The U.S. Senate voted 56-44 that the trial of former president Donald Trump is constitutional, after nearly five hours of opening arguments from prosecution and defense attorneys. Six Republicans broke ranks to vote with the Democrats, and by most accounts the Democratic attorneys for the prosecution did a far better job than the president’s attorneys, David Schoen and Bruce Castor.

In fact, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, one of the six Republican Senators who voted against Trump on Tuesday specifically said he voted “for the side that did a good job” because the Trump attorneys were so bad.

Wow — Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy says he changed his vote on constitutionality because the Trump impeachment defense was so bad: “As an impartial juror I’m going to vote for the side that did a good job.”

— Hugo Lowell (@hugolowell) February 9, 2021

Bill Cassidy: “Anyone who listened to President Trump’s legal team saw they were unfocused, they attempted to avoid the issue. And they talked about everything but the issue at hand.”

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) February 9, 2021

Senator Cassidy was not the only Republican disappointed with the defense.

CBS News’ Nancy Cordes reports trump’s defense attorneys “appeared to confuse” the Senators. “They were looking at each other. They were whispering. It was almost as if you had gone to a math class and got an English lesson instead.”

.@nancycordes says Trump impeachment lawyer Bruce Castor “wasted the first hour” of his defense and “appeared to confuse” the senators

“They were looking at each other. They were whispering. It was almost as if you had gone to a math class and got an English lesson instead” pic.twitter.com/hk73b0bLqg

— CBS News (@CBSNews) February 9, 2021

CNN’s Manu Raju says there was “lots of criticism” from Republicans.

One of the most stalwart Trump supporters in the Senate, John Cornyn, panned the defense:

Lots of criticism from Republicans over Trump attorney Castor. John Cornyn:“And then I thought the President’s lawyer the first lawyer just rambled on and on and on and didn’t really address the constitutional argument. That was it was not one of the finest I’ve seen.”

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) February 9, 2021

Republican John Cornyn on Trump’s legal team: “I’ve seen a lot of lawyers and a lot of arguments and that was not one of the finest I’ve seen.”

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) February 9, 2021

Senator Ted Cruz was not impressed:

“I don’t think the lawyers did the most effective job,” said Sen. Ted Cruz to @karoun when asked about Trump’s lawyers. He added that Rep. Jamie Raskin was “impressive” and a “serious lawyer.”

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) February 9, 2021

Nor was Lisa Murkowski:

Murkowski: “I was really stunned at the first attorney who presented for former President Trump. I couldn’t figure out where he was going, spent 45 minutes going somewhere, but I don’t think he helped with us better understand where he was coming from on the constitutionality”

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) February 9, 2021

Susan Collins was “perplexed.”

Collins says she was “perplexed” by Trump lawyer Bruce Castor’s presentation.

“It did not seem to make any arguments at all, which was an unusual approach to take.”

She further called his call outs to Sasse and Toomey “inappropriate.”

— Igor Bobic (@igorbobic) February 9, 2021

Of course, it wasn’t just Republican Senators who were displeased:

Multiple people tell me Trump was basically screaming as Castor made a meandering opening argument that struggled to get at the heart of the defense team’s argument.

— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) February 9, 2021

On Tuesday, with President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial for incitement of insurrection set to begin, multiple news sources reported that House Democrats plan to reveal previously unseen evidence implicating the former president in the invasion of the U.S. Capitol.

A senior aide on the impeachment team says House managers “will bring evidence that nobody has seen before” in Trump’s trial this week. Aides decline to answer questions about what that secret evidence is, saying only “stay tuned.”

— Eamon Javers (@EamonJavers) February 9, 2021

A senior aide to the Democrat impeachment managers says that they will present a "succinct" case using various forms of evidence, including evidence "that nobody has seen before."

— Elizabeth Landers (@ElizLanders) February 9, 2021

According to CNN congressional correspondent Manu Raju, House impeachment managers are saying they are confident they have a “devastating” case against Trump. It is expected their case will include video footage of the rioters and testimony from people present at the invasion.

It is widely expected that Democrats do not currently have the votes to convict Trump, as 45 Republicans have signed onto a resolution attempting to declare it unconstitutional to remove a former president — a position many mainstream legal experts say is wrong.

While Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) has suggested not every Republican who considers the trial unconstitutional has made up their mind on the merits, CNN reports that others, like Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), believe the final vote will largely line up with the resolution on constitutionality, which would be insufficient to convict Trump even if all 5 Republicans who consider the trial constitutional vote to do so.

One of the many arguments from former President Donald Trump’s lawyers defending him in his second impeachment trials is that he couldn’t possibly have caused the attack on the U.S. Capitol.

At the top of her show Tuesday, MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace read the case against Trump released by House Impeachment Managers. In response, Trump and his attorneys filed their response, which Wallace found particularly puzzling.

“Their argument centers mainly on process points,” she said. “Claiming that it’s unconstitutional to impeach a president once he’s out of office. We’ll work to debunk that in a moment but first, their arguments on substance, especially the words uttered publicly by their client are interesting too. Here’s what appears to be the very best they could come up with: ‘It is denied that the phrase ‘if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore’ had anything to do with the action at the Capitol. As it was clearly about the need to fight for election security.’ What? That’s not how the insurrectionists took Trump’s words at all.”

She showed videos from Trump’s supporters watching his speech. When Trump called for them to “fight like hell” and “march to the Capitol” they began shouting and chanting “take the Capitol!”

“And this complicates the defense lawyer’s case too,” Wallace said, citing reports that Trump gleefully watched the attack on the Capitol from the White House. “So, we all know now that Donald Trump went home and watched the insurrection unfold on live TV for hours and hours and hours. Didn’t even take calls. And he never rushed to Twitter to clarify, ‘whoa, whoa, wait, my supporters misunderstood me.’ He never addressed the American people as president until much, much later. Until much of the damage was already done hours after the Capitol was breached and even then, he told the insurrectionists he ‘loved them.'”

See her opener below: