Another Republican Senator Says House Impeachment Team Was More Convincing Than Trump’s Defense

On Tuesday, the impeachment trial of Donald Trump for inciting a mob of insurrectionists to attack the U.S. Capitol building began. The process opened with arguments about whether a trial after the former president has left office can be considered Constitutional. The opening arguments swayed one Republican Senator to change his vote — and another is admitting that the arguments from the House impeachment managers were more convincing than those from Trump’s defense team.

Senator says Trump's defense failed
[Photo By Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images/]

Opening arguments from the House impeachment team were impassioned, yet still focused on facts, including precedent supporting holding an impeachment trial after the accused has left office. By contrast, Trump’s supporters have criticized his defense widely, and Trump himself is reportedly very unhappy with the team.

In fact, one Republican who had previously voted that holding a trial after the accused is no longer in office would be unconstitutional changed his vote, crediting the legal team’s support of the position.

Another Republican, Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND), is admitting that the impeachment team’s legal arguments were more convincing but says that he still voted against going forward with the trial.

Cramer argues that the impeachment team arguing their position more convincingly makes no difference, because, he says, the burden of proof is on them, and therefore they’re “supposed to be” more convincing and effective in their arguments than the defense.

Ultimately, Cramer’s vote didn’t change the outcome. Six other Republicans voted alongside all Senate Democrats and Independents, and the Senate continues with Trump’s second impeachment trial Wednesday at noon.

Follow Us On: Facebook and Twitter