The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

[GG]

2 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:

If you want to name-call your way through this then ok.
 

If you want to discuss then all the better. 
 

I don’t think Trump should have been removed from office for reasons related to my understanding of the incredibly high bar for the execution of that step. 

 

The issue here though is why so much hate for Romney. He voted based on appraising the evidence. He knew the vote wouldn’t change the course of next steps. He voted independently and as per his Constitutional responsibility. In his explanation he names faith, conscious, and an agonizing appraisal of the evidence as the deciding factors. 
 

In this political climate of factions, vapidity, and popularity contests on both sides, I sorta, kinda dig independence and solemnity. 

The "hate" is there because of ulterior motives by Romney.  There probably wouldn't be as much vitriol if Murkowski, Collins or Alexander voted that way.  

 

 

[CoudyBills]

22 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:

For folks who talk about how the left being so intolerant of other opinions, and then to demonize Romney, who, by all accounts voted based on his interpretation of the evidence and his conviction is strange indeed. The man used his voice and performed his Constitutional responsibility to cast a vote that he felt was right. 
 

This is especially interesting given that there were other Republican senators who said that they feel what Trump did was wrong but punted to the voters to make the decision around whether the wrong justified removal from office.

 

Not that I’m a Constitutional purist or anything but I’ve never seen that assignment of responsibility in the four corners of the document.
 

But back to Romney ... why the hate for a good man?  

Juror#8 The Pious,

 

Forgive me, the uneducated rube Trump supporter.  I ain't read no good, but I think those four corners specify grounds for impeachment.  You know, a crime.  As a hillbilly rube, I would think these brilliant lawyers put forth as house managers would list actual crimes in the articles of impeachment.  These brilliant, humble public servants, did not create articles around an actual crime.  No crime, no grounds for impeachment.  So, yeah, it should be "punted" to voters to decide.  Romney voting to impeach is a turd-person move.  

Edited February 6, 2020 by CoudyBills

[dubs]

4 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:

If you want to name-call your way through this then ok.
 

If you want to discuss then all the better. 
 

I don’t think Trump should have been removed from office for reasons related to my understanding of the incredibly high bar for the execution of that step. 

 

The issue here though is why so much hate for Romney. He voted based on appraising the evidence. He knew the vote wouldn’t change the course of next steps. He voted independently and as per his Constitutional responsibility. In his explanation he names faith, conscious, and an agonizing appraisal of the evidence as the deciding factors. 
 

In this political climate of factions, vapidity, and popularity contests on both sides, I sorta, kinda dig independence and solemnity. 

I don’t hate Romney, I am just ridiculing him for such a misguided and wrongheaded decision.  even if he truly believes he’s voting the right way he is wrong based on both the facts of the situation and the standard in the constitution. 
 

 

[Juror#8]

31 minutes ago, GG said:

The "hate" is there because of ulterior motives by Romney.  There probably wouldn't be as much vitriol if Murkowski, Collins or Alexander voted that way.  

 

 

I think the ulterior motives are assumed based on disagreement with his vote. He voted and he provided a reason which I’m not prepared to say is a lie. 
 

I’ll say again, that *at least* one of those Senators that you mentioned went with the [paraphrasing] “what he did was very concerning but let’s let the voters make the call on removal at the ballot box” routine - for all intents and purposes punting their constitutional responsibility. With that in mind I’m not convinced that those three (or at least that one) should be the barometer for Romney’s ingeniousness. 

28 minutes ago, dubs said:

I don’t hate Romney, I am just ridiculing him for such a misguided and wrongheaded decision.  even if he truly believes he’s voting the right way he is wrong based on both the facts of the situation and the standard in the constitution. 
 

 

I agree with you that I don’t think Trump’s actions (though probably calculated and existing somewhere in the penumbra) met the high bar of removal from office. 
 

I just think Romney is a good man and I don’t think the vitriol that some have aimed squarely at them seems properly placed.

 

It’s also strange that some who are taking aim at Romney for voicing his opinion and voting consistently with it, are the same ones saying that the left is intolerant. 
 

We just should have a better, less accusatory, brand of politics. Are people really happy with these entrenched factions? 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Juror#8

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

13 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:

If you want to name-call your way through this then ok.
 

If you want to discuss then all the better. 
 

I don’t think Trump should have been removed from office for reasons related to my understanding of the incredibly high bar for the execution of that step. 

 

The issue here though is why so much hate for Romney. He voted based on appraising the evidence. He knew the vote wouldn’t change the course of next steps. He voted independently and as per his Constitutional responsibility. In his explanation he names faith, conscious, and an agonizing appraisal of the evidence as the deciding factors. 
 

In this political climate of factions, vapidity, and popularity contests on both sides, I sorta, kinda dig independence and solemnity. 

Well, therein lies the point.  If, as some feel, the attempt to impeach was a bunch of political nonsense, one assumes a Republican senator would see it that way as well. Given his background with Trump, it’s fair to consider the level of personal animus he feels and whether or not that impacted his vote.  He rejected the Constitutional arguments made by the President’s lawyers, opted instead to believe the narrative laid out by the opposition, and voted accordingly.  When people feel betrayed, it’s natural to lash out at the betrayer. On the other hand, maybe he does feel like Trump will sell Alaska to the Russians in a WH Garage Sake as impeachment manager Schiff suggested. 
 

Had he the strength of his convictions during his presidential run, had he the courage to speak loudly and proudly, he might have appeared more presidential and less neutered. 

[Juror#8]

21 minutes ago, CoudyBills said:

Juror#8 The Pious,

 

Forgive me, the uneducated rube Trump supporter.  I ain't read no good, but I think those four corners specify grounds for impeachment.  You know, a crime.  As a hillbilly rube, I would think these brilliant lawyers put forth as house managers would list actual crimes in the articles of impeachment.  These brilliant, humble public servants, did not create articles around an actual crime.  No crime, no grounds for impeachment.  So, yeah, it should be "punted" to voters to decide.  Romney voting to impeach is a turd-person move.  

Cosmological constant. 

[CoudyBills]

2 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:

Cosmological constant. 

Isn't that what the two party system is for?

[Juror#8]

8 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Well, therein lies the point.  If, as some feel, the attempt to impeach was a bunch of political nonsense, one assumes a Republican senator would see it that way as well. Given his background with Trump, it’s fair to consider the level of personal animus he feels and whether or not that impacted his vote.  He rejected the Constitutional arguments made by the President’s lawyers, opted instead to believe the narrative laid out by the opposition, and voted accordingly.  When people feel betrayed, it’s natural to lash out at the betrayer. On the other hand, maybe he does feel like Trump will sell Alaska to the Russians in a WH Garage Sake as impeachment manager Schiff suggested. 
 

Had he the strength of his convictions during his presidential run, had he the courage to speak loudly and proudly, he might have appeared more presidential and less neutered. 

Well I voted for Romney (just wanted Buddy Roemer on the ticket too). So maybe I’m biased. 
 

And I also voted or wrote in B. Clinton, and Obama, and W. Bush and Kasich. 
 

So I’m a fan of the independent and politically unaffiliated. I dig it. 

4 minutes ago, CoudyBills said:

Isn't that what the two party system is for?

Indeed brother. 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Juror#8

[Warren Zevon]

Is Romney really the first member of an impeached president's party to vote to convict?

[CoudyBills]

Just now, Gary Busey said:

Is Romney really the first member of an impeached president's party to vote to convict?

Gary...work the google machine.  I am far too lazy, but I would guess not.  

[Juror#8]

3 minutes ago, Gary Busey said:

Is Romney really the first member of an impeached president's party to vote to convict?

I think so. 
 

Think about that for a second.

 

What is wrong with our politics that everyone is so married to party? 
 

Does anyone here not think that if you change Trump’s name to Clinton or Obama, situation remains the same, all the narratives, justifications, arguments, and allegiances wouldn’t swap? 

That situational ethics ***** is sad. 
 

And we do nothing but perpetuate it - these boards, at the dinner table, on tv - we perpetuate this ***** brand of faction politics where right and wrong is a “d” and “r” proposition. 
 

Call me what you want but there is something just odious about that. 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Juror#8

[Doc]

If there weren’t such bad blood between the two of them, Romney’s words would carry some weight.  And I also voted for him. 

[3rdnlng]

Romney was first against Trump then for him and then against him right up to the time he wanted to be SOS under Trump. I too was for him in 2012 but his lack of backbone that showed up during that campaign and his actions since make me believe that his principles are flexible and negotiable. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

29 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:

Well I voted for Romney (just wanted Buddy Roemer on the ticket too). So maybe I’m biased. 
 

And I also voted or wrote in B. Clinton, and Obama, and W. Bush and Kasich. 
 

So I’m a fan of the independent and politically unaffiliated. I dig it. 

Indeed brother. 

I voted for Romney as well, but in retrospect I might as well have cast my vote for a well-coiffed Pomeranian.  I really was just offering an opinion on the response to Romney being willing to remove a president from the White House over the incident in question. With Rs like Willard Romney, who needs dems? 
 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

Acquittal is forever. Mike Johnson has pens for the defense team. ? 
 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

Mitt, Mitt, Mitt... 
 

 

 

[snafu]

2 hours ago, Juror#8 said:

I don’t think Trump should have been removed from office for reasons related to my understanding of the incredibly high bar for the execution of that step. 

 

Based upon this do you think the House should have issued the Articles of Impeachment in the first place?

I don’t think this matter should have ever left the House and gotten to the Senate.

 

[Nanker]

4 hours ago, Jaraxxus said:

 

Worse yet, he's probably a urinal talker, too.

 

https://youtu.be/juwexBqfkeQ

[GG]

1 hour ago, Juror#8 said:

I think the ulterior motives are assumed based on disagreement with his vote. He voted and he provided a reason which I’m not prepared to say is a lie. 
 

I’ll say again, that *at least* one of those Senators that you mentioned went with the [paraphrasing] “what he did was very concerning but let’s let the voters make the call on removal at the ballot box” routine - for all intents and purposes punting their constitutional responsibility. With that in mind I’m not convinced that those three (or at least that one) should be the barometer for Romney’s ingeniousness. 

I agree with you that I don’t think Trump’s actions (though probably calculated and existing somewhere in the penumbra) met the high bar of removal from office. 
 

 

The ulterior motive is that there's an ongoing public spat between the two, so anything that happens between the two will always appear disingenuous and calculated to hurt the other guy.   For the other three, the next election is paramount, except Alexander.  That's why if there was a truly honest, "I'm voting with my conscience" rationale, Alexander is the only one for whom the rationale would fly.

 

For Romney, it's personal, not rational.

[B-Man]

 

 

AN OBSERVATION FROM A FRIEND ON FACEBOOK:

 

“A caller to Rush’s show made an excellent point: If Romney believed just a week ago that there was not enough evidence to convict Trump without additional witnesses, how can he vote to convict today when there have been no additional witnesses?”

 

There’s nothing sadder than people who talk about standards and principles while engaging in transparently self-serving doubletalk.

 

You can get the same point, made rather more pungently, at Ace’s.

 

 

 

 

 

.