随着众议院开始向弹劾调查的公开阶段过渡，参议员最终将不得不担任陪审员并进行审判，以决定是否解除唐纳德·特朗普总统的职务。
在十几名共和党和民主党参议员中，议员们表示他们正在为广泛的审判程序做准备的方法。立法者的准备技术属于两大类之一:要么他们正在研究过去的弹劾程序，汇编研究成果并与专家交谈；或者他们拒绝做任何准备，因为他们认为为时过早或者没有必要。
根据参议员们的回答新闻周刊周二，党派意识很少表明立法者是否会为审判的后勤准备。在这个故事的后面可以找到12名议员如何准备的列表。
(L-R)参议员米特·罗姆尼(共和党)3月6日在DC华盛顿白宫椭圆形办公室会见也门前美国人质丹尼·伯奇和唐纳德·特朗普时，坐在林赛·格雷厄姆(共和党)旁边。
没有固定的时间表，甚至没有保证民主党领导的众议院投票弹劾特朗普。但是参议院多数党领袖米奇·麦康奈尔(共和党)承认这是他所期望的。
麦康奈尔周二在每周一次的新闻发布会上表示:“在我看来，他们下决心要这么做，我们最终将面临弹劾审判。”。“我会说，我非常确定它有可能如何结束。如果是今天，我认为没有任何问题它不会导致搬迁。
“那么，问题是，参议院想花多长时间？总统候选人希望在参议院呆多久，而不是在爱荷华州和新罕布什尔州以及所有其他可能发生的相关问题上？很难确定这需要多长时间。”
几个媒体上个月报道说，在国会大厦每周一次的共和党午餐会上，麦康奈尔和他的工作人员展示了一份关于审判如何进行的幻灯片，并回答了共和党参议员的问题。
参议院少数党领袖查克·舒默(纽约民主党)也采取了自己的措施，试图让民主党做好准备。据一名民主党高级助手称，他上月与核心小组就众议院的调查进行了电话会议，并为参议院民主党办公室建立了一个“文件中心”。该中心拥有来自过去弹劾战的信息、信息指南、历史事实和公开的调查证据。
舒默还与众议院议长南希·佩洛西保持联系。这位民主党高级助手说，关于参议院审判时间的讨论还为时过早，因为文章尚未起草。
正在准备的参议员:
拉马尔·亚历山大:“我读过很多书，”退休的立法者说。“我是一名潜在的陪审员，所以我会听取所有的论据和证据，然后做出决定。”
亚历山大是参议院健康、教育、劳工和养老金委员会的主席，他引用了一本新书，弹劾:美国历史埃德蒙·罗斯参议员1896年的回忆录，弹劾安德鲁·约翰逊的历史。南北战争后来自堪萨斯州的参议员罗斯被认为是一个有争议的人物，因为他决定投票反对判约翰逊有罪并允许他继续留任。
理查德·布卢门塔尔:当被问及准备做什么时，布卢门撒尔说:“一切和一切”。“我正在阅读先前弹劾的记录。我在看规则和先例。我正在阅读已经写好的书，并与专家交谈。
“我们处于完全未知的领域。纵观历史和先例，我得出的一个结论是，每一次弹劾审判都是不同的，包括司法弹劾。但有几个真正关键的决定必须做出。”
苏珊·科林斯:“我已经开始组建一个律师团队来帮助我，其中包括国会研究服务部法律部门的律师，”这位温和派参议员说。"我已经向他们提出了一些程序性问题。"
柯林斯不同于她的大多数同事，在1999年克林顿弹劾审判期间，他在参议院。她是仅有的两名没有按照政党路线投票给民主党总统定罪的成员之一。
尽管之前有过这样的经历，柯林斯说，刷新她对程序问题的记忆是很重要的，并表示她的参议员同事们对弹劾审判的几个方面“有些困惑”。
约翰·肯尼迪(洛杉矶):肯尼迪表示，尽管他预计众议院在新年到来之前不会通过弹劾条款，但他正在初步研究国会研究署(Congressional Research Service)关于弹劾程序的报告。
安格斯·金:“我一直在阅读——我没有和任何人说过话，但是我已经掌握了这个过程的背景资料，”这位立法者说。金说，程序背景信息来自国会研究服务处。
这位独立参议员还强调了这种罕见的历史性诉讼可能带来的困惑和未知因素。
“我们真的不知道这是什么过程。似乎没有太多经验。”金说。“陪审团是——什么术语，事实的挖掘者？有一个不同的词。但不管怎样，这就是工作:事实是什么，事实是否上升到可弹劾的程度，这需要一些历史分析。”
米特·罗姆尼:“我已经重读了联邦党文件，我将寻求学者和律师的法律建议，他们可能对这个过程的相关问题有自己的看法，”特朗普的经常批评者说。
《联邦党人论文集》是亚历山大·汉密尔顿、詹姆斯·麦迪森和约翰·杰伊于1787年和1788年在纽约报纸上以笔名“塔西陀”撰写的85篇系列文章今天，他们被认为是理解宪法作者初衷的最佳方式之一。
里克·斯科特(佛罗里达州):这位第一任期的参议员说，“我办公室里”有人给我做了一些简报。斯科特没有具体说明是谁或者简报是关于什么的。
谢尔登·怀特豪斯:走近新闻周刊怀特豪斯指着他拿着的一个文件夹，里面有一英寸多厚的文件，他说这是参议院关于先前弹劾程序的两份报告。
“我们不仅仅是陪审员:除了管理者或弹劾反对者会提出的问题之外，我们在问自己问题的能力、参议院寻求发现、获取文件的能力、参议院传唤证人的能力方面都有重要作用，”他说。"这给了我们比传统法庭陪审员更积极的角色."
没有做准备的参议员:
林赛·格雷厄姆:参议院司法委员会主席表示，他正与麦康奈尔就众议院将如何运作的细节进行会谈，但他本人并未采取任何具体措施进行准备。
格雷厄姆说:“我正在和米奇谈论这件事，你将如何安排审判。”。“你会有一个决心，就像你和克林顿一起设定参数一样。”
道格·琼斯(达尔富尔):“我没有准备，”这位温和的新生说。“我们没有任何指控。”
鲍勃·梅嫩德斯(新泽西州):参议院外交关系委员会的高级成员说:“我很清楚审判是关于什么的，因为我从事法律工作。”。梅嫩德斯于1979年获得新泽西罗格斯大学的法学学位。
梅嫩德斯说，除了次要的程序性措施，他认为参议院弹劾审判与他熟悉的正常法庭程序没有什么不同的机会。
“总统将有他的辩护理由，人们必须推断所有的事实和法律，并做出有罪或无罪的决定。在这方面，我理解绝对的基本面，”他阐述道。“我不认为会有那种根本的区别。根据参议院的规定，可能会有不同的程序或其他要素。到了那个时候，我们将充分利用参议院的规则，让自己沉浸其中。”
马尔科·卢比奥(佛罗里达州):阳光州的立法者表示，他没有采取任何具体步骤来准备审判。
“这是基于事实的审判，”鲁比奥说。“然后你必须做出一个政治决定，这是一个政治过程——这是一个关于到底发生了什么以及什么结果符合国家最大利益的政治过程。”
HOW SENATORS SAY THEY'RE PREPARING—OR WHY THEY AREN'T—FOR AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
As the House begins to transition to the public phase of its impeachment inquiry, the prospect looms that senators will eventually have to act as jurors and carry out a trial to determine whether to remove President Donald Trump from office.
Among a dozen Republican and Democratic senators, the methods by which members say they're preparing for the procedures of a trial range widely. Lawmakers' preparation techniques fall into one of two general categories: either they're studying past impeachment proceedings, compiling research and speaking to experts; or they are declining to prep at all because they believe it's too early or not necessary.
Based on senators' responses compiled by Newsweek Tuesday, partisan ideology is little indication as to whether a lawmaker will prepare for the logistics of a trial. A list of how—if at all—12 lawmakers are readying themselves can be found further down in this story.
(L-R) Senators Mitt Romney (R-UT), sits beside Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) during a meeting with former U.S. hostage in Yemen Danny Burch and President Donald Trump inside the Oval Office of the White House on March 6 in Washington, DC.
There is no set timeline or even a guarantee that the Democratic-led House votes to impeach Trump. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has conceded that that's what he expects to occur.
"It looks to me like they're hellbent to do it, and we will end up in an impeachment trial at some point," McConnell said at a weekly press conference Tuesday. "I will say, I'm pretty sure how it's likely to end. If it were today, I don't think there's any question it would not lead to a removal.
"So, the question is, how long does the Senate want to take? How long do the presidential candidates want to be here on the floor of the Senate instead of in Iowa and New Hampshire and all of these other related issues that may be going on? It's very difficult to ascertain how long this takes."
Several outlets reported last month that during a weekly GOP luncheon in the Capitol, McConnell and his staff presented a PowerPoint presentation about how a trial might take place and answered questions from Republican senators.
And Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has taken his own steps to try and prepare Democrats. He conducted conference calls last month with the caucus about the House's inquiry, according to a senior Democratic aide, and has established a "document hub" for Senate Democratic offices to access. The hub has information from past impeachment battles, message guidance, historical facts and publicly available evidence from the inquiry.
Schumer has also been in contact with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). The senior Democratic aide said that conversations regarding the timing of a Senate trial are premature since articles have yet to be drafted.
Senators who are prepping:
Lamar Alexander (R-TN): "I have read a good deal," the retiring lawmaker said. "I'm a potential juror, so I'll listen to all the arguments and the evidence and I'll make a decision."
Alexander, who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, referenced a new book, Impeachment: An American History, and an 1896 memoir by Sen. Edmund Ross, History of the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson. Ross, a senator from Kansas after the Civil War, was viewed as a controversial figure for being the deciding vote against convicting Johnson and allowing him to remain in office.
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT): "Everything and anything," Blumenthal said when asked what he was doing to prepare. "I'm reading transcripts of prior impeachments. I'm looking at rules and precedents. I'm reading books that have been written and talking to experts.
"We are in completely uncharted territory. One conclusion I have from looking at all the history and the precedents is that every impeachment trial has been different from every other, including judicial impeachments. But there are a couple of really key decisions that have to be made."
Susan Collins (R-ME): "I've started assembling a team of attorneys to help me, and that includes attorneys at the legal division of the Congressional Research Service," the moderate senator said. "I've already posed some procedural questions to them."
Collins, unlike the majority of her colleagues, was in the Senate during the Clinton impeachment trial in 1999. She was one of just two members who did not vote along party lines to convict the Democratic president.
Despite her previous experience, Collins said it's important to refresh her memory about procedural matters and indicated there's "some confusion" among her fellow senators regarding several aspects of an impeachment trial.
John Kennedy (R-LA): Kennedy said that although he did not expect the House to pass articles of impeachment until the beginning of the new year, he was in the preliminary process of studying reports by the Congressional Research Service about impeachment proceedings.
Angus King (I-ME): "I have been reading—I haven't talked to anybody, but I've got a binder of background on the process," the lawmaker said. The procedural background information is from the Congressional Research Service, King said.
The Independent senator also highlighted the confusion and unknown factors that are likely to come with such rare and historical proceedings.
"We don't really know what the process is. It's not as if there's a lot of experience." King said. "Juries are the—what's the term, the miners of the facts? There's a different word. But anyway, that's the job: What are the facts and whether the facts rise to the level of an impeachable offense, and that requires some historical analysis."
Mitt Romney (R-UT): "I have re-read the Federalist Papers, and I will be seeking legal advice from scholars and attorneys that may have perspective on matters that relate to the process," the frequent Trump critic said.
The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay in New York newspapers in 1787 and 1788 under the pseudonym "Publius." They're viewed today as one of the best ways to understand the authors' original intent of the Constitution.
Rick Scott (R-FL): "I got some briefings" by a person "in my office," the first-term senator said. Scott did not specify who it was or what the briefings were about.
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): Approached by Newsweek, Whitehouse motioned to a folder he was carrying that was more than an inch thick with papers, which he said were two Senate reports on prior impeachment proceedings.
"We're not just jurors: we have a significant role in terms of the ability to ask our own questions, the ability for the Senate to pursue discovery, get documents, the ability for the Senate to call witnesses—aside from what the managers or the impeachment opponents would present," he said. "That gives us a much more engaged role than a traditional courtroom juror has."
Senators who are not prepping:
Lindsey Graham (R-SC): The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman said he was in talks with McConnell about the specifics of how the chamber would operate, but that he himself was not taking any specific measures to prepare.
"I'm talking to Mitch about it, how you would set the trial up," Graham said. "You'd have a resolution, like you did with Clinton to set the parameters."
Doug Jones (D-AL): "I'm not preparing," the moderate freshman said. "We don't have any charges."
Bob Menendez (D-NJ): "I have a pretty good sense of what a trial is about, having practiced law," said the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Menendez received his law degree from Rutgers University in New Jersey in 1979.
Menendez said he saw little opportunity, aside from minor procedural measures, for a Senate impeachment trial to differ from normal court proceedings that he's familiar with.
"The president will have his defense and one must deduce all of the facts and the law and make a decision on guilt or innocence. In that respect, I understand the absolute fundamentals," he elaborated. "I don't think that there will be that fundamental a difference. There may be procedure or other elements that may be different under Senate rules. When it comes time to that, we'll fully avail ourselves of the Senate rules and immerse ourselves in it."
Marco Rubio (R-FL): The Sunshine State lawmaker indicated he was not taking any specific steps to prep for a trial.
"It's a trial based on facts," Rubio said. "And then you have to make a political decision, which is a political process—it is a political process on what exactly happened and what result is in the best interest of the country."
