Utah Senator Mitt Romney Thread

[SeattleUte]

This fact right here is clouding your judgment.

As for Dershowitz's argument, if we were to accept that rationalization, then god help us in the future. Do whatever the hell you want as a president as long as you can conjure some "in the nation's interest" argument.

Most people really don't understand Dershowitz's argument because he himself got carried away and misstated it in a short sequence, and the press seized on it. Properly stated the argument is correct. There's more danger that this impeachment rationale could carried so far that the country is constantly in a state of impeachment. What Trump did is similar to what Obama did here. https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...lbS_story.html

[Bo Diddley]

Most people really don't understand Dershowitz's argument because he himself got carried away and misstated it in a short sequence, and the press seized on it. Properly stated the argument is correct. There's more danger that this impeachment rationale could carried so far that the country is constantly in a state of impeachment. What Trump did is similar to what Obama did here. https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...lbS_story.html

I think you need to articulate how that's equivalent.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Steven Colbert with a fantastic tribute to Mitt's integrity.

While watching the end of that clip I imagined SU playing the role of Sir Thomas More's daughter at the end of the play. "Come off your self-righteous high horse, Dad!"

[Jeff Lebowski]

While watching the end of that clip I imagined SU playing the role of Sir Thomas More's daughter at the end of the play. "Come off your self-righteous high horse, Dad!"

Ha!

It is painful to watch SU whiff so badly on this one.

[SeattleUte]

I think you need to articulate how that's equivalent.

Really? Obama's personal desire to be re-elected should not have affected in any way his pursuit of the missile treaty with Russia in the best interest of the country.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Ha!

It is painful to watch SU whiff so badly on this one.

It certainly underscores his antipathy toward Sanders. I'm not nearly as bothered by how this might help Sanders since the Bern doesn't have a snowball's chance in a general election. But then, I said the same thing about Trump exactly four years ago.

[SeattleUte]

While watching the end of that clip I imagined SU playing the role of Sir Thomas More's daughter at the end of the play. "Come off your self-righteous high horse, Dad!"

Oh my god. Is this what passes for comedy now on these shows? Standing and ranting like a Paul Krugman column. Certainly it gives the faithful a shot of the spirit, but it’s not comedy. I’d rather read Titania McGrath’s tweets.

I couldn’t stand to listen until the Romney/Thomas More part. But note that Thomas More burned heretics at the stake. So that makes his virtue at least debatable or in a gray area, doesn’t it.

[SeattleUte]

It certainly underscores his antipathy toward Sanders. I'm not nearly as bothered by how this might help Sanders since the Bern doesn't have a snowball's chance in a general election. But then, I said the same thing about Trump exactly four years ago.

Sanders certainly can win a general election. It all comes down to about five states that will be narrowly decided, and Romney’s speech brought Sanders closure to the White House. And you, my friend, are putting your tribal fielties above the best interests of the nation.

[creekster]

Most people really don't understand Dershowitz's argument because he himself got carried away and misstated it in a short sequence, and the press seized on it. Properly stated the argument is correct. There's more danger that this impeachment rationale could carried so far that the country is constantly in a state of impeachment. What Trump did is similar to what Obama did here. https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...lbS_story.html

I agree with you about Dershowitz. He really undermined his own position with the Alaska example, which isn't consistent with his position. I also think the risk of increasingly frequent impeachments on largely political grounds is something we should be concerned about. And, as I have said before, I think Trump's conduct may not have risen to the level of an impeachable offense.

That all said, I am impressed with Romney's willingness to stand on his own and vote to convict. There is no net political benefit to him for doing so. There is no financial benefit. Nor is there any obvious personal benefit, except in his own mind. This is just Romney voting his conscience. I think we see this so rarely that most people are unwilling to accept it at face value. They assume that, like Trump, there is always something underneath. I take Romney at his word that there is nothing underneath, that there is just his effort to do what is right.

It is also silly to pick apart Romney's claim that he saw a 'most abusive' violation of an oath of office. If you can grasp Dershowitz's defense of Trump then surely you can grasp Romney's conclusion that self-dealing through wielding the power, authority and money of this nation at the highest level is precisely contrary to the oath of office. From a tort lawyers POV you are confusing liability and damages.

The threat of a Sanders or Warren presidency is real, in my mind. The system is designed to survive someone like Trump, but they would both seek to fundamentally alter the system's underpinnings and would do great damage to our nation, IMO. But if you reach Romney's conclusions, you cannot destroy the village to save it.

[beefytee]

I agree with you about Dershowitz. He really undermined his own position with the Alaska example, which isn't consistent with his position. I also think the risk of increasingly frequent impeachments on largely political grounds is something we should be concerned about. And, as I have said before, I think Trump's conduct may not have risen to the level of an impeachable offense.

That all said, I am impressed with Romney's willingness to stand on his own and vote to convict. There is no net political benefit to him for doing so. There is no financial benefit. Nor is there any obvious personal benefit, except in his own mind. This is just Romney voting his conscience. I think we see this so rarely that most people are unwilling to accept it at face value. They assume that, like Trump, there is always something underneath. I take Romney at his word that there is nothing underneath, that there is just his effort to do what is right.

It is also silly to pick apart Romney's claim that he saw a 'most abusive' violation of an oath of office. If you can grasp Dershowitz's defense of Trump then surely you can grasp Romney's conclusion that self-dealing through wielding the power, authority and money of this nation at the highest level is precisely contrary to the oath of office. From a tort lawyers POV you are confusing liability and damages.

The threat of a Sanders or Warren presidency is real, in my mind. The system is designed to survive someone like Trump, but they would both seek to fundamentally alter the system's underpinnings and would do great damage to our nation, IMO. But if you reach Romney's conclusions, you cannot destroy the village to save it.

Well said!

[SeattleUte]

I agree with you about Dershowitz. He really undermined his own position with the Alaska example, which isn't consistent with his position. I also think the risk of increasingly frequent impeachments on largely political grounds is something we should be concerned about. And, as I have said before, I think Trump's conduct may not have risen to the level of an impeachable offense.

That all said, I am impressed with Romney's willingness to stand on his own and vote to convict. There is no net political benefit to him for doing so. There is no financial benefit. Nor is there any obvious personal benefit, except in his own mind. This is just Romney voting his conscience. I think we see this so rarely that most people are unwilling to accept it at face value. They assume that, like Trump, there is always something underneath. I take Romney at his word that there is nothing underneath, that there is just his effort to do what is right.

It is also silly to pick apart Romney's claim that he saw a 'most abusive' violation of an oath of office. If you can grasp Dershowitz's defense of Trump then surely you can grasp Romney's conclusion that self-dealing through wielding the power, authority and money of this nation at the highest level is precisely contrary to the oath of office. From a tort lawyers POV you are confusing liability and damages.

The threat of a Sanders or Warren presidency is real, in my mind. The system is designed to survive someone like Trump, but they would both seek to fundamentally alter the system's underpinnings and would do great damage to our nation, IMO. But if you reach Romney's conclusions, you cannot destroy the village to save it.

I hope Bloomberg emerges as the genius out of this horrible mess.

[beefytee]

SU is jumping on "the other side is so bad, we will put up with horrible things on our side" bandwagon. This mentality is causing things to get worse and worse on both sides of the aisle. As has been stated here several times here on this site (and I agree with): Trump, Sanders, whoever are symptoms of a problem and stopping one from being elected isn't going to cure our sickly democracy.

[SeattleUte]

The Wall Street Journal sees Romney as neither hero nor knave, just confused, but declines to delve into any motivation conscious or subconscious.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/james-m..._copyURL_share

And as it notes in the concluding paragraphs, Romney is also reckless. He has made it more likely that Sanders and a majority democratic senate will be elected in November, while blind to the specter of continuing politicized impeachment’s.

[All-American]

Steven Colbert with a fantastic tribute to Mitt's integrity.

Remember funny Colbert? I miss him.

[All-American]

Oh my god. Is this what passes for comedy now on these shows? Standing and ranting like a Paul Krugman column. Certainly it gives the faithful a shot of the spirit, but it’s not comedy. I’d rather read Titania McGrath’s tweets.

I couldn’t stand to listen until the Romney/Thomas More part. But note that Thomas More burned heretics at the stake. So that makes his virtue at least debatable or in a gray area, doesn’t it.

Depends on the heretics, I suppose. Maybe they had it coming.