Roger Wicker is the senior senator for Mississippi. Wicker, a long-time Tupelo resident who is a conservative and a strong defender for President Donald Trump. Although Wicker strongly denied that Trump committed impeachable offenses and stated that he disagrees with Democrats, Wicker appeared to be committed to listening to the case of Democratic prosecutors. Seven members of the House of Representatives voted to impeach Trump in December 2019. The Senate will now decide whether or not to convict him and remove him. Trump is facing charges of abuse of office, obstruction of Congress, making him the third impeachable president in American history. Most Democrats supported impeachment, and most Republicans supported conviction. Republicans, on the other hand, favored acquittal and opposed impeachment. Just moments before the end of Democratic arguments began, Wicker met with Mississippi Today to talk about his approach to the impeachment trial. He also discussed whether he was impartial, and what historians might recall. This story has been edited to be more clear and longer. Mississippi Today: This week, we were in the press gallery. You have been attentive. You have been paying attention and taking notes. How did you approach the hearings this week? U.S. Senator Roger Wicker: I have listened. I don’t have a preconceived notion of how (Democrats), should present their argument. Although we do the same things over and over again, I believe today that we will get deeper into obstruction of Congress. This will be different. You also know that in the impeachment Bill Clinton, no one took more than 24 hours. The House managers seem to feel it is in their best interests to use the majority of the 24 hours. I find it more interesting that they make the case to the public than to senators. These charges are not grounds for the president to be fired. The actions of Senator Chuck Schumer’s senators and managers are intended to influence the House election and Senate elections in November. This will result in President Trump’s victory. Are you convinced that President Trump’s accusations warrant his removal from office No. This is the lesson that Jerry Nadler, Democratic U.S. Rep., said twenty years ago. Some of us now believe what Alexander Hamilton believed over 200 years ago. A narrowly partisan impeachment by the president is not what was intended and it is not good for the country. This impeachment was always going be done by a narrowly-partisan majority. Nancy Pelosi stated that as late 2019 as well. She was right. Although I would have preferred that we didn’t go down this path, she was overcome by her more radical friends. She had to defend her position, I believe. We are doing exactly the same thing Nancy Pelosi stated last year, which was quite recent. That we shouldn’t. We just need to move on. Are you sure that President Trump did the thing they accuse him of, which was asking the Ukrainian government for assistance in investigating a political rival and potentially influencing the outcome of the presidential election. They have not made a case to remove the president. The transcript of the phone conversation speaks for itself. Although it is not a tape, I believe everyone agrees that it is a very accurate transcript. This is not the main point of this proceeding. What is the point? Did the president do anything to justify his resignation from office? That is the answer. That’s why we are here. It’s not to judge if a telephone call was flawless or not. It’s not about whether or not there is an impeachable offense. They’ve also shown clips of video clips from the testimony of at most half a dozen House managers who either said directly or indicated that they believed that there was a quid proquo. However, this is not an impeachable offense. In theory, Trump would not be impeached if he did as the House members said. We are not even close to an impeachable offense. Are you sure that Senate colleagues are listening to the House managers’ presentations? Or do you think it’s going to be a vote on party lines? Well, we’re listening. We’re also listening to repetition. This is something I used to say when I was a small-town lawyer who represented juries. I heard it again this week at the United States Senate. You don’t have to check your common sense when you enter a building. It’s not true. I didn’t intend to test my common sense at the front door. However, that doesn’t mean that I didn’t listen respectfully. Other members have repeatedly stated that they are listening and sitting respectfully. Based on the evidence I have seen, I don’t think there was any way that Donald Trump would be able to be removed from office because of this. You also mentioned the narrowly partisan impeachments. You were present in the House during the Clinton impeachment in 1998, and you voted for all four impeachment article. What is the Clinton impeachment like? We did have some Democrats to impeach the House. A judge duly appointed had found that the president was guilty of perjury. If she had found me guilty, I would have been sent to a federal penitentiary. It doesn’t matter if it’s a case where you are a character witness in Washington or if the Mississippi sheriff is in federal prison. If I am testifying in a divorce or sexual harassment case. If you raise your hand, lying is considered a crime. There were many other reasons, but that was my tipping point. Perjury had been ruled by a judge. I would have been taken out of office on a train if I had done to an intern the same thing Bill Clinton did to an intern. These were the differences. However, the quote you all published this week I agree with. I wasn’t referring to a violation in criminal law, so the article didn’t bother me. You clearly saw the irony, even though I didn’t see it. How will historians and ordinary people, 50 years later, look back at this week when you were one hundred senators present on the floor to hear these arguments? They will view it as a narrowly political impeachment. There will be disagreements about this. They will remember Donald Trump as an extraordinary candidate, one that pundits didn’t think could win, and experts that could have been so successful in turning around the country and government. It’s been a huge success. Many people who are close to me didn’t believe that tariffs or trade negotiations would succeed. It worked. It’s a great achievement to have reached an agreement with China. It could lead to something better, or it may not. But it is an accomplishment that has pulled us back. The United States-Mexico Canada Agreement is now in place. The president made this agreement in a way that everyone around him said was going to cause resentment in Mexico, Canada, and be counterproductive. He reached an agreement with the left-leaning president in Mexico, who was about to be expelled. The socialist president of Mexico was also supportive. Justin Trudeau, Canada’s prime minister, was warned that you could offend certain people. And here we are, with trade agreements. The economy is flourishing. The impeachment of him will be viewed in 30 years. They can’t stand him, and they never will. Although I do not know what will happen in November and what would happen in the second term, I can tell you that there has been incredible success in terms both of people working and minorities working. This has also led to trade deals being made. Editor’s Note: In the fourth quarter 2019, the unemployment rate for whites and Asians was lower than the national average (3%) According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate for Hispanics and African Americans is 4.4% and 5.4 percent respectively. This is the highest among racial group. Support this work by making a regular donation to support our Spring Member Drive.