If you asked us when impeachment started if Texas Republican Will Hurd and former 2020 presidential candidate Mark Sanford would have voting in favor of it, we would’ve probably said yes.

Yet. . .

Now, after weeks of information coming out in Adam Schiff’s multiple hearings, both are now saying that they would not vote to impeach:

The unfortunate reality is that people like Will Hurd looking at the evidence presented and deciding it doesn't support impeachment says more about Will Hurd than it does about the available evidence. — Susan Hennessey (@Susan_Hennessey) November 22, 2019

So the former CIA agent who put his life on the line for the United States now doesn’t have moral courage? GTFO of here with this nonsense:

I think highly of Hurd. I really do. Nine times out of ten, he is smart and principled and focused on the right issues. I have no doubt he will have an impressive future in politics. But this is a moment for basic moral courage. There's no partial credit awarded. It's pass fail. — Susan Hennessey (@Susan_Hennessey) November 22, 2019

It sounds like this is where the GOP is headed: The president was wrong to link aide and an investigation, but this is up to the voters to decide:

If the Dems can’t convince lame duck former CIA man Will Hurd, no Trump admirer, what chance do they have with Senate Republicans? https://t.co/cuAWQ2Vxx8 — Brit Hume (@brithume) November 22, 2019

And here’s Politico’s Tim Alberta on Sanford:

Something I’ve been thinking a lot about today, re: Will Hurd, the GOP, and impeachment… Recently, Mark Sanford, perhaps Trump’s fiercest intra-party critic, told me *he* had yet to see sufficient evidence to impeach; that if he were still a House R, he would be voting no. 1/ — Tim Alberta (@TimAlberta) November 22, 2019

That took me by surprise. After all, Sanford and Justin Amash had distinguished themselves not only as the party’s most vocal dissenters, but also as the most intellectually consistent members of the House GOP. If Amash thought it’s a slam dunk, I figured, Sanford would too. 2/ — Tim Alberta (@TimAlberta) November 22, 2019

When I prodded Sanford a bit, we entered an interesting territory of thought on the whole matter — namely that, in his view, impeachment is a fundamentally un-conservative measure. (“Conservative” in the Burkean tradition, not the MAGA version.) 3/ — Tim Alberta (@TimAlberta) November 22, 2019

What Sanford was saying, in so many words, was that despite his loathing of Trump—which is well established—he would not reach for the radical, revolutionary tool of impeachment unless there was a gun billowing smoke that could be seen for miles. 4/ — Tim Alberta (@TimAlberta) November 22, 2019

In an academic, philosophical view of politics — and of conservatism itself — this makes sense. The only problem? Sanford voted to impeach Bill Clinton! 5/ — Tim Alberta (@TimAlberta) November 22, 2019

We didn’t go deep into differences he sees between the 2 impeachment cases. I wish we would have; it was a hurried conversation. But it left me thinking about Trump’s takeover of the GOP and how it shapes the thinking (perhaps subconsciously) of even his harshest detractors. 6/ — Tim Alberta (@TimAlberta) November 22, 2019

Will Hurd does not respect Trump. He thinks the president is erratic and unsophisticated and in many ways foundationally unfit to hold his office. He also seems to believe — I’m reading between the lines here — that Trump has abused his power. So why not vote to impeach? 7/ — Tim Alberta (@TimAlberta) November 22, 2019

Maybe Hurd, who is retiring but young & talented & ambitious, wants to run in 2024 and knows he’ll never shed the scarlet letter (w/ Rs) of impeaching Trump Or maybe he came into this with an open mind and despite disgust w Trump’s actions does not see an impeachable offense 8/ — Tim Alberta (@TimAlberta) November 22, 2019

The difficulty is that Republicans have so thoroughly subjugated themselves to Trump that even if/when an honest, respected statesman-type like Hurd makes a decision that shields the president, it’s nearly impossible to believe it was done for the right and defensible reasons 9/ — Tim Alberta (@TimAlberta) November 22, 2019

No Republican can rightly expect the benefit of the doubt anymore. Hurd is smart enough to know that. He realizes most will find him insincere and politically-motivated. And maybe he is! Maybe he’s plotting his future and sees too much risk. But then, what about Sanford? 10/ — Tim Alberta (@TimAlberta) November 22, 2019

Sanford has no future in politics—he is finished. And he *loathes* Trump—more intensely than any Republican I’ve met. But he wasn’t there on impeachment. He had not seen enough evidence—even though he HAD seen enough with Clinton 20 years prior. How to make sense of this? 11/ — Tim Alberta (@TimAlberta) November 22, 2019

Short answer: You can’t. An enduring scar of Trumpism on the GOP: There will be no distinguishing the honest from dishonest, reflective from reflexive, fair from unfair. Certain moments reveal how people have far more in common than they’d ever admit. This is one of them. /end — Tim Alberta (@TimAlberta) November 22, 2019

Mollie is right here. You can buy into what Dems are accusing the president off but still “fathom” why Sanford and Hurd are no votes:

It’s EXCEEDINGLY difficult to believe anyone of even mild intelligence is unable to "make sense" of why Sanford & Hurd, and all other GOP for that matter, don’t support impeachment. However much you buy into Dem arguments, you should be able to at least *fathom* counter arguments https://t.co/bCaYfWjZ9C — Mollie (@MZHemingway) November 22, 2019

“No Republican can rightly expect the benefit of the doubt anymore,” wrote the journalist w/o a hint of irony or self-awareness. He thinks this thread indicts the GOP when it really reveals his own ignorance and bias about the people he pretends to cover. https://t.co/9aaq275Gp2 — Sean Davis (@seanmdav) November 22, 2019

***