Mitt Romney Explains Why He Voted to Convict

[Rajah Manchou]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Come on, Rajah.  We need our masks:

"All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts."  Will Shakespeare.

At least Romney is getting some praise from a handful of Republicans for doing what any unaffiliated unbiased onlooker would see as a vote of conscience instead of a vote of party loyalty.

https://theweek.com/articles/893927/mitt-romney-tells-like

[Dan McClellan]

24 minutes ago, provoman said:

Clearly there isn't clear what is right in the situation; but some on both side of the issue will state their position is the only right position.

No, it's indisputably clear that Trump abused his power and obstructed Congress, and he has always been just grotesquely unfit for the office. This is black and white, there is just a lot of tribalism and a lot of money and power at stake, so absolutely pathetic rationalizations are ginned up to try to make Trump seem justified. I agree that tribalism infects all political sides to different degrees, but Trump's guilt isn't even remotely an open question.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.deseret.com/platform/amp/indepth/2020/2/5/21123629/mitt-romney-impeachment-vote-convict-cspan-president-donald-trump-utah-senator-abuse-of-power
 

In explaining himself, I’m afraid Mitt is coming perilously close to implying divine approbation for his vote.. And while that might not be his intent, I do believe that some will be misled thereby. He does some  apparent question begging when he invokes the hymn title “Do What Is Right” — as though it is a given that voting to convict Trump is doing what is right. 
 

And it’s a conclusion that is fraught with problems. If we conclude that Romney was divinely inspired, what are we to make of the action by Mike Lee, the senior senator in the Utah delegation (son of former BYU President Rex Lee), who is also a good and decent man and a faithful Latter-day Saint who, I’ve no doubt, also approaches his duties earnestly and solicits guidance from the Almighty? (Sen. Lee voted with the rest of the Republican caucus to acquit the president on both of the articles of impeachment.)

I had exactly the same thoughts. Implying that his decision was made by confirmation of the Spirit improperly introduced his religious beliefs into the deliberative process. He could have made the same points without references to his religion. 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

This is black and white, there is just a lot of tribalism and a lot of money and power at stake, so absolutely pathetic rationalizations are ginned up to try to make Trump seem justified.

If this were the only reason people were supporting Trump (I don't), then it would mean that people I have known for years, even decades, were suddenly acting out of character.  Even if I can't understand it, I don't think the rationale is always the above.  Think it may be in some cases, but I see no reason to assume that my friends and acquaintances turn their brain off for Trump when they don't for issues that are much closer to home and cost them more.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I see the use of the hymn as him saying that he was doing what he believed to be right, not that God had told him it was right.

I disagree. Invoking the hymn, his promises to God, etc., were not necessary for him to make his point. Inserting his religion into the deliberative process was inappropriate. Most Latter-day Saints would recognize the "bearing testimony" nature of his remarks. A decision like this should be made on the facts in the case, not on religious promptings which cannot be verified, IMO.

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

15 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

No, it's indisputably clear that Trump abused his power and obstructed Congress, and he has always been just grotesquely unfit for the office. This is black and white, there is just a lot of tribalism and a lot of money and power at stake, so absolutely pathetic rationalizations are ginned up to try to make Trump seem justified. I agree that tribalism infects all political sides to different degrees, but Trump's guilt isn't even remotely an open question.

But your tribalism is beyond questioning?

Edited February 6, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I had exactly the same thoughts. Implying that his decision was made by confirmation of the Spirit improperly introduced his religious beliefs into the deliberative process. He could have made the same points without references to his religion. 

Are you against bringing one's religious experience and opinion into public political discourse in general? (Honest question, I don't remember any statement you have made about it specifically, though in general I would assume you would applaud people standing up, speaking their religious convictions in public, so I am a bit surprised by your reaction).

[Bernard Gui]

Just now, Calm said:

Are you against bringing one's religious experience and opinion into public political discourse in general? (Honest question, I don't remember any statement you have made about it specifically, though in general I would assume you would applaud people standing up, speaking their religious convictions in public, so I am a bit surprised by your reaction).

Not at all. But invoking by implication that he was being directed in his decision in a probative situation by God is not appropriate, IMO. 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not at all. But invoking by implication that he was being directed in his decision in a probative situation by God is not appropriate, IMO. 

So no one should ever say something along the lines of "I prayed and I believe God directed me to......"?

[Bernard Gui]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

So no one should ever say something along the lines of "I prayed and I believe God directed me to......"?

Did I say that? No. I didn't.

In a trial situation, a juror saying "I prayed and God told me the defendant is guilty" is not appropriate. Shades of Salem.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[bsjkki]

13 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

At least Romney is getting some praise from a handful of Republicans for doing what any unaffiliated unbiased onlooker would see as a vote of conscience instead of a vote of party loyalty.

https://theweek.com/articles/893927/mitt-romney-tells-like

This does not say what you said. One person in this article praises Romney for this decision. And he is not a conservative nor Republican. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Wilkinson  This whole article disparages the President so not exactly a neutral article but it was 'artfully written.'

[Danzo]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not at all. But invoking by implication that he was being directed in his decision in a probative situation by God is not appropriate, IMO. 

Honestly, I wish more people would consult God when making these decisions. 

[bsjkki]

18 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

No, it's indisputably clear that Trump abused his power and obstructed Congress, and he has always been just grotesquely unfit for the office. This is black and white, there is just a lot of tribalism and a lot of money and power at stake, so absolutely pathetic rationalizations are ginned up to try to make Trump seem justified. I agree that tribalism infects all political sides to different degrees, but Trump's guilt isn't even remotely an open question.

I hope you're never convicted on this type of evidence or by these same rules.  Grateful that our judicial process is not the same as the impeachment process.

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

Did I say that? No. I didn't.

In a trial situation, a juror saying "I prayed and God told me the defendant is guilty" is not appropriate. Shades of Salem.

Really?  I would think Alma chapter 33 and Nephi 32 would apply to being a juror.

 

 

[Dan McClellan]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

If this were the only reason people were supporting Trump (I don't), then it would mean that people I have known for years, even decades, were suddenly acting out of character.  Even if I can't understand it, I don't think the rationale is always the above.  Think it may be in some cases, but I see no reason to assume that my friends and acquaintances turn their brain off for Trump when they don't for issues that are much closer to home and cost them more.

People rationalize things for innumerable different reasons when the guiding force is identity politics, and they function across many different dimensions that straddle both our intuitive and reflective reasoning. Our subconscious drive to belong to different social identities and to curate, protect, and advance our standing within them is fundamental to being human. A good primer on these frameworks is Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind (even if the moral foundations framework for which he advocates has some issues).

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

This does not say what you said. One person in this article praises Romney for this decision. And he is not a conservative nor Republican. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Wilkinson  This whole article disparages the President so not exactly a neutral article but it was 'artfully written.'

I am a republican and I praise his decision.

[let’s roll]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And it’s a conclusion that is fraught with problems. If we conclude that Romney was divinely inspired, what are we to make of the action by Mike Lee, the senior senator in the Utah delegation (son of former BYU President Rex Lee), who is also a good and decent man and a faithful Latter-day Saint who, I’ve no doubt, also approaches his duties earnestly and solicits guidance from the Almighty? (Sen. Lee voted with the rest of the Republican caucus to acquit the president on both of the articles of impeachment.)

 

2 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

Would Lee and Romney who both prayed for guidance in their decision and felt the response to do what they did  is God the author of confusion. ?

God had two prophets in Jerusalem.  One left and one stayed.  Was only one led by God?  Was one right and one wrong? When God chooses to speak, is God required to tell everyone the same thing?

My understanding of the Gospel and my experience with Deity is that God rarely tells us to make a specific decision.  Instead, consistent with His statement that an aspect of our agency is that we’re not to be commanded in all things, He invites us to exercise our agency applying the principles that have been revealed to us.

[Dan McClellan]

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

But your tribalism is beyond questioning?

Not at all, but I'm happy to acknowledge and engage it. I can be pretty rhetorical in many cases, but the facts are abundantly clear here, and I'm happy to respond to anyone who wants to try to identify tribalistic blind spots in my reasoning. I've been politically unaffiliated my entire life and have seen these issues through several different sets of lenses. 

[Dan McClellan]

4 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I hope you're never convicted on this type of evidence or by these same rules.  Grateful that our judicial process is not the same as the impeachment process.

You mean my own admission of doing what I am accused of, and the unilateral agreement of all the witnesses and all the documentation I am unable to prevent from testifying or being made public? That kind of evidence?

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

People rationalize things for innumerable different reasons when the guiding force is identity politics, and they function across many different dimensions that straddle both our intuitive and reflective reasoning. Our subconscious drive to belong to different social identities and to curate, protect, and advance our standing within them is fundamental to being human. A good primer on these frameworks is Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind (even if the moral foundations framework for which he advocates has some issues).

Almost every defense of Trump I have seen just accuses the other side of being worse. I really haven't seen anyone going out and saying "you know, we really need our presidents to bribe more foreign governments to help them with our elections, hopefully we will see more Presidents from both parties doing this kind of thing in the future" 

[Danzo]

7 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I hope you're never convicted on this type of evidence or by these same rules.  Grateful that our judicial process is not the same as the impeachment process.

Only presidents of the United states can be convicted on these rules (its not a judicial process, it was never meant to be).

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

In a trial situation, a juror saying "I prayed and God told me the defendant is guilty" is not appropriate.

Thanks for clarifying.

[Rajah Manchou]

15 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

This does not say what you said. One person in this article praises Romney for this decision. And he is not a conservative nor Republican. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Wilkinson  This whole article disparages the President so not exactly a neutral article but it was 'artfully written.'

I had found that article on Bill Kristol's (a conservative republican) Twitter and made the mistake of thinking he had made the quote "

“Romney voted to convict the president. His fellow Republicans voted to convict themselves."

https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1225223091065892864

Edited February 6, 2020 by Rajah Manchou

[Michael Sudworth]

9 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

You mean my own admission of doing what I am accused of, and the unilateral agreement of all the witnesses and all the documentation I am unable to prevent from testifying or being made public? That kind of evidence?

You mention this as if any of it is in question.  For goodness sake, we have the transcript.  We know exactly what was said.  What is any witness going to say beyond a direct record of the conversation?

And regardless of what one things of Trump, it is clear the House failed its responsibility.  Had they actually taken the time to do a proper investigation by demanding a special prosecutor (ala Nixon/Clinton) and going through the hard work of going to court to argue against claims of executive privilege -- the same privilege that Clinton/Bush/Obama claimed literally all the time -- then perhaps more Senators would have voted with Mitt.  It is absolutely absurd to ask the Senate to go to court when you weren't willing to do it yourselves.  

You don't have to like Trump to recognize that the case brought by the House was a complete joke.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Michael Sudworth

[provoman]

32 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

No, it's indisputably clear that Trump abused his power and obstructed Congress, and he has always been just grotesquely unfit for the office. This is black and white, there is just a lot of tribalism and a lot of money and power at stake, so absolutely pathetic rationalizations are ginned up to try to make Trump seem justified. I agree that tribalism infects all political sides to different degrees, but Trump's guilt isn't even remotely an open question.

No it is not "indisputably clear".