and were voting to oppose the military’s enormous budget rather than to support Trump in any way.
Each of these roll calls alone shows a serious split within GOP ranks: Even on impeachment, the 10 Republicans who voted against Trump set a record for the largest number of representatives impeaching their own party’s president. But the divide goes much deeper.
With a “yes” or “no” vote possible on each of these votes, that gives us 16 potential buckets for members to fall into. However, not all of the House GOP’s 211 current members show up below because we’re only including representatives who participated in all four votes. That winds up excluding 64 Republicans, including all freshmen (since two of the votes took place at the tail end of the last Congress), as well as anyone who skipped one more or of these votes for whatever reason.
Still, we can analyze a meaningful proportion of the GOP caucus, about 70% of it in total. And underscoring the extent of the fracture we’re seeing, Republicans occupy no fewer than 11 of these 16 possible buckets, ranging from as few as one member up to 43. Democrats, by contrast, wound up in just three buckets, and almost all—196 of the 217 who cast votes on all four measures—were in just a single grouping. You can see these buckets, which we’ll examine one by one, visualized just below:
Of course, it’s possible to find any arbitrary set of votes that show various divides for either party, but this set is anything but arbitrary. Rather, these were four of the most consequential votes the House has been called upon to take since Trump’s first impeachment, and they all took place in a span of just 16 days, making them worthy of collective study.
To that end, we’ll start with the members who voted the way that Trump would have wanted each time: “no” on impeachment, “yes” on challenging the Pennsylvania votes, “yes” on bigger stimulus checks, and “no” on overriding Trump’s veto of the military budget. In other words, this was—in theory—the group of most maximally MAGA members:
Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-25); Greg Pence (IN-06); Clay Higgins (LA-03); Jason Smith (MO-08); Jeff Van Drew (NJ-02); Lee Zeldin (NY-01); Chris Jacobs (NY-27); Michael Burgess (TX-26)
Interestingly, and encouragingly, there were very few members who took this approach. It’s possible that shows that Trump, whose outreach to Congress has been both ham-fisted yet perfunctory, and who has little connection to traditional Republican avenues of power, no longer has quite so much influence on the House. On the other hand, it might also show that while Trump’s odd mishmash of preferred issues and grievances has had a lot of resonance with low-information voters who haven’t felt at home in either party, it was never really a good fit for the Republican Party, which is not exactly known for either handing out money to people who need help or for telling the military to take a hike.
And while this group should superficially represent the most Trumpy brigade possible, it actually doesn’t include many members from the nuttiest ranks of the GOP—perhaps just Louisiana’s Clay Higgins (best known for his apocalyptic tweeting), and Indiana’s Greg Pence, who, in case it wasn’t clear from the last name, also happens to be the vice president’s brother and may share his sibling’s toadying tendencies.
Instead, this bucket contains a couple of GOP members with the most moderate (at least on a left-right axis) voting records but who are uniquely cross-pressured: Mario Diaz-Balart, who represents a mostly Cuban-American district in the Miami area; and Jeff Van Drew, who was elected as a Democrat but infamously switched parties during the previous impeachment.
Robert Aderholt (AL-04); Rick Crawford (AR-01); Mike Garcia (CA-25); Ken Calvert (CA-42); John Rutherford (FL-04); Jackie Walorski (IN-02); Jim Baird (IN-04); Hal Rogers (KY-05); Jack Bergman (MI-01); Elise Stefanik (NY-21); Bill Johnson (OH-06); Frank Lucas (OK-03); Tom Cole (OK-04)
The next bucket features Trumpy Republicans who are anti-democracy and pro-stimulus but just couldn’t say no to the military. One unusual name in this bucket is Mike Garcia, who holds the bluest district in the nation that’s represented by a Republican (California’s 25th, where he narrowly won reelection in November after more comfortably winning a special election last spring) and is someone you’d therefore expect to take a more moderate path, perhaps up to and including impeachment. Apparently, though, he thinks a base-first strategy is his best path to squeaking out another victory in 2022, despite his district’s leftward trend. Another is Elise Stefanik, until recently an establishmentarian but who in the last year has seemingly gone all-in on using Trumpism as a means of climbing the leadership ladder.
Mike Rogers (AL-03); Mo Brooks (MO-05); Doug Lamborn (CO-05); Buddy Carter (GA-01); Mike Bost (IL-12); Jim Banks (IN-03); Mike Johnson (LA-04); Garret Graves (LA-06); Tim Walberg (MI-07); Blaine Leutkemeyer (MO-03); Vicki Hartzler (MO-04); Sam Graves (MO-06); Trent Kelly (MS-01); Michael Guest (MS-03); Steven Palazzo (MS-04); Virginia Foxx (NC-05); David Rouzer (NC-07); Richard Hudson (NC-08); Steve Chabot (OH-01); Bob Gibbs (OH-07); Dan Meuser (PA-09); Fred Keller (PA-12); Glenn Thompson (PA-15); Mike Kelly (PA-16); Joe Wilson (SC-02); William Timmons (SC-04); Chuck Fleischmann (TN-03); Mark Green (TN-07); David Kustoff (TN-08); Roger Williams (TX-25); Chris Stewart (UT-02); Rob Wittman (VA-01)
The next batch, which voted against impeachment and stimulus checks but supported challenging the electors and the military budget, is made up of more standard-issue, “normie” members of the Republican Party’s right flank, including a number (like Vicky Hartzler and Tim Walberg) who are known more for old-school social conservatism. Interestingly, though, one name here is Mo Brooks, who has been one of the loudest voices inciting violence and is a main target of censure efforts. Despite his links to Trumpism, he couldn’t get on board with COVID relief and couldn’t oppose the armed forces either. The latter is not a coincidence, since his Huntsville-area district is heavily dependent on military and aerospace technology, centered around the Redstone Arsenal.
Gary Palmer (AL-06); Paul Gosar (AZ-04); Andy Biggs (AZ-05); David Schweikert (AZ-06); Debbie Lesko (AZ-08); Doug LaMalfa (CA-01); Devin Nunes (CA-22); Matt Gaetz (FL-01); Bill Posey (FL-08); Greg Steube (FL-17); Brian Mast (FL-18); Barry Loudermilk (GA-11); Rick Allen (GA-12); Russ Fulcher (ID-01); Ron Estes (KS-04); Steve Scalise (LA-01); Billy Long (MO-07); Dan Bishop (NC-09); Ted Budd (NC-13); Adrian Smith (NE-03); Jim Jordan (OH-04); Warren Davidson (OH-08); Kevin Hern (OK-01); Scott Perry (PA-04); Lloyd Smucker (PA-11); John Joyce (PA-13); Guy Reschenthaler (PA-14); Jeff Duncan (SC-03); Ralph Norman (SC-05); Tim Burchett (TN-02); Scott DesJarlais (TN-04); John Rose (TN-06); Louie Gohmert (TX-01); Lance Gooden (TX-05); Randy Weber (TX-14); Jodey Arrington (TX-19); Michael Cloud (TX-27); Brian Babin (TX-36); Ben Cline (VA-06); Morgan Griffith (VA-09); Tom Tiffany (WI-07); Alex Mooney (WV-02); Carol Miller (WV-03)
The biggest bucket is also probably the most hardcore of the bunch: They’ll follow Trump not just on challenging the election but also on stiff-arming the military, but, true to form, they just can’t get on board with sending people money. Not coincidentally, most of the members of the Freedom Caucus (the most hard-right of the House GOP’s ideological blocs) are found here, and you’ll probably recognize the names of some of the loudest insurrectionists, like Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs, Matt Gaetz, and Louie Gohmert. One odd tidbit is that while this is a disproportionately Southern group, all four of Arizona’s remaining Republican representatives are here too.
Rodney Davis (IL-13); Pete Stauber (MN-08); Ann Wagner (MO-02); Chris Smith (NJ-04); Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-01); Michael McCaul (TX-10)
Here we have Republicans from the somewhat more moderate end of the caucus who voted no on challenging the electors, and yes on stimulus checks and the military budget, but couldn’t take the final step of voting for impeachment.
One rather unexpected name is Texas’s Michael McCaul: He hasn’t had a particularly moderate record in the past but has faced increasingly difficult elections in his suburban district the last few times and may be trying to adapt. In a statement he released during the impeachment vote, he accurately prophesied, “I truly fear there may be more facts that come to light in the future that will put me on the wrong side of this debate,” but for some reason couldn’t take that final step.
One other surprise, from the opposite direction, was Brian Fitzpatrick, who represents a swingy suburban district outside of Philadelphia. Based on his overall record, Fitzpatrick probably was the likeliest Republican to vote for impeachment who ultimately didn’t. (He instead led the push for a “censure” alternative, which was a non-starter with Democrats.)
James Comer (KY-01); Tom Reed (NY-23); David McKinley (WV-01)
What seems like the least coherent series of votes, at least for Republican members—against impeachment, against challenging the election, and for bigger stimulus, but also against the military budget—is also a bucket with only a few members in it. There’s also not much consistency here in terms of its members, ranging from northeastern pragmatist Tom Reed to very conservative southerner James Comer.
French Hill (AR-02); Steve Womack (AR-03); Michael Waltz (FL-06); Vern Buchanan (FL-16); Drew Ferguson (GA-03); Austin Scott (GA-08); Mike Simpson (ID-02); Darin LaHood (IL-18); Larry Bucshon (IN-08); Brett Guthrie (KY-02); Bill Huizenga (MI-02); John Moolenaar (MI-04); Patrick McHenry (NC-10); Kelly Armstrong (ND-AL); Don Bacon (NE-02); Mark Amodei (NV-02); Brad Wenstrup (OH-02); Bob Latta (OH-05); Mike Turner (OH-10); Troy Balderson (OH-12); Steve Stivers (OH-15); Dusty Johnson (SD-AL); Dan Crenshaw (TX-02); Van Taylor (TX-03); John Curtis (UT-02); Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA-05); Mike Gallagher (WI-08);
This bucket features much of what’s left of the orthodox Republican establishment—not “centrist,” of course, but located around the ideological midpoint of the GOP caucus, which is still very conservative. This group is naturally anti-stimulus and pro-military, but while its members are not willing to play too-obvious games with democracy, they’re content to let Trump do much worse, which is why they opposed impeachment.
Bruce Westerman (AR-04); Tom McClintock (CA-04); Thomas Massie (KY-04); Tom Emmer (MN-06); Chip Roy (TX-21); Bryan Steil (WI-01); Glenn Grothman (WI-06)
These are the across-the-board “nays.” Perhaps unsurprisingly, the most libertarian-flavored members who remain (after Justin Amash’s departure; he voted against checks and the military budget, but was no longer in office for the Electoral College vote) are seen here, most notably Thomas Massie.
The smallest bucket of all contains just Tom Rice, who represents a dark-red district in the Myrtle Beach area. While not a member of the Freedom Caucus, he does have a voting record that places him well to the right of the GOP’s midpoint. Were it not for his impeachment vote, he’d have wound up in the largest grouping, but instead, he’s all on his own. Rice’s vote was uncharacteristic enough that he might have simply pushed the wrong button during the roll call, but his subsequent statement acknowledged his surprising move: “I have backed this President through thick and thin for four years. I campaigned for him and voted for him twice. But, this utter failure is inexcusable.”
Adam Kinzinger (IL-16); Fred Upton (MI-06); John Katko (NY-24); Jaime Herrera Beutler (WA-03)
This batch, which voted pro-impeachment, pro-democracy, pro-checks, and pro-military, includes the low-profile but extremely durable Northeasterner John Katko, as well as Adam Kinzinger, who has recently become one of the most vocal anti-Trump Republicans. While Katko is one of the few Republicans who represents a district that Joe Biden won, and Upton and Herrera Beutler are in competitive districts, Kinzinger certainly isn’t; his main risk would be in a Republican primary.
It’s also worth noting that almost all Democrats also fall in this bucket. This excludes the 20 who voted against the military budget, and also Kurt Schrader, the lone remaining Democrat to vote against the $2,000 checks.
Anthony Gonzalez (OH-16); Dan Newhouse (WA-04); Liz Cheney (WY-AL)
Finally, here are the few Republicans who voted for impeachment and against challenging the electors, but who otherwise stuck to conservative orthodoxy. The biggest name here might be Liz Cheney, who’s No. 3 in the House leadership hierarchy, but who has been recently very critical of Trump. She could also be a potential challenger to Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy or Minority Whip Steve Scalise in the future, but given the outraged calls for her resignation from fellow Republicans following her vote, her motives are difficult to assess—unless she truly imagines the GOP will embrace an anti-Trump future.
The other two members of this trio are sophomore Anthony Gonzalez, a former NFL star who represents a suburban district in the Cleveland area and has tended toward the moderate end of the caucus, and Dan Newhouse, who represents a conservative area in eastern Washington but is potentially insulated from a challenge from the right thanks to the odd nature of Washington’s top-two primary system. (Democratic Rep. Kurt Schrader of Oregon also followed this pattern of votes.)
The recent McCarthy/Cheney tension, in fact, points to how the growing fractures in the Republican Party don’t entirely map onto the traditional left-to-right axis. Cheney, for instance, has a somewhat more conservative voting record than McCarthy, at least according to the widely-used DW-Nominate system of scoring votes.
Instead, it’s more a clash between Trump-style populist authoritarianism (to which McCarthy is merely an accessory) versus the more old-school Republican elite traditionalism that Cheney embodies. It would be weird to say that Cheney is “anti-authoritarian”; rather, what she’s objecting to is that Trumpism is the wrong kind of authoritarianism. Maybe a better way of describing it is that traditional Republican conservatism is more about a decentralized, slow-moving form of autocracy that’s spread around a variety of institutions (the military, the judiciary, big business) rather than consolidated in a cult of personality around one very erratic person.
It’s certainly possible that these divisions will recede, especially once Biden is inaugurated and Chuck Schumer is elevated to Senate majority leader—Republicans, lacking any sort of affirmative agenda, have always enjoyed a more harmonious life in the minority where they simply oppose everything that Democrats put forth. But if they persist, they could mean more turmoil ahead for the GOP and undermining the party’s chances of reclaiming the House in the coming midterm elections.
P.S. We’ll close out with a look at the 20 Democrats who dissented on the override of Trump’s veto of the military budget:
Jared Huffman (CA-02); Mark DeSaulnier (CA-11); Barbara Lee (CA-13); Ro Khanna (CA-17); Jimmy Gomez (CA-34); Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02); Chuy Garcia (IL-04); Jim McGovern (MA-02); Joe Kennedy (MA-04); Ayanna Pressley (MA-07); Rashida Tlaib (MI-13); Ilhan Omar (MN-05); Grace Meng (NY-06); Yvette Clarke (NY-09); Adriano Espaillat (NY-13); Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14); Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01); Earl Blumenauer (OR-03); Pramila Jayapal (WA-07); Mark Pocan (WI-02)
Unsurprisingly, this list correlates very much with Progressive Caucus membership, as well as many of the left-most Democratic members under the DW-Nominate system. This indicates the vote was not pro-Trump but rather against current levels of military spending, with the possible exception of the inscrutable Tulsi Gabbard, one of only two Democrats on this list whose term ended after this vote and therefore wasn’t present for the Jan. 6 challenges to the Electoral College or the second impeachment vote.
All of these Democrats of course backed $2,000 checks and impeachment, and opposed overturning the election results, a pattern followed by zero Republicans.
