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.

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Rob's House]

 

2 hours ago, Juror#8 said:

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. 

 

That's the rub.

 

It was all a partisan political operation enacted under the guise of principle.

 

We know for sure that if the shoe was on the other foot the pious Dems would say exactly what the Reps are saying now.

 

The total lack of any semblance of concern  or even curiosity over Biden/Burisma and the FISA scandal proves that.

 

The Reps would would likely see this in a different light too. I sincerely doubt it would ever go this far, but I could see the Hannity wing trying to make hay out of it.

 

The fact that this is devoid of substance, along with his explanation, is why I don't believe Romney voted according to his conviction.

 

Everyone up to and including Adam Schiff knew exactly what this was. And Romney is not a stupid man. It's not possible that he genuinely believed that there was sufficient evidence of sufficient wrong doing to warrant removal. But he did it anyway.

 

His explanation, to my mind, was the nail in the coffin of his credibility. The part that struck me was when he said this kind of "corruption of an election" was as bad as anything he could imagine.

 

The absurdity of that hyperbole aside, the idea that the accusations, even if true, amounted to cheating or "corrupting" an election is so preposterous that I found myself in awe of Schiff's sociopathic ability to say it with such conviction.

 

The crux of the "crime" is whether the President conducted foreign policy against the interest of the U.S. for personal gain. The alleged benefit is a political advantage, but in this situation whether it's a political advantage or some other personal benefit is immaterial. The issue is just a matter of establishing that it was, in fact, a personal benefit. 

 

Romney is smart enough to understand this as I'm sure you are too.

 

The only way the alleged action would affect an election is if it turns out that Biden was involved in corrupt dealings and public knowledge of that cost him votes.

 

Therefore, Romney's stated position is that exposing the corrupt dealings of a politician to the public amounts to "corrupting an election." That's an absurd position.

 

Romney is smart enough to understand all of this, but that was the explanation he gave. Based on that, I believe his statement was insincere PR rather than an honest statement of his reasoning.

 

As I don't find it plausible that an intelligent man could come to his conclusion in earnest, and I believe Romney is an intelligent man, and I find his explanation incredible, I'm left with the conclusion that he had ulterior motives.

 

Given that conclusion, and factoring in the recent history between Romney and President Trump, I find it more likely than not that his motivations were personal.

 

That's my take, anyway.

 

 

BTW, Good to see you posting. 

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Rob's House

[keepthefaith]

14 hours ago, Juror#8 said:

Why? Why is he a tool?

 

Because he heard the evidence and voted, by all accounts, his conviction? 
 

Or is there another reason?

 

The only way to break the partisan tie is to actually apply the law.  I'll take article II of this impeachment because it's low hanging fruit.  The accusation is found starting on page 5 link below.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6572308/Articles-of-Impeachment.pdf

 

It can be summarized as Trump telling a handful of individuals not to respond to House subpoenas invoking executive privilege.  Some of those individuals sought the guidance of a court to determine their responsibility and were agreeable to testify if a court ruled so.  The house managers withdrew their requests or failed to even issue a subpoena before being heard by a court and instead decided to make the charge of obstruction of Congress. 

 

Courts have clear jurisdiction regarding conflicts between the executive and legislative branches.  On that basis alone the senate vote on article II if we are putting partisanship aside should have been 100-0 to acquit as the President was simply exercising his right of executive privilege and the house abandoned a court opinion.  Had a court ruled that those witnesses had to testify and Trump still blocked them without an an ongoing appeal, then obstruction of justice an actual high crime could have been alleged and tried.  The senate as part of the legislative branch does not have jurisdiction on the matter.   

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/trump-impeachment-obstruction-article-frivolous/

 

Really they failed on article II as impartial jurors.  Article I is more complicated and a longer argument, but the vote on article II is clear evidence of partisanship or a dereliction of duty.

 

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by keepthefaith

[4merper4mer]

2 hours ago, Juror#8 said:

Cosmological constant. 

From your picture you look bald.  What do you know about consistent hairdressers?

[US Egg]

22 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

From your picture you look bald.  What do you know about consistent hairdressers?

....they can't make your hair grow back.

 

Off topic, my wife just went through 2 years of chemo, radiation and target drug treatment for her cancer and her hair is not growing back the way it was previously.

 

.....just saying.

[Koko78]

4 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

 

[Wacka]

My dad was only gray at the temples but after his chemo it was all gray. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

28 minutes ago, I am the egg man said:

....they can't make your hair grow back.

 

Off topic, my wife just went through 2 years of chemo, radiation and target drug treatment for her cancer and her hair is not growing back the way it was previously.

 

.....just saying.

I hope your wife beats that dreadful disease. Best wishes.

[Bakin]

I see Trumpy has posted a video that apparently shreds Willard Romney.

I haven’t watched the video yet - and I’m always in favor of Trumpy punching back - but that’s gotta be it for the Mitt bashing.
one and done Trumpy...let it go. 
 

The Pub Senate needs Mitt, unfortunately, especially as the looney Dems will just keep coming at Trumpy with Impeachment after Impeachment.

 

If the Pubs win a few more seats in the Senate then he can be confidently bombarded.
 

Until then, let it all out now and then let it go. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 hours ago, I am the egg man said:

....they can't make your hair grow back.

 

Off topic, my wife just went through 2 years of chemo, radiation and target drug treatment for her cancer and her hair is not growing back the way it was previously.

 

.....just saying.

God bless you and your family.

[Doc Brown]

1 hour ago, Bakin said:

I see Trumpy has posted a video that apparently shreds Willard Romney.

I haven’t watched the video yet - and I’m always in favor of Trumpy punching back - but that’s gotta be it for the Mitt bashing.
one and done Trumpy...let it go. 
 

The Pub Senate needs Mitt, unfortunately, especially as the looney Dems will just keep coming at Trumpy with Impeachment after Impeachment.

 

If the Pubs win a few more seats in the Senate then he can be confidently bombarded.
 

Until then, let it all out now and then let it go. 

Mormons haven't taken to Trump like evangelicals so Romney can get away with it politically in a predominantly Mormon state.  It's a political calculation.  That's it.

[4merper4mer]

5 hours ago, I am the egg man said:

....they can't make your hair grow back.

 

Off topic, my wife just went through 2 years of chemo, radiation and target drug treatment for her cancer and her hair is not growing back the way it was previously.

 

.....just saying.

I'm sorry to hear that and sincerely hope she does well in her recovery.  My post was in no way meant to be related to cancer survivors.

[Nanker]

7 hours ago, I am the egg man said:

....they can't make your hair grow back.

 

Off topic, my wife just went through 2 years of chemo, radiation and target drug treatment for her cancer and her hair is not growing back the way it was previously.

 

.....just saying.

Like most here, I wish she has a complete recovery. That’s a tough row to hoe. You’re her best ally In that fight. God bless. 

[TH3]

12 hours 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. 
 

 

Apparently Mitt answers to a different God than you Trumpians

[SoCal Deek]

21 minutes ago, TH3 said:

Apparently Mitt answers to a different God than you Trumpians

So now it’s OK when a politician tells us that God told him to do something? I seem to recall when that sort of rhetoric was laughed at by the those on the Left. I really wish they’d get it straight. I’m exhausted from trying to keep up with their new found but constantly shifting moral high ground.

[Gavin in Va Beach]

37 minutes ago, TH3 said:

Apparently Mitt answers to a different God than you Trumpians

 

That's true...

 

[Chef Jim]

50 minutes ago, TH3 said:

Apparently Mitt answers to a different God than you Trumpians

First off I don’t consider myself a Trumpian however if someone answers to a likely fictional character vs the American people?   That is some real bad thinking. 

[TH3]

Just now, Chef Jim said:

First off I don’t consider myself a Trumpian however if someone answers to a likely fictional character vs the American people?   That is some real bad thinking. 

 

15 minutes ago, Gavin in Va Beach said:

 

That's true...

 

 

whelp ...you guys worship a known crook who cheated on his wife with hookers because she was pregnant, lies all day every day, tried to corrupt the 2020 presidential election,  defrauds his business partners and cheats at golf....

 

Beware false gods...

[Rob's House]

5 minutes ago, TH3 said:

 

 

whelp ...you guys worship a known crook who cheated on his wife with hookers because she was pregnant, lies all day every day, tried to corrupt the 2020 presidential election,  defrauds his business partners and cheats at golf....

 

Beware false gods...

 

You forgot racist, sexist, homophobe, and Nazi. Looks like you need to brush up on your Liberal Douchebag Handbook.

[whatdrought]

17 minutes ago, TH3 said:

 

 

whelp ...you guys worship a known crook who cheated on his wife with hookers because she was pregnant, lies all day every day, tried to corrupt the 2020 presidential election,  defrauds his business partners and cheats at golf....

 

Beware false gods...

Do Geese See God?

[keepthefaith]

41 minutes ago, TH3 said:

 

 

whelp ...you guys worship a known crook who cheated on his wife with hookers because she was pregnant, lies all day every day, tried to corrupt the 2020 presidential election,  defrauds his business partners and cheats at golf....

 

Beware false gods...

 

I've all but given up on the purity test for politicians.  I will support low taxation, fiscal responsibility (we aren't getting that), stopping illegal immigration, a reasonable environmental plan, reforms to reduce the costs of health insurance and health care, national security and the fair and equal application of the law.  Trump's opposition doesn't match up well with my goals which are shared by a lot of people.