Mitt Romney Explains Why He Voted to Convict

[bdouglas]

From the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/with-his-vote-to-convict-trump-on-abuse-of-power-romney-will-break-with-his-party--and-awaits-the-consequences/2020/02/05/a76dce74-4841-11ea-ab15-b5df3261b710_story.html

Quote

“I will tell my children and their children that I did my duty to the best of my ability, believing that my country expected it of me,” Romney said in his floor remarks, calling Trump’s conduct “grievously wrong.”

Romney added, “We’re all footnotes at best in the annals of history. But in the most powerful nation on Earth, the nation conceived in liberty and justice, that is distinction enough for any citizen.”

Romney’s vote — coming after other centrist GOP senators such as Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) decided to acquit Trump even as they scolded him for acting inappropriately — was hailed by many Democrats as an example of unflinching political courage from a Republican they have long battled.

Following Romney’s speech, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), walked off the Senate floor in tears and remained speechless for several seconds.

“He literally restored my faith in the institution,” Schatz said.

Presidential historian Jon Meacham said Romney is an “emblem of what so many of us feared was an entirely vanished kind of moderate voice that is guided by reason and not passion. What he did was in the tradition of Dwight Eisenhower, his own father, and George H.W. Bush and Gerald Ford.”

I am very proud of Mitt Romney. I think this moment in history will be remembered for a long time.

[Tacenda]

37 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

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.

Yup, and all the talk of freedom of religion.

[bsjkki]

4 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

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

Political theater...the house knew they would never remove him from office. Why did  they do it? Do you believe they had 'pure' motives or mixed? They were investigating  their opponent in an election cycle? They started this whole thing with 2nd hand information from a whistleblower whose motives and connections could not be questioned or known. The whistleblower complaint proved not to be completely factual.  Do you think removing a President from office should be easier? Should the United States turn into a Parliamentary system of government? Should the President serve at the pleasure of congress? I'm grateful removal has such a high bar. It prevents purely political removals and stabilizes our entire system of government. 

[Scott Lloyd]

52 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

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. 

If you are referring to Brett Kavanaugh, the “shady circumstances” is pure bull. The man had his character assassinated by vicious politicians without a scintilla of credible, unimpeachable evidence. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

From the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/with-his-vote-to-convict-trump-on-abuse-of-power-romney-will-break-with-his-party--and-awaits-the-consequences/2020/02/05/a76dce74-4841-11ea-ab15-b5df3261b710_story.html

I am very proud of Mitt Romney. I think this moment in history will be remembered for a long time.

Hopefully for at least the next five years, after which we in Utah will have the opportunity to vote him out of office. 

[Danzo]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

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. 

You don't believe in personal revelation?

Romney's personal revelation would only apply to Romney, not Lee (or you or me)  He isn't a priesthood leader.

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Danzo

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Dan McClellan said:

The facts are abundantly clear, but I'd be happy to respond to any you want to identify that you think are not clear. 

The charges are abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, and provided one acknowledges that a President is capable of abusing power (some have literally argued otherwise), it's absolutely indisputable he did both. He illegally withheld aid to compel a foreign nation to announce an investigation in a way that would benefit his personal political interests. There are no facts that challenge that account of his actions. He refused to provide legally subpoenaed documents and ordered subordinates to defy legal subpoenas to testify, in direct violation of the Constitution's very clear endowment of the House with sole power to conduct an impeachment. That's why several GOP Senators explained that he clearly did what he is accused of doing, but still shouldn't be removed. Where is the tribalism evident in this?

On November 10, 2019, speaking generally of what he asserts is a lawful presidential power that can be rightfully exercised by all Presidents of the United States, Senator Rand Paul said, “Foreign aid, by law, can only go out to countries that are not corrupt, so if you think that a country is acting in a corrupt way, the president can always withhold aid until the corruption is fixed.”

Do you agree with Senator Paul that Presidents of the United States can lawfully withhold foreign aid from corrupt governments?

If you don’t agree with Senator Paul’s statement, please cite the laws that clearly demonstrate Senator Paul is in error? (And please speak specifically to what the Senator refers to as lawfully wielded presidential power, doing so without bringing up anything to do with the Trump impeachment — we can deal with that later.

Edited February 6, 2020 by teddyaware

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, Danzo said:

You don't believe in personal revelation?

Romney's personal revelation would only apply to Romney, not Lee (or you or me) (He isn't a priesthood leader.

 

But the implications of his decision potentially had wide ranging impact, just as those of a priesthood leader might. And I stand by what I said. Divine direction is not inconsistent. 

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

On November 10, 2019, speaking generally of what he asserts is a lawful presidential power that can be rightfully exercised by all Presidents of the United States, Senator Rand Paul said, “Foreign aid, by law, can only go out to countries that are not corrupt, so if you think that a country is acting in a corrupt way, the president can always withhold aid until the corruption is fixed.”

Do you agree with Senator Paul that Presidents of the United States can lawfully withhold foreign aid from corrupt governments?

If you don’t agree with Senator Paul’s statement, please cite the laws that clearly demonstrate Senator Paul is in error? (And please speak specifically to what the Senator refers to as lawfully wielded presidential power, and please do so without bringing up anything to do with the Trump impeachment — we can do that later.

There doesn't need to be a violation of a law to remove a president from office, you only need to to get enough senators to agree, for whatever reason, to remove him.

Impeachment is a political process, not a legal process. 

[bsjkki]

13 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Obviously it is a political process.

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

It did involve witnesses and evidence. Did that help?

[bsjkki]

11 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

From the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/with-his-vote-to-convict-trump-on-abuse-of-power-romney-will-break-with-his-party--and-awaits-the-consequences/2020/02/05/a76dce74-4841-11ea-ab15-b5df3261b710_story.html

I am very proud of Mitt Romney. I think this moment in history will be remembered for a long time.

He has definitely earned his footnote in history.

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But the implications of his decision potentially had wide ranging impact, just as those of a priesthood leader might. And I stand by what I said. Divine direction is not inconsistent. 

Many decisions that we make have a wide ranging impact, I would hope that the more widely ranging the impact, the more revelation is sought.

To us mortals, divine revelation often may appear inconsistent. That is just the way it works. Personal revelation is, well personal and might be inconsistent with revelation given to another.

 

 

[Danzo]

5 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

It did involve witnesses and evidence. Did that help?

That is for those involved to decide.  Apparently there were enough witnesses and evidence for Romney to make a decision. 

More witnesses are usually better than less witnesses.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Danzo

[bsjkki]

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

That is for those involved to decide.  Apparently there were enough witnesses and evidence for Romney to make a decision. 

Yep. And they didn't even get a majority let alone 2/3rds. It was a complete waste of time and money. 

[Danzo]

Just now, bsjkki said:

Yep. And they didn't even get a majority let alone 2/3rds. It was a complete waste of time and money. 

I can agree that it was a waste of time and money. 

 

[bsjkki]

He left a note to his Republican colleagues. 

https://www.axios.com/mitt-romney-trump-impeachment-vote-note-c09e8704-0196-41e9-8d7a-5d640f06c7f7.html

 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

What exactly did Romney say about God and prayer in reaching his decision? 

He had a decision to make, he prayed, he sung a hymn or two in his head, he thought about his CTR ring. What on earth is wrong with that?

If Romney did those things, and I am sure he was thoughtful and prayerful to come to his decision, so much the better for him. However, I have a decision to make in a trial. I am a sincere occultist. I play with my Ouiji board, sing a pagan hymn to Crom or two in my head, consult my crystals and a pig's entrails, and then tell the world that this is how I got my answer to convict the criminal. Anything wrong with that? 

[Bernard Gui]

46 minutes ago, Danzo said:

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?

In a jury situation like this, would you reveal to the court that one of the reasons you hold the defendant guilty is that you consulted God and he told you the defendant was guilty? What would be the proper reaction from the judge?

Edited February 6, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

29 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Many decisions that we make have a wide ranging impact, I would hope that the more widely ranging the impact, the more revelation is sought.

To us mortals, divine revelation often may appear inconsistent. That is just the way it works. Personal revelation is, well personal and might be inconsistent with revelation given to another.

Emphasis on personal. Romney did not have to invoke his religion to justify his decision. By doing so, he introduced facts not in evidence, facts that could not be verified or questioned. "How do you know this, Senator Romney? "God told me so."

[Bernard Gui]

38 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But the implications of his decision potentially had wide ranging impact, just as those of a priesthood leader might. And I stand by what I said. Divine direction is not inconsistent. 

Invoking Divine direction in this case ends up pitting Saints against each other, as is amply evidenced by this discussion. He should have simply made stated his decision and the legal reasons he felt compelled to do so.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

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.

Do you have the text for the speech he gave in the Senate on Tuesday?

[bsjkki]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Do you have the text for the speech he gave in the Senate on Tuesday?

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/05/mitt-romney-impeachment-vote-speech-transcript-110849

[Bernard Gui]

Interesting comment from the Washington Post... https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2020/02/05/mitt-romneys-mormon-faith-motivated-him-vote-trumps-removal-office/

Quote

As Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) delivered a history-making speech on the Senate floor on Wednesday afternoon, becoming the first U.S. senator to ever vote to remove from office a president of his own party, Romney did not express his greatest emotion when he called the actions of President Trump “grievously wrong.”

He was most emotional when he talked about God.

“As a senator-juror, I swore an oath before God to exercise impartial justice. I am profoundly religious. My faith is at the heart of who I am,” Romney said at the start of his speech. Clearly moved, he paused for several long moments and took a breath before continuing, “I take an oath before God as enormously consequential.”

Romney is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the denomination colloquially known as Mormonism. As he explained his vote, he turned to Mormon tradition.

On Fox News, anchor Chris Wallace said to Romney, “Donald Trump will never forgive you for this.” Romney’s response: “Do what is right. Let the consequence follow.”

Those words come from a hymn that is used in the Mormon Church. Written by an anonymous author in 1857, “Do what is right” exhorts worshipers, “Angels above us are silent notes taking of ev’ry action; then do what is right!”

He told the Atlantic he had his father’s favorite verse from Mormon scripture in mind throughout the deliberative trial process: “Search diligently, pray always, and be believing, and all things shall work together for your good.”

 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

If he's saying God told him to vote that way,  he's perilously close to convincing others there really is a God. But on the other hand Mike Lee's example on mommy confuses the issue--a good and gracious God can't possibly support a disastrous and foolish unbeliever like Trump.  

Of course there are more than just mormons who said prayers.  Either this praying thing is really just personal bias masquerading as a higher power, the higher could care less about this stuff,  or he's as confused as Scott and co.  

Being snide and patronizing doesn't make your argument any better.

God tells us to do what will bring us closer to him individually.

I am convinced that Mitt probably might have personal spiritual growth issues - as of course we all do-  and that he might very well have been inspired to do what he did.  The outcome was not affected by his vote.  Perhaps his personal need was to stand up for what he believed was right, to gain personal spiritual growth.

Perhaps someone could have been prompted to vote on other way because they needed to face different issues in their personal spiritual growth.

God is a good enough chess player to have his will work out regardless of who won or lost.

You simply can't beat him in his own game.  I am certain he is more concerned about an individual's personal growth than anything else.

 

[bsjkki]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/02/romney-impeach-trump/606127/

"Romney, a devout member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, described to me the power of taking an oath before God: “It’s something which I take very seriously.” Throughout the trial, he said, he was guided by his father’s favorite verse of Mormon scripture: Search diligently, pray always, and be believing, and all things shall work together for your good. “I have gone through a process of very thorough analysis and searching, and I have prayed through this process,” he told me. “But I don’t pretend that God told me what to do.”

..."Instead, I found Romney filled with what seemed like righteous indignation about the president’s misconduct—quoting hymns and scripture, expressing dismay at his party, and bracing for the political backlash."

..."Nor was the senator swayed by the theory that a president can be impeached only for breaking a statutory law. “To use an old Mormon hymn phrase, that makes reason stare,” he said. “The idea that Congress would have to anticipate all of the offensive things a president could possibly do, and then make them a statute?”

..." But as he thought about it, another hymn came to mind. “Do what is right; let the consequence follow,” he recited. “And I don’t know what all the consequences will be.”

And he gave this interview yesterday. "Still, when the senator invited me to his Capitol Hill office yesterday, I was unsure what he would reveal." He is the 'man of the hour.'

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by bsjkki