SPOKANE, Wash. — The United States Senate decided to acquit President Donald Trump of the two articles of impeachment brought against him on Wednesday in votes that were mostly along party lines.
The only person to break party lines was former presidential candidate and current Republican Utah Sen. Mitt Romney, who voted "guilty" on the first article of impeachment for abuse of power. Romney joined his republican colleagues for the second vote on obstructing Congress, with no one else breaking party lines.
President Trump was found not guilty by a vote of 48-52 on the first article and 47-53 on the second article.
Both independents in the Senate, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Maine Sen. Angus King, voted guilty on both articles. Sanders is also running for the Democratic nomination for president.
The senators from both Washington and Idaho all voted along party lines and have reacted to the Senate's decision to acquit, while only one senators responded to KREM's request for comment on Romney's vote of "guilty" on the first article.
Republican Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo told KREM he disagreed with Romney's decision but will continue to work with him.
"Senator Romney can exercise his own independent judgement when casting votes just as much as anybody else," the statement reads. "I disagreed with him today, but we have worked together in the past on a number of other issues and will continue to do so."
Washington
Washington Democratic Sen. Patty Murray released a statement on her decision to vote "guilty" on both articles, stating that Trump's actions were "unacceptable."
Murray's full statement reads:
"I’ve said many times throughout this trial that each senator’s decision to choose fairness or a cover-up, and country or party, is theirs alone to make and live with—and that this isn’t just about this president, it’s about every future president. I am now on the record, representing millions of people in my home state of Washington, in saying it is unacceptable for a president, now or ever, to ask a foreign country to interfere in our election for their own benefit. I want every American to know my strong feeling is that we, the people, elect our presidents, they owe their office to the American people, and Americans must be their priority. I am grateful to every senator who stood up for this fundamental American principle today.”
Washington Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell, who also voted along party lines to convict, said in a statement late Wednesday night:
“The United States is known for free and fair elections. It is the bedrock of our democracy. The President tried to get a foreign power to interfere in our elections and that was wrong.”
Idaho
Both Idaho senators voted for acquittal, and said in their statements that the impeachment process was highly partisan.
Idaho Republican Sen. James Risch said in his statement that the impeachment "epitomized exactly the sort of hyper-partisan exercise that our Founding Fathers warned against."
Risch's full statement reads:
“As a juror and former litigator, I strongly felt the need for a fair and objective Senate impeachment trial free from the deep politicization that characterized the House’s investigation of the President. Over the last two weeks, I have listened to hours of opening arguments and debate, and reviewed countless documents and witness testimony. House impeachment managers asserted that the House’s prepared case was ‘rock-solid.’ Having reviewed all the evidence as presented by the House managers and the President’s legal team, I do not share that assessment.
This impeachment has epitomized exactly the sort of hyper-partisan exercise that our Founding Fathers warned against when they penned a Constitutional requirement for a two-thirds vote in the Senate to convict. Their debate indicated strongly they did not want impeachment to be used as a political bludgeon to simply remove a president with whom they disagree. That was attempted here. I therefore cast my vote to acquit the President and seek to return to the important work for Idahoans that they sent me to the Senate to accomplish.”
Sen. Crapo echoed many of the same sentiments as Risch, stating that the allegations of abuse of power and obstructing Congress during the investigation into Trump's dealings with Ukraine fell "far short of the high threshold for removal of a U.S. President."
Crapo's full statement reads:
“The highly partisan impeachment in the House of Representatives seeks to remove President Trump from office for 1) improper motives in conducting an otherwise legal act in furtherance of legitimate national foreign policy interests, 2) holding a meeting at the United Nations in New York rather than at the White House in Washington, D.C., and 3) for asserting Executive Privilege against the House of Representatives. The U.S. Senate has conducted a full trial over 12 days. In this trial, the Senate reviewed testimony from 13 witnesses sworn under oath in the House, over 28,000 pages of documentary evidence, numerous additional presentations of additional unsworn witnesses, documents and reports contained in over 192 video presentations and other oral assertions. This included, but was not limited to, presentations of John Bolton’s manuscript statements. Clearly, contrary to many reports, the Senate held a full trial, including numerous witnesses.
The Founders of our nation were clear that impeachment and removal of the President of the United States both from office and from the ballot in future elections must face very high hurdles. They specifically wanted to protect impeachment from being used as a partisan tool. It is clear from the Constitution, and Supreme Court’s interpretation of the separation of powers provisions contained in it, that elections were to be the major protection assuring oversight of presidential conduct. That is why they chose 4-year terms rather than life tenure or another longer term of office. They also provided that conviction of impeachment must not occur because of partisan dissatisfaction with the outcome of an election by requiring a 2/3 vote in the Senate. Finally, they imposed a high bar of ‘Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.’ The Founders’ inclusion of the qualifying word ‘other’ was deliberate, as it demonstrates offenses that justify removal from office must be akin to treason and bribery. The case of the House managers does not even purport to allege a crime in either Count I or Count II. Moreover, the allegations fall far short of the high threshold for removal of a U.S. President from office, and undermine Americans’ constitutional right to elect their president at the ballot box.”
