President Trump will likely very soon be acquitted in his impeachment trial.
While that was never much in doubt – the chances of him ever receiving the two-thirds majority required to be removed were practically nil – now that the motion to bring in new witnesses has been shot down, the trial should move speedily to a close, and an acquittal for Trump.
There were no sessions held over this past weekend. The trial resumed Monday with both sides given opportunity to make closing arguments. Lawmakers will then be able to debate the issues into Tuesday. The final vote on the two impeachment articles will take place no later than 4:00p.m. EST on Wednesday – after the president delivers his State of the Union speech on Tuesday night.
Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, said, “We decided the best thing for everyone involved is to come to that certain date, but try to eliminate any pain and suffering. As if this hasn’t been painful enough.”
On Twitter, the lawmaker added that the Democrats’ case used “two of the weakest articles of impeachment” to make a “half-baked case.”
“House Democrats can’t bring a half-baked case to the Senate and expect us to make something of it,” stated Sen. Blunt. “These are two of the weakest articles of impeachment you could possibly have.”
Blunt announced that plan after the Senate voted to block any witness testimonies in a 51 to 49 vote last week. Senators Lisa Murkowski and Lamar Alexander, among a few others, were considered key swing votes in the decision, but they sided with most of GOP. Only Senators Mitt Romney and Susan Collins, voted with Democrats.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell previously predicted the outcome of the vote and has since weighed in with this statement, “There is no need for the Senate to re-open the investigation, which the House Democratic majority chose to conclude and which the Managers themselves continue to describe as ‘overwhelming’ and ‘beyond any doubt.’ Never in Senate history has this body paused an impeachment trial to pursue additional witnesses with unresolved questions of executive privilege that would require protracted litigation. We have no interest in establishing such a new precedent, particularly for individuals whom the House expressly chose not to pursue.”