国会山-与前总统的结果唐纳德·特朗普在美国第二次弹劾审判几乎肯定会在没有定罪的情况下结束的情况下，一对两党参议员正在制定一项决议，这将是历史上第二次谴责美国总统，这可能会阻止特朗普连任。

Sens。蒂姆·凯恩弗吉尼亚州民主党人和缅因州共和党人苏珊·科林斯正在起草一项决议，谴责特朗普煽动1月6日造成包括一名国会警察在内的五人死亡的暴乱。但这不仅仅是任何谴责决议。克里斯·库恩斯参议员。凯恩和柯林斯希望做的是“包括第14修正案中导致取消未来任职资格的内容。”

“这让我很感兴趣，也是我愿意关注的事情。“底线是我们必须对1月6日的事件负责，”库恩斯说。

周一，45名共和党人投票赞成一项措施，声称对前总统的这种诉讼是违宪的，这种问责——通过弹劾审判，以及随后的投票取消特朗普担任未来职务的资格——似乎不太可能。只有五名共和党人(包括柯林斯)与民主党人一起反对这项声明，远远低于将总统定罪为“煽动叛乱”所需的67票，这是众议院弹劾文章中的指控。

针对总统的谴责决议没有法律效力，而是来自国会一个或两个议院的强烈谴责。然而，不清楚第14修正案第3节中可能包含的语言可能意味着什么。

斯蒂芬妮·基思/路透社，文件

作为唐纳德·特朗普总统的支持者，警察用催泪瓦斯清除美国国会大厦

该节规定:“任何人不得在国会中担任参议员或众议员，或总统和副总统的选举人，或在美国或任何州担任任何民事或军事职务，如果他以前曾宣誓，作为国会议员，或作为美国官员，或作为任何州立法机构的成员，或作为任何州的行政或司法官员，支持美国宪法，则不得参与反对美国宪法的叛乱或叛乱，或向其敌人提供援助或安慰。”

“该决议仍在进行中，”柯林斯参议员周二对记者说，并补充说，“但我认为，昨天参议院的投票表明，特朗普总统被定罪的可能性极小，事实上，即使进行审判的五票也可能是共和党支持的最高分。因此，在我看来，寻找一种替代方法来继续进行审判是有价值的。这显然不是我的决定，我意识到两位领导人已经确定了时间表。但在我看来，寻找一个可能获得两党支持的替代方案是有好处的。”

柯林斯说，谴责总统的决议将取代审判，但凯恩说，这还不清楚。有一点可以肯定，这将迫使共和党人对特朗普的行动采取立场，而不是专注于程序性论点，这项措施的支持者正在利用这一点作为民主党领导层的卖点。

“它宣布对国会大厦的袭击是对美国宪法的反叛。凯恩参议员在接受CNN采访时描述了这项决议。“然后它发现，特朗普总统通过反复对选举撒谎、诽谤选举官员、向其他人施压让他们来华盛顿参加一个疯狂的活动并鼓励他们来国会，为那些发动叛乱的人提供了援助和安慰。这两个发现，即这是一次叛乱，特朗普总统对叛乱分子给予了援助和安慰，是从宪法第14修正案第3节中直接提取的语言。该修正案规定，任何宣誓捍卫《宪法》的人，无论是参与反对《宪法》的起义，还是向那些参与起义的人提供援助和安慰，都将被再次禁止任职。”

凯恩认为，指责特朗普将很快澄清这个问题，以便参议员们可以专注于拜登和许多议员的首要任务——为受疫情伤害的贫困美国人提供数万亿美元的额外新冠肺炎救济。

“在我看来，知道自己最多能获得55票就进行审判，似乎不是我们这个时代的正确优先事项。凯恩说:“显然，我们正在进行一项试验，也许我们可以尽快完成，但我的首要任务是减轻COVID的负担，并获得拜登内阁的批准。”

斯蒂芬妮·雷诺兹/盖蒂影像公司，文件

2010年1月20日，参议院军事委员会在国会山举行听证会，蒂姆·凯恩在听

目前还不清楚随着审判于2月9日开始，这一努力是否会有所进展。该措施的支持者担心，审判后任何指责的努力都会失去动力。

参议院多数党领袖查克·舒默周三明确表态。

“毫无疑问，将会有一场审判，针对前总统的证据将以生动的色彩呈现给全国人民和我们每一个人，让他们再次看到。没有人能够将目光从特朗普的言行和他行为的后果上移开，”他说。

然而，柯林斯说，她正在和她的共和党同事讨论她的提议。

但是参议院共和党领导成员约翰·图恩说，“我只是认为在这一点上这是假设性的。民主党人非常想通过弹劾程序。这是对他们来说很重要的投票。我听到了一些抱怨，但不是严肃的讨论，这些讨论得到了足够多的民主党或共和党人的支持，使这成为一个现实的选择。”

“我们只需要向前迈进，我希望我们能做到这一点，历史将追究那些负有责任的人，那些犯下的罪行。刑事司法系统将追究他们的责任，”佛罗里达州参议员马尔科·卢比奥说。“但我们需要在这里花99.9%的时间，为那些把我们送到这里的人和对他们来说重要的事情而工作。”

也不是所有的民主党人都同意。弗吉尼亚州民主党参议员乔·曼钦(Joe Manchin)表示，特朗普的行为——他将此归咎于叛乱——非常严重，弹劾是最佳选择。参议员甚至提出了刑事起诉的想法。

曼钦说:“这比我们一生中见过的任何事情都要严重得多，这真的是宪法中弹劾条款的目的。”他补充说，也许刑事指控是有道理的。

Leah Millis/路透社，文件

唐纳德·特朗普总统在竞选前夕在佐治亚州道尔顿的竞选集会上发表讲话

“如果有刑事审判或刑事途径，也许我们应该看看...我们民主的基石是无辜的，除非被证明有罪，总统有很好的辩护，”曼钦告诉记者。“我不知道，我们希望确保没有人再这样做——永远不要考虑再这样做，煽动叛乱。”

在美国第二银行的激烈争论中，国会只成功地指责了一位总统安德鲁·杰克逊，这位国家元首单方面解散了第二银行，解雇了一名内阁秘书。这一指责后来被继任者的参议院取消，因此一些人会认为柯林斯和凯恩的指责努力——如果成功的话——是对总统的第一次指责。

可以肯定的是，有人试图正式谴责前任总统——理查德·尼克松的多次尝试——但这些努力都在委员会中夭折了。根据国会研究处的一份报告，反对尼克松和比尔·克林顿总统的决议也要求他们辞职。

Bipartisan Senate duo crafts censure resolution that seeks to bar Trump from office

Capitol Hill -- With the outcome of former PresidentDonald Trump’s second impeachment trial all but certain to end without a conviction, a bipartisan pair of senators is working on a resolution that for just the second time in history would censure a U.S. president -- and this one could potentially bar Trump from office.

Sens.Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, are crafting a resolution to censure Trump for inciting the Jan. 6 riot that left five dead, including a Capitol police officer. But it is not just any censure resolution. Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., told reporters Tuesday that what Kaine and Collins are looking to do is “include the elements of the 14th Amendment that lead to disqualification from future office."

"That's intriguing to me and something I'm willing to look at. The bottom line here is we have to deliver accountability for the events of January 6,” Coons said.

That accountability -- through an impeachment trial, and a vote afterward to disqualify Trump from holding future office -- looked far less likely on Monday after 45 Republicans voted for a measure claiming that such a proceeding against a former president would be unconstitutional. Just five Republicans -- including Collins -- joined with Democrats in opposing the declaration, far short of the 67 votes needed to convict the president of “incitement of insurrection,” the charge in the House impeachment article.

Censure resolutions against presidents do not have the force of law but are a strong reprimand from one or both houses of Congress. It is unclear, however, what the possible inclusion of language from Section 3 of the 14th Amendment might mean.

That section reads: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

“[The resolution] is still in process,” Sen. Collins told reporters Tuesday, adding, “But I think yesterday's vote on the Senate floor shows that it is extremely unlikely that President Trump would be convicted and that indeed the five votes to even proceed to a trial is probably the high mark on what you're going to see for Republican support. So, it seems to me that there is some value in looking at an alternative to proceeding with the trial. It's obviously not my call, and I realize the two leaders have already locked in a schedule. But it seems to me there is benefit in looking at an alternative that might be able to garner bipartisan support.”

Collins said the resolution reprimanding the president, which is still being tweaked with no clear date for its introduction, would be in lieu of a trial, but Kaine said that wasn’t clear. One thing is certain, it would force Republicans to take a position on Trump’s actions rather than focusing on procedural arguments, something that supporters of the measure are using as a selling point to Democratic leadership.

"It declares that the attack on the Capitol was an insurrection against the Constitution of the United States. It was an effort to stop Congress from undertaking its constitutional duty to count electoral votes," Sen. Kaine described the resolution in a CNN interview. "It then finds that President Trump gave aid and comfort to those who carried out the insurrection by repeatedly lying about the election, slandering election officials, pressuring others to come to Washington for a wild event and encouraging them to come up to Congress. Those two findings, that it was an insurrection and that President Trump gave aid and comfort to the insurrectionists is language pulled right out of section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. And that amendment says anybody who has taken an oath to defend the Constitution who either engages in an insurrection against the Constitution or gives aid and comfort to those who do will be barred from office again."

Kaine argued that censuring Trump would clear the issue quickly so that senators could focus on a top priority for Biden and many lawmakers -- getting trillions of dollars in additional COVID-19 relief out the door to needy Americans hurt by the pandemic.

“To do a trial knowing you'll get 55 votes at the max seems to me to be not the right prioritization of our time. Obviously we do a trial, maybe we can do it fast, but my top priority is COVID relief and getting the Biden cabinet approved,” said Kaine.

It’s unclear if the effort will go anywhere with the trial on track to begin on Feb. 9. And supporters of the measure are concerned that any effort to censure after the trial would lose steam.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer made his position clear Wednesday.

“Make no mistake, there will be a trial, and the evidence against the former president will be presented in living color for the nation and every one of us to see once again. No one will be able to avert their gaze from what Mr. trump said and did and the consequences of his actions,” he said.

Collins, however, said she is talking to her GOP colleagues about her proposal.

But John Thune, a member of Senate GOP leadership, said, “I just think it's so hypothetical at this point. The Democrats are very intent on going through the impeachment process. That's the vote that matters to them. I've heard some rumblings but not serious discussion that had support from enough Democrats or Republicans for that matter to make this a realistic option."

“We just need to move forward, and I hope that we'll do that and that history will hold those responsible accountable, those crimes committed. The criminal justice system will hold them accountable,” Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said. “But we need to be here spending 99.9% of our time working on behalf of the people who sent us here and the things that matter to them.”

Not all Democrats are on board, either. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., said that Trump’s behavior -- which he blames for the insurrection -- is so serious that impeachment is the best option. The senator even floated the idea of a criminal prosecution.

“This is much, much more serious than anything we've ever seen in our lifetime, and it's really the purpose of having articles of impeachment in the Constitution,” said Manchin, adding that perhaps criminal charges were warranted.

“If there's a criminal trial or criminal pathway, maybe we should look at that...The bedrock of our democracy is innocent until proven guilty, and the president has had a good defense,” Manchin told reporters. “I don't know, we want to make sure that no one ever does this again -- never thinks about doing this again, sedition and insurrection.”

Congress has only ever successfully censured one president, Andrew Jackson, in a heated dispute over the Second Bank of the United States, which the head of state had unilaterally disbanded, firing a Cabinet secretary to do so. That censure was later expunged by a successor Senate, so some would consider the censure effort by Collins and Kaine -- if successful -- the first censure of a president.

To be sure, there have been attempts to formally reprimand prior presidents -- multiple attempts in Richard Nixon’s case -- but those efforts have died in committee. According to a Congressional Research Service report, resolutions against Nixon and President Bill Clinton also called for their resignations.