Mitt Romney Explains Why He Voted to Convict

[provoman]

removed

[Michael Sudworth]

2 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

Oh, you mean go to the court that Trump stacked with lackeys for a legal battle that could last years? C'mon, you can do better than this.

I am really not following you.  Courts have stomped on Trump multiple times.  He's been successfully sued and injunctions issued multiples times.  

Are you suggesting that the Federal Judiciary is incapable of issuing sound opinions?  

 

[Dan McClellan]

2 minutes ago, provoman said:

Where did you make assumptions as to motive?

Yes, I'm asking where I made assumptions. Could you identify precisely where I did that? All you've done in that post is show me drawing the only reasonable conclusions from all the relevant data. Please identify the specific statement.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Dan McClellan

[smac97]

A comment 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?”

 

[provoman]

1 minute ago, Dan McClellan said:

Yes, I'm asking where I made assumptions. Could you identify precisely where I did that? All you've done in that post is show me drawing the only reasonable conclusions from all the relevant data. Please identify the specific statement.

I have shown you your assumptions.

[Dan McClellan]

Just now, Michael Sudworth said:

I am really not following you.  Courts have stomped on Trump multiple times.  He's been successfully sued and injunctions issued multiples times.  

Are you suggesting that the Federal Judiciary is incapable of issuing sound opinions?  

When it comes to ideologically critical issues, such as the impeachment of the person who put two of those justices in their seats––and one under very shady circumstances––yes, there is reason for Democrats to doubt the independence and efficiency of the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts' refusal to do his job in the case of a tie is just one demonstration of that. 

[Dan McClellan]

Just now, provoman said:

I have shown you your assumptions.

No, you've shown me pointing out why alternative explanations are not rational. That's called a conclusion. You certainly aren't capable of providing a reasonable case for alternative explanations. If you can't identify any actual assumptions, then we're done here. 

[Bernard Gui]

22 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

I didn't see the "revelatory context." Where was that indicated?

Simply read the text of the hymns”Do What is Right. and “Choose the Right.” And the implications of the slogan CTR in LDS practice. “My promises before God...

Lyrics

1. 1. Do what is right; the day-dawn is breaking,
   Hailing a future of freedom and light.
   Angels above us are silent notes taking
   Of ev'ry action; then do what is right!
2. (Chorus)
   Do what is right; let the consequence follow.
   Battle for freedom in spirit and might;
   And with stout hearts look ye forth till tomorrow.
   God will protect you; then do what is right!
3. 2. Do what is right; the shackles are falling.
   Chains of the bondsmen no longer are bright;
   Lightened by hope, soon they'll cease to be galling.
   Truth goeth onward; then do what is right!
4. 3. Do what is right; be faithful and fearless.
   Onward, press onward, the goal is in sight.
   Eyes that are wet now, ere long will be tearless.
   Blessings await you in doing what's right!

Lyrics

1. 1. Choose the right when a choice is placed before you.
   In the right the Holy Spirit guides;
   And its light is forever shining o'er you,
   When in the right your heart confides.
2. (Chorus)
   Choose the right! Choose the right!
   Let wisdom mark the way before.
   In its light, choose the right!
   And God will bless you evermore.
3. 2. Choose the right! Let no spirit of digression
   Overcome you in the evil hour.
   There's the right and the wrong to ev'ry question;
   Be safe thru inspiration's pow'r.
4. 3. Choose the right! There is peace in righteous doing.
   Choose the right! There's safety for the soul.
   Choose the right in all labors you're pursuing;
   Let God and heaven be your goal.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Rajah Manchou]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A comment 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?”

From the article:

“I hoped beyond hope that (Bolton) would say something that would raise reasonable doubt and I wouldn’t have to vote to convict the president,” Romney said. “My personal and political interests lie in not convicting but exonerating and I hoped that he would be able to testify that the president had broader motives than I had determined.”

Sounds to me like Romney had his answer a week ago, and believed that there was not enough evidence to exonerate Trump  but he didn't like it and voted for witnesses in the hope they would would give him a reason not to convict the President.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Rajah Manchou

[Kenngo1969]

5 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

Executive privilege is utterly irrelevant if an impeachable act was involved.

By that logic, the chief executive is bound to not invoke executive privilege and must "out" himself or herself when an impeachable act occurs.  Makes one wonder what happened to one's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

[provoman]

5 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

I am really not following you.  Courts have stomped on Trump multiple times.  He's been successfully sued and injunctions issued multiples times.  

Are you suggesting that the Federal Judiciary is incapable of issuing sound opinions?  

 

Headlines like this are instructive:

"Federal judge denies Trump bid to block financial records from Congress"

[Michael Sudworth]

Quote

Chief Justice Roberts' refusal to do his job in the case of a tie is just one demonstration of that. 

The Constitution says nothing about the Chief Justice breaking ties during impeachment. The only tiebreaker would be Mike Pence.  That's how the Constitution works.

I'd be very concerned if the Chief Justice started just inventing his own Constitutional duties willy nilly.

[provoman]

7 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

No, you've shown me pointing out why alternative explanations are not rational. That's called a conclusion. You certainly aren't capable of providing a reasonable case for alternative explanations. If you can't identify any actual assumptions, then we're done here. 

I showed you yor assumptions.

Edited February 6, 2020 by provoman

[Dan McClellan]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

Simply read the text of the hymn “Choose the Right.”

 

I'm well aware of the song. I didn't see any quote at all from it, much less one that invokes the specific "revelatory context" you're talking about. There was at best a loose paraphrase of a line that has nothing to do with any "revelatory context." 

[Dan McClellan]

9 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

By that logic, the chief executive is bound to not invoke executive privilege and must "out" himself or herself when an impeachable act occurs.  Makes one wonder what happened to one's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Yeah, if the President committed an impeachable act, he definitely shouldn't try to hide it behind executive privilege. It exists for reasons other than hiding high crimes and misdemeanors. The Fifth Amendment doesn't apply to someone else's testimony about you. 

[Dan McClellan]

9 minutes ago, provoman said:

I showed you yor assumptions.

Well, thanks for trying. 

[Rajah Manchou]

4 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

I'm well aware of the song. I didn't see any quote at all from it, much less one that invokes the specific "revelatory context" you're talking about. There was at best a loose paraphrase of a line that has nothing to do with any "revelatory context." 

The article in the OP doesn't say anything about prayer or hymns or CTR rings or personal revelations. Romney did exactly as we've been told to do from Primary years onwards and people are all the sudden concerned because he made a personal choice that counters their own.

For all the talk of keeping God and prayer in our public halls and schools this is genuinely a disappointing response to a Senator who actually used prayer to make a decision.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Rajah Manchou

[Dan McClellan]

9 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

The Constitution says nothing about the Chief Justice breaking ties during impeachment. The only tiebreaker would be Mike Pence.  That's how the Constitution works.

I'd be very concerned if the Chief Justice started just inventing his own Constitutional duties willy nilly.

The entire reason that the Chief Justice presides in an impeachment is precisely because the VICE PRESIDENT, who is normally the presiding officer of the Senate, would have a clear and direct CONFLICT OF INTEREST. This is why the vice president presides at impeachment trials of officials other than the President. The Constitution explicitly explains that “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.” The responsibilities and powers of the chief justice during an impeachment are identical to those of the vice president. There is no indication whatsoever that this responsibility changes during an impeachment, and in fact, during the Johnson impeachment, the chief justice broke a tie in a procedural vote. That vote was upheld by the Senate. 

[bsjkki]

1 hour 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

These are all quotes made by Mitt Romney in 2016. From the article:

"He inherited his business. He didn't create it. ... A business genius he is not."

"He is very, very not smart."

"Donald Trump lacks the temperament to be president."

"Dishonesty is Donald Trump's hallmark."

"Think of Donald Trump's personal qualities. The bullying, the greed, the showing off, the misogyny, the absurd third-grade theatrics."

"Haven't we seen before what happens when people in prominent positions fail the basic responsibility of honorable conduct? We have. And it always injures our families and our country."

"Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. ... He's playing the members of the American public for suckers."

A jury filled with those that despise you and have ulterior motives. What a system.  

[Rajah Manchou]

2 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

A jury filled with those that despise you and have ulterior motives. What a system.  

You're right, a jury filled with those that are terrified of you is much better.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

 In a theocracy or in Zion, maybe, but not in a Senate trial. How do prosecutors and defenders argue the facts of revelation from God in a trial situation? Invoking "a hymn we sing in my Church, an old Protestant hymn...'Choose the Right'" taints his decision by inserting his religious beliefs into his it. He did not have to do that to maintain his position. By doing so, he calls into question the good faith of his fellow Saints who don't agree with his judgement.

So you think 2nd Nephi 32 doesn't apply to people in the US?

"Pray allways' (except for when you are on a jury or serving in government, then never mind)

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

The problem as I see it is saying, "I consulted God, and God told me thus and so; therefore, my position is the right one." 

The problem is people don't consult god when when they should.

I would hope that if I consulted god and he told me thus, I would follow that revelation. You wouldn't?

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

Yep, it is a purely a political process. So all the talk of witness and evidence is really just noise. 

Obviously it is a political process.

I would hope that our political processes would involve witnesses and evidence, don't you?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour 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. 

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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

Doing so is problematic. I have suggested that the current situation is an ideal illustration of that (assuming Romney intends to convey that his vote, as opposed to his determination to have the courage of his conviction, was divinely directed). 
 

Here, we have two good men, Utah’s senators, both of them presumably active and loyal members of the Church, each with a strong family background in the Church. 
 

One of them voted to convict Trump, the other to acquit him. Assuming the decision of one was divinely directed, they can’t both be right. Which means one of them didn’t “choose the right”; he chose the wrong! Are you willing to go there? I submit that the Church of Jesus Christ is not, which is why it eschews partisan politics and enjoins its members not to make it appear otherwise. 

[Danzo]

47 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

By that logic, the chief executive is bound to not invoke executive privilege and must "out" himself or herself when an impeachable act occurs.  Makes one wonder what happened to one's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

The fifth amendment right against self incrimination, only applies to criminal prosecution, not civil (or political) actions.

There is no fifth amendment in civil cases (as I often have to explain to my clients when they try to use it to avoid filing a tax return).