Breaking Down How GOP Senators (Minus Mitt) Got to Acquittal

Senators fall into one of four camps: 'perfect,' 'bad but not impeachable,' 'ummmm,' and ... Mitt Romney.

By
9

This piece is adapted from Thursday’s The Morning Dispatch newsletter. If you don’t already receive it, sign up here. Since sending the newsletter, we’ve heard from the office of one senator who wanted to clarify his position. We’ll update this again if we hear from others.

For weeks, if not months, President Trump’s acquittal at the culmination of the impeachment saga was all but assured. No matter how many leaks damaging to the president’s case surfaced, no matter how many witnesses testified contradicting the administration’s line, no matter how often Rudy Giuliani opened his mouth, Trump had in his corner the 34 Republican senators necessary (and then some) to block his removal from office.

Yet when it came time for senators to cast their votes Wednesday, we still stared—bug-eyed—at the C-SPAN feed on our laptops like Michael Bluth opening a brown paper bag from the freezer labeled “DEAD DOVE Do Not Eat!” and immediately lamenting, “Well, I don’t know what I expected.”

Trump was acquitted on both counts: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
9
By
Comments (9)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Chris Scatliff

    Implied in your Romney analyses are that many other GOP Senators felt the same way but were afraid to come out, leaving Romney as the sole “hero”? OK that probably happened. But how about analyzing how many Dem Senators didn’t feel the articles warranted removal from office, but were afraid to vote for acquittal?

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Butch Earl

    "Since sending the newsletter, we’ve heard from the office of one senator who wanted to clarify his position. "

    Awesome! Proof positive Declan Garvey and The Dispatch have achieved "mover and shaker" status!

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Declan Garvey vertical-nib Author

      Thank you! Hopefully we’re on our way!

      Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Kevin Durant?

    This vote redeems Romney’s previous vote to strap the dog to the roof of his car
    🐶🐶

    Regardless, if anyone has ever owed someone an apology, ever in human history, it is Joe Biden. He accused Romney of slavery and in return Romney voted that it is immoral to investigate why Joe has the largest beach house in Delaware

    Romney’s Washington DC prayer must go something like
    “Forgive them Father....even though they know exactly what they are doing.”

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Man-Eating Cow

      Not a very accurate description of Romney's vote.

      Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    JohnF

    "With my vote, I will tell my children and their children that I did my duty to the best of my ability believing that my country expected it of me.”

    I take some encouragement from hearing that there is at least one person in Government who still has a conscience. In an era in which Congress members wait until they are carted off to prison before resigning their seats, it's refreshing to see that someone is not only prepared to exercise some independent thought, but is even willing to withstand the onslaught of a vicious Trumpworld that they know will be the consequence of their action.

    As for those Senators who maintain that Trump did absolutely nothing wrong, I look forward to seeing their comments played back to them years from now when a Democrat President comes under investigation. I suspect that they will experience a sudden epiphany that involves embracing the Constitution and declaring the Supremacy of Congress (assuming that it still exists by that time)

    As Mitch McConnell once said (on February 12, 1999, regarding the impeachment of Bill Clinton):

    "The facts clearly show that the President did not value the sacred oath. He was interested in saving his hide, not truth and justice. I submit to my colleagues that if we have no truth and we have no justice, then we have no nation of laws. No public official, no president, no man or no woman is important enough to sacrifice the founding principles of our legal system."

    "I think that the United States Senate has a clear choice today. Do we want to retain President Clinton in office, or do we want to retain our honor, our principle, and our moral authority?
    For me, and for many members in my impeachment-fatigued party, I choose honor."

    Sentiments that he undoubtedly still felt when he recently said:

    "This is a political process. This is not anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision. The House made a partisan political decision to impeach. I would anticipate we will have a largely partisan outcome in the Senate. I'm not impartial about this at all."

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    While it might appear that there's a "middle ground" to stake out in the "did it but not impeachable" stance, I find that ground even more dishonest than the "didn't do it" stance.

    What is more dishonest? Saying, "I smoked pot only once in college and I didn't enjoy it" or saying, "oh course I never smoked pot". The latter to me seems like a more "honest lie". It's a way of saying, "yes, I'm doing something immoral and I know it, and I don't want to talk about it". The former seems like a lie that is a concerted attempt to actually deceive.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Kenton A. Hoover

    I was wondering if there was a breakdown between those who felt "bad but not impeachable" and "bad but not impeachable in an election year". Or does the latter simply not exist? I get the appeal of the 2x2 matrix but...

    I go back-and-forth between feeling "but election year" is reasonable because the people are sovereign and should decide, and thinking it's just another case of "I take full responsibility but I'm certainly not resigning" that seems our new normal.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Jason

      I chewed on this a bit too. I think both that impeachment should never be highly partisan (hence the high barrier) and also that the timing of the impeachment should be irrelevant if and when those high barriers are met. Impeachment is not meant to be only a tool in non-election years, it's a last recourse for hc&m.

      Your point about the new normal is what's so interesting, and troubling - what if the barriers are met (admittedly some subjectivity will always be present) and yet a non-partisan impeachment is not possible. This to me is the crux of what we're struggling with as a nation, and why there's a feeling of unresolved injustice: we all are starting to understand that what would've shocked the conscience and been seen as clearly impeachable X years ago is no longer the standard for impeachment, not due to the objective nature of whatever act is being highlighted or it's failure to shock our collective conscience, but because we are too divided as a people to allow that to interrupt our side's policy goals and because there is no longer that collective conscience.

      What we end up with instead is a divided nation with an ever dwindling number of parliamentary maneuvers left before a true legitimacy crisis appears or other less civilized ways of settling problems become normalized.

      Collapse