Dartmouth Alums in Senate Vote in Impeachment Trial

The Senate completed one chapter in saga of the Trump Presidency on Saturday, February 13 when it acquitted the former President on an Article of Impeachment charging “Incitement of Insurrection.” 

57 members voted to convict President Trump, comprising the entire Democratic caucus and seven Republicans. 43, all Republicans, voted against the article. 

The vote came hastily, less than four days after the start of the trial and hours after a failed vote pushed by House impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) to call witnesses and extend proceedings indefinitely.

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) earned praise from Democrats and a censure by the Louisiana Republican Party for his surprise vote in favor of conviction. He had not voted with his Democratic colleagues for a February 9 measure declaring the Senate’s trial of a former president constitutional.

Alumni members of the Senate voted as follows:

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) ‘88

Former presidential candidate Gillibrand voted to convict with the rest of her caucus. Framing conviction as a constitutional necessity, she struck a bipartisan tone in her statement.

“This shameful incident has left a stain on our nation that can never be removed—nor should it,” she remarked, “I upheld [my] oath by voting to convict President Trump under charges of inciting an insurrection against the U.S. government.”

“I thank the other senators, including seven of my Republican colleagues, who had the courage to do the same.”

Sen. Angus King Jr. (I-Maine) ‘66

The independent senator from Maine released a lengthy statement describing his reasoning for why he voted to convict, saying that the President incited the Capitol attack on January.

“Donald Trump’s lies drove people to violence – and when the violence came, his silence was deafening.” he said.  King further explained his vote by criticizing the President’s lawyers and their attempt to tie prominent Democrats to political violence. 

“[T]he former President’s defense lawyers seemed to center their wobbly argument around out-of-context clips from Democratic leaders in an attempt to devalue President Trump’s incendiary rhetoric,” he argued.

The Senator ended his statement with a reference to the ‘but-for’ legal test. 

“[W]ould any of this have occurred ‘but for’ Donald Trump’s lies about the election’s legitimacy…his repeated calls for supporters to gather in Washington on January 6th, and then march to the Capitol to interrupt a sacred democratic process?” he asked, “The answer is clear: of course not.” 

“Donald Trump poured the gasoline, lit the match, and directed the hostile crowd towards Capitol Hill – he bears ultimate responsibility.”

Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) Tuck ‘84

Although she did not release a statement on her vote to convict, Smith spoke to Minnesota radio station WCCO News Talk 830 about her intentions before the trial.

“This is not just an isolated event of what happened on January 6th,” she said, “The (former) President has months if not years of history using language to insight his supporters to violence”

Smith had harsh words for her fellow members Josh Hawley (R-Miss.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) who supported Republican objections to the Electoral College vote certification. 

“I believe they should resign or be expelled,” she told WCCO’s Adam Carter. 

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) ‘78

After announcing his retirement on January 25, Senator Portman induced speculation that he might vote to convict President Trump. He voted against the article.

In explaining his stance Portman made clear that he believed President Trump “encouraged the mob” on January. He presented his “no” vote in constitutional terms.

“The threshold question I must answer is whether a former president can be convicted by the Senate in the context of an impeachment,” he argued, “This would be unprecedented.”

In place of any Congressional venue, the two-term Senator suggested prosecutors take up the case. 

“In fact, the Constitution makes clear that former presidents are subject to the criminal justice system” he said. “That is where the issues raised by the president’s inexcusable actions and words must be addressed.”

Portman ended on a note of unity.

“President Biden said in his inaugural address, ‘This is our historic moment of crisis and challenge, and unity is the path forward.’  I agree, and will continue to do my part to try to find that common ground to bring our country together to address the many challenges we face.”

Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) ‘79

Hoeven voted against conviction and struck a similar tone to his Ohio colleague after the trial.

“The Founding Fathers designed impeachment as a way to remove a President from office,” he said in a statement, “That is why I believe it is unconstitutional and voted against trying to apply impeachment to a former president, after he has left office. That would be impeaching a private citizen.” 

“Now that the trial is over, we need to work in a bipartisan way to address the challenges facing our nation.”

Going Forward

Although the Senate has acquitted former President Trump for his role in the events of January 6, hope still remains among Trump critics that Congress could punish the President in other ways. 

Some Democrats assert that Congress can ban Trump from ever serving in political office again under Section III of the 14th Amendment which states “No Person shall…hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath…to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

In The Hill, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) eliminated censure as an option.

“Oh, these cowardly senators who couldn’t face up to what the president did and what was at stake for our country are now going to have a chance to give a little slap on the wrist?” she said, “We censure people for using stationery for the wrong purpose.”

It remains to be seen whether the Democratic Party, now in control of both elected branches of the federal government, will be able to muster the political will to cripple President Trump’s future political aspirations, even perhaps another run for president.