Mitt Romney and the Impeachment
The impeachment circus that never should have come as far as it did finally ended this week with President Trump's acquittal.
Before I go on, I'll mention for those who haven't read all my posts, I did vote for Trump BUT I do not support everything he has done. I also think he can be arrogant, pompous, brash, inconsiderate, and disrespectful. But he has done more to protect our constitutional freedoms than most Democrats.
Back to the impeachment ordeal.
Was the call to Ukraine last year, "exposed" by some unknown whisteblower, completely inappropriate, I believe it was. But it wasn't impeachable, in my opinion. For it to have been impeachable the whistleblower should have testified instead of all the second- and third-hand "witnesses" and established completely provable grounds that meet the grounds for impeachment. In my opinion, the biggest problem is the Democrat-controlled House impeached the president based on a bunch of second and third-hand "knowledge" testimony and so-called evidence.
Of the two charges the democrat-controlled House impeached the president on, only the first, "abuse of power," was even worth considering.
The second "obstruction of congress" was, in my opinion, laughable. It was like children complaining about not getting their way so they were just getting back. Trump isn't the first president to not cooperate with congress. This charge was like the Democrats just trying to come up with something else to accuse the president with.
But the biggest problem with the impeachment is most of the House (specifically the Democrats) had already decided to impeach the President BEFORE they even heard any witnesses or seen any evidence. What we had was essentially a jury-like proceeding where the jurors had already decided on how they would vote and were looking for anything that would make them feel justified in voting that way.
Then the Democrat-pushed impeachment finally sent their articles of impeachment to the Senate. But most of the Senate had already decided how they were going to vote before they even got the articles. Democrats would overwhelming support the impeachment and Republicans would overwhelmingly vote to acquit the President. Again, another jury where the jurors were prejudiced in the vote.
Mitt Romney was an exception.
Many fellow Utahns have complained that Mitt Romney voted in favor of the first charge. Many claim he didn't represent the majority of Utahns with that vote.
Here's the thing they don't understand.
Yes, a senator or representative is supposed to represent the people of his state. But this is primarily where voting for legislation is concerned.
We, the regular people, didn't read or hear all the testimony or documents that were presented. We have not talked to those involved with the whole impeachment process. We have, generally, only received media-filtered information, much of which has bias to it.
Most people had already pre-judged whether the president should be impeached or acquitted. Most Republicans didn't think the president should be impeached. Most liberals/Democrats want the president removed from office. And this is without hearing any testimony or seeing any evidence for either side.
Is this how we should operate our courts of law? Let juries come in already prejudiced in how they will vote to convict or acquit?
Just because the majority of people think someone may not be guilty doesn't mean the juror should vote that way. And if the majority believe the person is already guilty, before they hear testimony or see evidence to support that verdict, then there isn't a fair trial.
The juror has the responsibility to weigh the evidence and to make the decision based on that evidence. The juror must set aside their own biases and prejudice and make a decision based on the testimony and evidence presented from both sides.
And, yes, two people can come to completely different conclusions as to the final verdict based on the same evidence given. It happens frequently in courts. That's why there are hung juries. That's why it takes a long time for verdicts to be reached.
This is even why the Supreme Court rarely ever (has it ever?) has a ruling that is in 100% agreement by all justices.
While I don't agree with either charge rising to the level of impeachment, I would agree that Trump could be accused of abuse of power and could be censured.
My believe is the majority of the House voted more in line with their party than with regard to fact and applicability to impeachment. Most Democrats want Trump impeached and they used whatever excuses they could contrive to get there. And those in charge of the impeachment proceedings did everything they could to promote those witnesses and evidence that supported their desire for a impeachment. And they tried to put down and limit and not call witnesses or show evidence that would weaken their impeachment claim. As a result, the House managed to present a case (albeit a very biased on) that the president committed impeachment-worthy offences.
Most Republicans don't want the president impeached, although many are probably uneasy with Trump's apparent misuse of power. Both sides, although more on the Democrats than the Republicans, let what they wanted cloud their judgment.
The same sentiments went on in the Senate.
Based on what the Senate received, and most had already made up their mind before even reading or hearing any of the evidence and case against Trump, it's actually amazing that Romney voted as he did. To me it seems as if Romney were one of the few who actually took his duty seriously and considered the options.
And I think he's right, calling additional witnesses could have given him some reasonable doubt, but he didn't get that opportunity and had to make a decision based on the information he had, which most of us regular people don't have, or don't want to read through with an unbiased eye.
Imagine how difficult it would be to try to set aside your personal biases and preferences and to make a decision based only on what was presented to you. You may believe it is incomplete and more witness testimony and evidence could be helpful in establishing the full truth. But most of the others involved with the trial don't want to have more testimony. So, your job, your oath, is to make an unbiased decision based on what has already been presented, no matter how lopsided it may be.
But, the House should have been more thorough and open in their impeachment process. They were rushed and seemed to only want witnesses who supported their impeachment case and made it very difficult for those who support Trumps side. As mentioned, they did all they could to only showcase their justification for impeaching the president. It's no wonder they were concerned about the Republicans in the Senate having essentially already decided to acquit the president...The House Democrats had made a similar decision to impeach the president before they even started the impeachment process.
Neither the House nor the Senate did as they were supposed to do. Both sides acted solely on partisan lines and for partisan purposes.
I think if more people were to let go of their hatred and disdain for Trump, and were able to actually look at the evidence and listen to testimony without bias, then their would have been no impeachment. The House--if the majority of the representatives actually had integrity and courage and could actually set aside their biases, partisan prejudices, and other personal issues to look for and discover the real truth--would never have impeached the president.
But there would likely have been a more united front to censure the president.
As it is, the impeachment circus has further divided the country. And the Democrats have laid their groundwork to cry "foul" and "unfair" if Trump gets re-elected. They will further accuse the election of being cheated, rigged, etc.
The Democrat leadership won't admit it, but that is part of the plan. They hoped to get Trump impeached and removed from office, but, barring that outcome, they would continue to sow the seeds of distrust so if he did get re-elected they would have a basis for further investigations and accusations.
How do I know it's their plan. Because they have been using those accusations since they before they started the impeachment process. Part of their reasoning is if Trump isn't impeached he will someone collude to rig the elections again.
There are a lot of people who don't like Mitt Romney, but I would argue that he is one of the few who didn't put party over duty. He did his best to lay aside his preferences, his bias, and any prejudice he has to look at and consider the evidence and testimony presented to the Senate. He is one of the few in Congress who has integrity. He did not make his decision before the impeachment came to the senate. Maybe he didn't have all the information. He wanted it but others wouldn't allow for it. So, he made the decision the best he could based on what was given to him. He had the courage to go against what everyone else in his party was doing.
If more in congress had the integrity and courage that Romney demonstrated, the impeachment would never had gotten through the House. Although, as I've mentioned, it's likely a presidential censure could have resulted.
And if more in congress had Romney's integrity and courage, more witnesses and relevant and direct evidence would have been presented instead of the very one-sided show the country witnessed.
My only issue with Romney's vote is actually with those who have misconstrued his comments about his oath to God as somehow being related to Romney being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("Mormon" as most call us). It is unfortunate that there are many who think Romney somehow voted the way he did because he is a Mormon, and somehow the Church influenced that vote, both of which are false. Mike Lee is also a member of the Church but he didn't vote the same way, he voted to acquit Trump on both charges.
Romney's statement also got the ire of Trump who also brought up religion as being the reason Romney voted the way he did.
Romney voted the way he did because he believed it was right. In the ultimate scheme of things, the vote itself means nothing. But Romney will be able to report to God that he performed his duty to the best he was able to do as he promised do, without regard to personal preferences, bias, or prejudice. How many other members of Congress, especially in the House, actually did that? My guess is the number is in the single digits.
Ultimately Romney's vote did not convict the president and Trump was acquitted of both impeachment charges. So, while I don't believe impeachment should have ever been considered, my respect for Romney has increased. He did his due diligence and duty to the best of his ability and knowledge. His integrity and courage under fire cannot be mistaken.
It's unfortunate that many Utahns have put Romney down and many have said very un-Christlike things about and toward him. These people are blinded by their own biases and prejudices, just like the Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Many are increasingly blinded by their anger.
And that is a point I've been making for a few years. The anger in this country is increasing and it is splitting this country, not just in two but into many pieces. I believe we are getting closer to a tipping point, although that may not come for a few years. While I believe most people are still mostly good, and want was is just and right and good, I also believe that many are becoming blinded by hate and fear and anger. And it is those who are blinded who can be influenced to act out of hate, fear, or anger and who are then "justified" by those who have been fanning those flames.
Before I go on, I'll mention for those who haven't read all my posts, I did vote for Trump BUT I do not support everything he has done. I also think he can be arrogant, pompous, brash, inconsiderate, and disrespectful. But he has done more to protect our constitutional freedoms than most Democrats.
Back to the impeachment ordeal.
Was the call to Ukraine last year, "exposed" by some unknown whisteblower, completely inappropriate, I believe it was. But it wasn't impeachable, in my opinion. For it to have been impeachable the whistleblower should have testified instead of all the second- and third-hand "witnesses" and established completely provable grounds that meet the grounds for impeachment. In my opinion, the biggest problem is the Democrat-controlled House impeached the president based on a bunch of second and third-hand "knowledge" testimony and so-called evidence.
Of the two charges the democrat-controlled House impeached the president on, only the first, "abuse of power," was even worth considering.
The second "obstruction of congress" was, in my opinion, laughable. It was like children complaining about not getting their way so they were just getting back. Trump isn't the first president to not cooperate with congress. This charge was like the Democrats just trying to come up with something else to accuse the president with.
But the biggest problem with the impeachment is most of the House (specifically the Democrats) had already decided to impeach the President BEFORE they even heard any witnesses or seen any evidence. What we had was essentially a jury-like proceeding where the jurors had already decided on how they would vote and were looking for anything that would make them feel justified in voting that way.
Then the Democrat-pushed impeachment finally sent their articles of impeachment to the Senate. But most of the Senate had already decided how they were going to vote before they even got the articles. Democrats would overwhelming support the impeachment and Republicans would overwhelmingly vote to acquit the President. Again, another jury where the jurors were prejudiced in the vote.
Mitt Romney was an exception.
Many fellow Utahns have complained that Mitt Romney voted in favor of the first charge. Many claim he didn't represent the majority of Utahns with that vote.
Here's the thing they don't understand.
Yes, a senator or representative is supposed to represent the people of his state. But this is primarily where voting for legislation is concerned.
We, the regular people, didn't read or hear all the testimony or documents that were presented. We have not talked to those involved with the whole impeachment process. We have, generally, only received media-filtered information, much of which has bias to it.
Most people had already pre-judged whether the president should be impeached or acquitted. Most Republicans didn't think the president should be impeached. Most liberals/Democrats want the president removed from office. And this is without hearing any testimony or seeing any evidence for either side.
Is this how we should operate our courts of law? Let juries come in already prejudiced in how they will vote to convict or acquit?
Just because the majority of people think someone may not be guilty doesn't mean the juror should vote that way. And if the majority believe the person is already guilty, before they hear testimony or see evidence to support that verdict, then there isn't a fair trial.
The juror has the responsibility to weigh the evidence and to make the decision based on that evidence. The juror must set aside their own biases and prejudice and make a decision based on the testimony and evidence presented from both sides.
And, yes, two people can come to completely different conclusions as to the final verdict based on the same evidence given. It happens frequently in courts. That's why there are hung juries. That's why it takes a long time for verdicts to be reached.
This is even why the Supreme Court rarely ever (has it ever?) has a ruling that is in 100% agreement by all justices.
While I don't agree with either charge rising to the level of impeachment, I would agree that Trump could be accused of abuse of power and could be censured.
My believe is the majority of the House voted more in line with their party than with regard to fact and applicability to impeachment. Most Democrats want Trump impeached and they used whatever excuses they could contrive to get there. And those in charge of the impeachment proceedings did everything they could to promote those witnesses and evidence that supported their desire for a impeachment. And they tried to put down and limit and not call witnesses or show evidence that would weaken their impeachment claim. As a result, the House managed to present a case (albeit a very biased on) that the president committed impeachment-worthy offences.
Most Republicans don't want the president impeached, although many are probably uneasy with Trump's apparent misuse of power. Both sides, although more on the Democrats than the Republicans, let what they wanted cloud their judgment.
The same sentiments went on in the Senate.
Based on what the Senate received, and most had already made up their mind before even reading or hearing any of the evidence and case against Trump, it's actually amazing that Romney voted as he did. To me it seems as if Romney were one of the few who actually took his duty seriously and considered the options.
And I think he's right, calling additional witnesses could have given him some reasonable doubt, but he didn't get that opportunity and had to make a decision based on the information he had, which most of us regular people don't have, or don't want to read through with an unbiased eye.
Imagine how difficult it would be to try to set aside your personal biases and preferences and to make a decision based only on what was presented to you. You may believe it is incomplete and more witness testimony and evidence could be helpful in establishing the full truth. But most of the others involved with the trial don't want to have more testimony. So, your job, your oath, is to make an unbiased decision based on what has already been presented, no matter how lopsided it may be.
But, the House should have been more thorough and open in their impeachment process. They were rushed and seemed to only want witnesses who supported their impeachment case and made it very difficult for those who support Trumps side. As mentioned, they did all they could to only showcase their justification for impeaching the president. It's no wonder they were concerned about the Republicans in the Senate having essentially already decided to acquit the president...The House Democrats had made a similar decision to impeach the president before they even started the impeachment process.
Neither the House nor the Senate did as they were supposed to do. Both sides acted solely on partisan lines and for partisan purposes.
I think if more people were to let go of their hatred and disdain for Trump, and were able to actually look at the evidence and listen to testimony without bias, then their would have been no impeachment. The House--if the majority of the representatives actually had integrity and courage and could actually set aside their biases, partisan prejudices, and other personal issues to look for and discover the real truth--would never have impeached the president.
But there would likely have been a more united front to censure the president.
As it is, the impeachment circus has further divided the country. And the Democrats have laid their groundwork to cry "foul" and "unfair" if Trump gets re-elected. They will further accuse the election of being cheated, rigged, etc.
The Democrat leadership won't admit it, but that is part of the plan. They hoped to get Trump impeached and removed from office, but, barring that outcome, they would continue to sow the seeds of distrust so if he did get re-elected they would have a basis for further investigations and accusations.
How do I know it's their plan. Because they have been using those accusations since they before they started the impeachment process. Part of their reasoning is if Trump isn't impeached he will someone collude to rig the elections again.
There are a lot of people who don't like Mitt Romney, but I would argue that he is one of the few who didn't put party over duty. He did his best to lay aside his preferences, his bias, and any prejudice he has to look at and consider the evidence and testimony presented to the Senate. He is one of the few in Congress who has integrity. He did not make his decision before the impeachment came to the senate. Maybe he didn't have all the information. He wanted it but others wouldn't allow for it. So, he made the decision the best he could based on what was given to him. He had the courage to go against what everyone else in his party was doing.
If more in congress had the integrity and courage that Romney demonstrated, the impeachment would never had gotten through the House. Although, as I've mentioned, it's likely a presidential censure could have resulted.
And if more in congress had Romney's integrity and courage, more witnesses and relevant and direct evidence would have been presented instead of the very one-sided show the country witnessed.
My only issue with Romney's vote is actually with those who have misconstrued his comments about his oath to God as somehow being related to Romney being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("Mormon" as most call us). It is unfortunate that there are many who think Romney somehow voted the way he did because he is a Mormon, and somehow the Church influenced that vote, both of which are false. Mike Lee is also a member of the Church but he didn't vote the same way, he voted to acquit Trump on both charges.
Romney's statement also got the ire of Trump who also brought up religion as being the reason Romney voted the way he did.
Romney voted the way he did because he believed it was right. In the ultimate scheme of things, the vote itself means nothing. But Romney will be able to report to God that he performed his duty to the best he was able to do as he promised do, without regard to personal preferences, bias, or prejudice. How many other members of Congress, especially in the House, actually did that? My guess is the number is in the single digits.
Ultimately Romney's vote did not convict the president and Trump was acquitted of both impeachment charges. So, while I don't believe impeachment should have ever been considered, my respect for Romney has increased. He did his due diligence and duty to the best of his ability and knowledge. His integrity and courage under fire cannot be mistaken.
It's unfortunate that many Utahns have put Romney down and many have said very un-Christlike things about and toward him. These people are blinded by their own biases and prejudices, just like the Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Many are increasingly blinded by their anger.
And that is a point I've been making for a few years. The anger in this country is increasing and it is splitting this country, not just in two but into many pieces. I believe we are getting closer to a tipping point, although that may not come for a few years. While I believe most people are still mostly good, and want was is just and right and good, I also believe that many are becoming blinded by hate and fear and anger. And it is those who are blinded who can be influenced to act out of hate, fear, or anger and who are then "justified" by those who have been fanning those flames.
Comments
Post a Comment