Schumer and McConnell near a deal that will determine how the second Trump impeachment unfolds
Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, said he thinks Senate Democrats should be “consistent” in their support for having witnesses testify in an impeachment trial if House managers want that, although he noted that “it’s not as important” to call witnesses in this trial, since so much of the case against former President Trump rests on things that happened publicly.
“I think we should be consistent. Obviously, we were very strongly in favor of witnesses during the first impeachment trial. We were very disappointed when the House asked for the ability to call witnesses and Senate Republicans denied them that ability, so if the House managers want to call witnesses, then I think we should allow them to do so,” he said Sunday, adding that Trump’s second impeachment trial is “different” from the first.
“This time, we saw what happened in real time. President Trump sent that angry mob to the Capitol on live TV so it’s not as important that you have witnesses, but if the House managers want witnesses, we should allow them to be able to put them on,” he explained.
This comes as CNN reports the House impeachment managers haven’t made a final decision on whether they will call witnesses. They’re preparing for the possibility they won’t have any witnesses – but they may decide to use them if they find a witness willing to voluntarily step forward, according to sources. Even without witnesses, Democrats are preparing to use evidence from video and social media to help illustrate how Trump’s words, actions and tweets incited the rioters to attack the Capitol.
The Connecticut Democrat said he thinks Sen. Rand Paul’s argument against the constitutionality of holding an impeachment trial for a president who has left office is “not from outer space” or “ridiculous,” but that he comes to a different judgement on the issue.
“I think that that the clause that gives Congress the responsibility to deny an official future office requires us to take this step, even though the President has left office, and of course, as you cited, there is precedent for that. It sets up a strange circumstance by which a president or any official could very quickly resign to preserve their right to run later on even though they engaged in pretty serious misconduct. So I think we have this responsibility,” he said.
