Schiff is supposed to be talking about a rules resolution. Instead, he’s doing an opening statement. Lying as he has before. He’s now all over the place and no senator is listening except probably Romney. Why did Utahans elect a known liberal?
If boring was all he was that would be fine. Unfortunately he is a Democrat congressman and has no scruples and probably no ability to do anything but hold elected office, or be a lawyer, which means he generally does nothing much except argue, make speeches, tell lies, and line his pocket with other people’s money. .
Why is Romney siding with Schiff? Has Utah become anti-Constitution? Has the pride cycle overcome Utahans? It I were a citizen or Utah I’d be screaming for Romney to be re-called or removed! I can’t believe his liberal mind is approved by Utahans. Any fair minded logical thinking person knows Schiff is a liar who hates the Constitution.
As a Utahan, I am really proud of Mitt Romney for his stance on the Trump Impeachment trial. Because he is doing what he “Swore an oath” too.
His comments:
I and all senators swore an oath to ‘do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: so help me God’ in determining whether the president has committed impeachable offenses that merit his removal from office. Deciding whether or not a sitting president should be removed from office is perhaps the most solemn matter that can ever come before the United States Senate. I enter this task with an open mind and a recognition of my solemn responsibility to fulfill my oath.
The allegations outlined in the articles of impeachment passed by the House are extremely serious – did the President abuse his office for personal political gain, and did he obstruct Congress’ investigation by blocking subpoenas? These allegations demand that the Senate put political biases aside, and make good faith efforts to listen to arguments from both sides and thoroughly review facts and evidence. I have made clear to my colleagues and the public that the Senate should have the opportunity to decide on witnesses following the opening arguments, as occurred in the Clinton trial. The organizing resolution released tonight includes this step, and overall, it aligns closely with the rules package approved 100-0 during the Clinton trial. If attempts are made to vote on witnesses prior to opening arguments, I would oppose those efforts.
The best we in the Senate can do is strive to meet the obligations outlined by our founding fathers – to honor our constitutional duty and fulfill our oath to do impartial justice. That is the commitment I make solemnly and in good faith to the people of Utah and our nation.
I for one is tired of the political BS that both sides spew. I admire Mitt for taking this serious and having an open mind and be able to listen to all sides in the trial, then making a decision, based on the EVIDENCE presented. No political lopsidedness that was prevalent in the house hearings.
My view is simple, let the Democrats produce their evidence to the Senate. Then let the Senate, based on their constitutional mandate, show just how flimsy the evidence the democrats in the house produced really is. Because in the end, Truth will prevail.
SG before you post your response, know this simple fact: I WILL NOT REPSOND to anything you post.
Mitt Romney is a Never-Trumper because he got his feelings hurt because he wouldn’t pick him for a cabinate post. He’s as pathetic as Adam Schiff. He was for abortion before it was expedient for him not to be. He was for Obamacare before it wasn’t expedient for him to be. He has no spine. He could have KO’d Obama in the last debate and he froze because he’s a wolf progressive in a sheepskin.
It’s obvious if you speak for all of Utahans then none of you have read the Constitution nor do you know the difference between capitalism and Marxism. Unbelievable! Look at California. You like what you see? I don’t! Neither does any true Book of Mormon carrying member. But, California is what Utah is becoming if you support Mitt Romney. The end of days is near!
I could buy into Romney’s rhetoric if Trump had been accused of an impeachable offense. The articles sent to the senate do not allege that Trump broke any laws and the constitution calls for impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. The general impression is that the current impeachment cheapens the whole concept and opens the door for future impeachments based on the fact the opposing party doesn’t approve of the sitting president. It appears the congressional Democrats pulled the articles out of their butt. Maxine Watters stated that they will continue to investigate Trump even after the current impeachment is thrown out of the senate. The message is loud and clear that they want Trump gone by any means possible.
Presidents throughout history have committed far worse abuses of power based on actions far worse than what Trump is being accused of. I hope the Senate shuts down the sham as quickly as possible.
I didn’t even vote for Trump. I didn’t vote for HIllary either. Based on what I have seen of his first term I will vote for Trump over anybody the Democrats nominate. I realize he isn’ t a boy scout but he is far better than anybody the Democrats have to offer. I didn’t think his policies would be good and found him of objectionable character but his policies have been good. The problem he has is a dishonest, highly biased press and a totally corrupt opposition party.
I never said Trump committed impeachable offenses. I agree with you about other Presidents actions.
But the constitution is pretty clear, if the House sends impeachment articles to the Senate, the Senate MUST hold a trial.
There is no getting around it. They could dismiss it. But that could bring other issues into it.
As I said in my original post, I think if the Senate does their part without the lopsided crap the House did in their hearings, it could be a big win for the GOP during the elections because it will show how partisan the Democrats used to impeach Trump.
I think according to the polls more and more Americans are beginning to see this impeachment is nothing more than political BS.
Mitt is being a good boy so far. Maybe he is finding out Utahans are ready to give him the heeve ho! See what happens next week.
If Trump did not violate laws and there is no impeachable offenses, then all objective senators should reject the DEMOCRAT impeachment articles at the very start. Do you really think the Dem senators will do their part to be impartial? The answer is no because if they did, they would demand a dismissal. The House DEMOCRATS did do a totally lop-sided crap job with their hearings and that is another reason the Senate should throw the articles of impeachment out - the articles are nothing more than crap on toilet paper. If rational and reasonable voters do not already know how one-sided and partisan the articles of impeachment are with the Dems ever-ongoing efforts to “get” Trump are and have been, then they are not rational and reasonable people. Romney’s “righteousness” or other Repubs impartial efforts only assists the Dems “remove Trump AT ANY COST” crooked and unethical behavior.
BTW, I did not want Trump to get the Repub nomination, I was really against him and wanted Cruz to win. But I will vote for him in November. Trump, as a president, is head, shoulders, and chest better than any Dem. While I voted for Romney the first time, I will never vote for him again, even for sewer rat. I sent him a scathing letter to so inform him. I have voted for Dems (occasionally) previously when I thought prudent in statewide and local elections but will never do so again, ever.
I am not sure if Trump violated the law or not, the Law and it’s interpretation is pretty wide ranging. Watch FoxNews some time when they have their legal experts on, non of them can agree what the “law” really means.
IF and that is a “BIG IF” Trump did something that violated the law, then he should be held accountable and I am sorry, but I don’t give a damm if he is republican or democrat. He should be held accountable.
As for the Impeachment Trial, like I said it is pretty clear that the Constitution mandates that the Senate holds a trial for the impeachment articles. To dismiss it, really is not in the preview of the Senate. I was listening to one of the talking heads on Fox News awhile ago, who had a constitutional lawyer on. The lawyer mentioned several reasons why dismissing it was a bad idea constitutionally. His point was make the democrats own up to the sloppy way that they held the hearings, force them to actually use the “Rule of Law” which is done in every court case in the country.
Not sure where you live Arkie, but Mike Lee the other Senator from Utah is a Constitutional lawyer. He clerk for SCOTUS and is pretty well known for his understanding of the Constitution and what the Senate must do. Mike is not advocating for a dismissal, he wants to hold the trial. So that tells me that there really is no other alternative to not holding the trial.
It really does not matter if the Senate Democrats are far or not, because the Republicans own the Senate right now and there are I believe two Democrats siding on the GOP side (count 53 votes).
But the downside for the Democrats on this trial is that they will be exposed for the unethical way they held their hearings and the bogus (if they are bogus) charges.
So in essence, they will lose some political pull with the people.
I don’t like Trump on “Moral” grounds, I think he acts childish in many ways. But I have to respect the office he holds.
I find it funny you wanted Cruz, I did not want Trump or Cruz, I don’t like people who are either far right or left. I find the people I like to vote for somewhere in the middle, because they understand the issues more clearly in my opinion.
Being a registered Democrat, I can say I would never vote for a Democrat again. That anyone would consider the possibility of having Nancy Pelosi or any of her cohorts at the head of this government is the most abysmal thought I could ever conjure up
Therein lies the problem, What is an impeachable offense. Nothing has clearly defined what “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” really means. I listen to so many different constitutional lawyers on News programs and non of them agree what the definition really means.
I agree with you that the current impeachment articles from the Democratic held House really puts a black eye on the whole impeachment process. It has been turned into a political tool to be used when someone doesn’t like the person in the other party.
It becomes a slippery slope because when one party does it, the other party will do it as well in the future.
Harry Reid used the nuclear option in the Senate to get ObamaCare passed, The Republicans cried about doing it, but when McConnell took office, shortly there after they used the same tactic to get things passed the democrats.
That is why I worried about the House doing the Articles of Impeachment, now when the GOP has the house, they will try to impeach a Democratic President they don’t like.
I vote for who I have studied and decided was the best candidate, I will not look at the party of that person as a determining factor.
That is just the way I do it, not saying any other way is better or worse.
I’ve probably voted a split party ticket since I was eligible to vote. But what I’ve seen since President Obama hit the scene has soured me on the politicians in general. No longer is it vote for the very best candidate-it’s vote for the lesser of the two evils. Trump has his obvious personality flaws, but the saving factor for me-he is not a Politician. In reality-I have no problems with what the democrats are doing right now-though I believe it has little to do with justice-but I believe they are cutting their own throats as to the results of the Presidential election-and to me, that is more than I could possibly hope for
Personally, I think both the Democrat and Republicans parties have been taken over by extremist. Both have stopped caring about what is best for the country, only their own pocketbook and the party is important them.
That is one reason I quit the Republican party and went independent. I know some guys that work for Sutherland Institute, that is a conservative think tank that has also left the Republican party for the very same reasons as me.
Many people in Utah are upset that Romney is not “more right” or “Conservative”. Me, I like Romney because he is more in the middle and looks at both sides before deciding.
Seems to me that a crime or a misdemeanor is just that, a violation of a law. Whatever the lawyer or constitutional lawyer is, let them point specifically to the specific crime (felony) or misdemeanor that Trump violated. The “sniff test” is not a law.
The Senate could well have dismissed the articles of impeachment IF the votes were there. Dismissal is in their purview. The consequences of dismissal are not the same as CANNOT.
I now live in Utah. I thought I would like to live out my last days in Zion, but looks like to me that Zion has moved and no one knows where it has gone. Floyd, while Lee may be a respected Constitutional lawyer, so is Cruz. And at the time Cruz beat the pants off any of the Dems or Repubs running for the 2016 election.
I agree, both “houses” of congress are a joke in terms of really caring about the good of the country. The Repubs smell a bit better than the Dems but not by a whole bunch. To me, Romney is a rhino. I would respect him better if he left the Repubs and joined the Dems publicly.
And the Repubs will seek revenge and the political “games” will only get more noxious, if that is even possible.
I totally agree-corruption on both sides. Does Nixon ring a bell or Clinton. Sorry to say I believe the best President in the last 40 years was RR
my question to you is: “What is a Republican?” the Tea Party Republican like Cruz or the more Moderate Republican like Ronald Reagan?
That is why dislike the term “Rhino”, because if you are a tea party republican Romney is not republican, if you are a moderate republican, then Romney is a Republican.
The whole thing with blaming Romney for things he did in Massachusetts is simply “Bogus” . He was elected by Liberals, to do things that liberals wanted. So Romney did what he was elected to do, “Represent the people of the State” who happens to be a majority of liberals.
MassachusettsCare, was nor ever been like ObamaCare, because under Romney, he worked with the democrats to make sure they used the Insurance companies to insure the residents, not some state agency.
Anyway, I have no problem with you disliking Mitt Romney, we each have a standard that we use to set our bar for acceptable behavior of our elected officials. Ours is simply different.
My problem with Cruz was before he ran, he really was a far right Tea Party candidate and I did not like some of his positions. Then he ran for President and I never got convinced he changed positions.
I personally do not like extremism, that is why I am independent.
I think the thing that bothers me a lot is the use of the word “extremist.” What you are actually saying with that word is you don’t want the Constitution to be the Law of the Land. To the right, you have those who adhere to the Constitution as written and interpreted by the founding fathers who were inspired of God. On the left, you have Marxists with fascist methods who desire to overthrow the Constitution for mob rule and dictatorship like Venezuela. If you are in the middle, you approve of Marxism and partially reject the inspiration of God. Stop equating far right with racism like the Democrat pundits on Fox News or other media. Racism has nothing to do with left or right.
Floyd: “The whole thing with blaming Romney for things he did in Massachusetts is simply “Bogus” . He was elected by Liberals, to do things that liberals wanted. So Romney did what he was elected to do, “Represent the people of the State” who happens to be a majority of liberals.”
So the Calif. state lawmakers are not accountable for the homelessness or the sanctuary BS or the other leftist, socialist clearly harmful crapola because they were elected by liberals. If Utah becomes more liberal (that is happening) to the point that Utah state lawmakers adopts the far-left agenda, that is perfectly fine with you? I guess if this country moves to a leftist, socialist form of government, that is ok, because that will be what the voters voted for. Wow!
Cruz is a strict constitutionalist. If you want to stick him with the “tea party” label, be my guest. But I reject that label. He is a constitutionalist…