1. PORK, what do you think of Mitt Romney’s remarks and his voting for witnesses and his vote to remove POTUS TRUMP from office?
2. You know, BARREL, I’m not willing to give Mitt a pass for doing so. I for one am not willing to allow him to use his religion to weasel out of accountability for having sided with the partisan democrats -because such is a disservice to his religion and a left handed disservice to all of his colleagues and their religions. Mitt says he voted for POTUS TRUMP’S removal from office as a matter of conscience (before God and his religion and his immediate family and grandchildren and the voters in Utah and the nation), and because he took an oath to render impartial justice, and for these reasons he is voting to remove POTUS TRUMP from office. Actually, those are Mitt’s excuses for Mitt’s conduct. At the heart of his argument is his one stated real reason for voting to remove POTUS TRUMP from office.
3. Mitt’s stated real reason is that there is no reasonable doubt but what house managers made the case that POTUS TRUMP wrongfully asked a foreign nation to investigate a political rival and his son who did not commit crimes and that POTUS TRUMP wrongfully withheld military aid and by doing so POTUS TRUMP should be removed from office.
4. So let’s see if that is true. Did the house managers in fact make their case beyond a reasonable doubt? The answer is no they did not, no matter how many Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler generalities and “Trump will sell out Alaska to the Russians” histrionics and Mitt Romney anti-TRUMP votes might be presented to the Senate, and here is why.
5. First, did 197 Republican House members and 1 Independent member have reasonable doubt about POTUS TRUMP’S guilt and vote before God, their religion, and their family, and their constituencies and the nation not to impeach POTUS TRUMP? Of course they did. To say otherwise defies logic. The House case brought to the Senate only by the democrats is partisan and a partisan impeachment on its face is filled with reasonable doubt. There is obvious reasonable doubt which demanded a vote of acquittal.
6. Second, Mitt wrongfully says Joe and his son are not guilty of crimes; yet there is reasonable doubt as to Joe Biden’s and his son’s and his other family members’ “Profiles in Corruption” – i.e. their guilt or innocence of criminal activity including money laundering? Of course there is. And criminal and Senate investigations are in order. Did Joe and his son corruptly receive a billion+ dollars from China knowing that Joe’s son only got the money because Joe was Vice President who wrongfully and corruptly directly or indirectly made arrangements with the Chinese? Did Joe’s son corruptly get (and keep) his lucrative million dollar job with Burisma because of Joe’s corruption? Looks like he did just that. At the same time there is more than reasonable doubt as to POTUS TRUMP’S communications with the Ukraine president [the Ukraine president testified there was no quid pro quo and no investigation of the Bidens and no withholding of funding]. Yet we have Joe admitting on camera while laughing that he in fact corruptly withheld funding to the Ukraine in order to remove a prosecutor looking into Burisma, a corrupt company with Joe’s son on its board. Did Joe corruptly and criminally misuse his office to enrich himself, his son, his brother and other family members and others? (Peter Sweizer says in his investigative book Profiles in Corruption that he did. The counsel for POTUS TRUMP says Joe corruptly misused his office.) Once more there is reasonable doubt which demanded a vote of acquittal.
7. Third, did Adam Schiff lie multiple times about POTUS TRUMP during the hearings and gerrymander the hearings to preclude Republican participation? Of course he did. Do Adam Schiff’s lies and star chamber hearings cause reasonable doubt? Of course they do. Once again there is obvious reasonable doubt which demanded a vote of acquittal.
8. Fourth, do the letters from POTUS TRUMP leave us with reasonable doubt as to POTUS TRUMP’S intent? Of course they do. [Keep in mind that there is no way you can prove mal-intent on the part of POTUS TRUMP from the letters even though the Whistleblower claimed as much until POTUS TRUMP released the letters.] Most importantly, the president of Ukraine testifies that there was and is no wrongdoing, again no quid pro quo, no withholding of aid or Javelins, no compulsion to investigate anyone. Does the Ukraine President’s testimony on multiple occasions not create reasonable doubt? Of course it does. There is reasonable doubt which demanded aquittal.
9. Fifth, John Bolton was fired and is writing a book and other witnesses are under criminal prosecution and John Bolton refused to testify in the House and refused to sign an Affidavit to be used by the Schiff group in the Senate hearings. And then we have the whistleblowers and their motives and their veracity and their relationship with Adam Schiff and Adam Shift’s staff all of which has been kept secret from the House and Senate. Is not this highly suspect? Of course it is. There is obvious reasonable doubt about such testimony.
10. Sixth, we come to the Constitutional nature of impeachment and the fact that this was a partisan impeachment. Does that in and of itself create reasonable doubt? Of course it does. Once again, a partisan impeachment was not contemplated by the Framers and is laden with reasonable doubt. So again there is obvious reasonable doubt which easily demanded a vote of acquittal.
11. Seventh, we ask a practical question. Given all of the above reasonable doubt, would Mitt’s constituency and Mitt’s party want Mitt siding with the partisan democrats to vote to remove POTUS TRUMP who has done more to help us be FREE, SAFE, and PROSPEROUS than any past POTUS except Lincoln and Washington? No they would not want such. In fact, Mitt ran on a promise that he would support POTUS TRUMP and there is a good argument that he has now betrayed his constituency in Utah. Yet, Mitt sidesteps responsibility by weeping and claiming that he voted his religion and conscience. Although he may have conferred with his conscience, it looks like Mitt went it alone without counselors. There is no hint from Mitt that he conferred with Mitch McConnell or his party leaders or his constituency in any way shape or form.
12. So PORK, having made the case for reasonable doubt, what is your bottom line take about Mitt Romney and his vote to remove POTUS TRUMP from office? Mitt says he voted with POTUS TRUMP 80% of the time, doesn’t that give Mitt a pass?
13. No, BARREL, Mitt does not get a pass by weeping and using the argument that he voted his conscience before God, family, the state, and the nation. Nor does he get a pass by using the argument that he voted with POTUS TRUMP 80% of the time. Given Mitt’s documented antipathy toward POTUS TRUMP, it is common sense that there is reasonable doubt as to why Mitt voted against POTUS TRUMP 20% of the time.
14. Bottom line is this. Mitt did not do his homework and think this matter through. He did not listen to his republican colleagues, did not pay attention to and take into account the partisan rigged House impeachment proceedings, did not confer in any way with his constituency, and either does not understand or willfully refused to acknowledge the concept of reasonable doubt which demanded a vote for acquittal. Mitt either does not understand or willfully refused to acknowledge the fact that Adam Schiff lied multiple times and conducted Star Chamber partisan proceedings all of which created reasonable doubt which reasonable doubt demanded a Senate vote for acquittal on all charges and counts.
15. One more time, the Star Chamber impeachment partisan proceedings carried out by Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler and Nancy Pelosi in the House on their face provide more than enough evidence of reasonable doubt and such overwhelming reasonable doubt demanded a vote for acquittal from and by all republican and democrat Senators.
16. So PORK, should someone in Utah start a recall petition? I understand legislation has been proposed in Utah that will allow impeachment and recall of a Senator.
17. Yes, I believe so, BARREL. Paraphrasing, Mitt said he expects negative nuclear extreme fallout from his decision. Given the overwhelming evidence of reasonable doubt which demanded a vote of acquittal, given the partisan nature of the impeachment activities, and the other reasons set forth above, that negative nuclear extreme fallout probably should include a vote on the part of Mitt’s constituency back in Utah for witnesses and a serious vote by the people of Utah to impeach and remove Mitt from office.
18. As a parting hard shot, PORK, and assuming the Utah voters do not recall him for whatever reason. I believe Mitt has a JD degree from Harvard. Mitt may want to learn from this experience never again to use his religion and conscience as reasons for a political decision. Instead, he may want to stand up and be counted and think the matter through like a man and the Supreme Court Justice he probably will not now become and render his reasoned decision based on the facts and the law.