Senator Mitt Romney:

I voted to allow more witnesses in the trial because I'd like to get all the facts before making up my mind.  From what we've been told, John Bolton has direct evidence that could prove President Trump tied aid to the Biden investigation.

Also Senator Mitt Romney:

I voted to convict President Trump, because I believe he was guilty based on the facts presented.


Really?  You can't have it both ways.  Either you believe the evidence was sufficient to convict, or you believe you needed to hear from more witnesses before deciding to convict.   

False, you can believe there is enough evidence to convict and still like to see more evidence.

If you had two witnesses identifying a murderer in the case are you going to say there is no need to hear from the third if available? Of course not, you look to hear from the 3rd and if unavailable then you decide based on the 2.



Don't know how republican senators can complain about not having witnesses but when they get the chance to call witnesses they vote no.

False, you can believe there is enough evidence to convict and still like to see more evidence.

If you had two witnesses identifying a murderer in the case are you going to say there is no need to hear from the third if available? Of course not, you look to hear from the 3rd and if unavailable then you decide based on the 2.



Don't know how republican senators can complain about not having witnesses but when they get the chance to call witnesses they vote no.

Bullshit.  If you are already convinced of guilt, dragging the trial out for a couple more weeks to hear from a witness WHO NEVER TESTIFIED IN THE HOUSE makes zero sense.

If his testimony was that important, Schiff should have left the {illegal} Bolton subpoena active or had it reissued after the House voted to hold the impeachment inquiry instead of cancelling it.

It's not the Senate's job to call witnesses unless they need to clarify testimony that was given before the House.  Bolton was not called.  He was given a fraudulent subpoena which was quickly canceled when challenged.

That's how the impeachment trials usually work.  Romney is a jealous TDS-riddled swamp critter who couldn't beat the previous President who publicly admitted he expected to be a one-termer due to the bad economy.

Your TDS is the scary part.  You think everyone who defends Trump from the Democrat vultures in DC has "blind loyalty".

Nope.  It's called a sense of fair play.  Whether it's Trump, Obama, or Clinton, no president should be the target of a partisan impeachment witch hunt like this was.

As for "claiming no evidence", if there was evidence, Schiff must have left it in his other briefcase -- along with the overwhelming evidence Trump is a Russian agent.

How many times must the Democrats provably lie to your face before you stop defending them?   

Yeah yeah, you claim TDS to distract from your blind loyalty. By your logic anyone who critiques Trump for almost anything has TDS. I guess you think even the facts have TDS because they aren't in Trump's favor. I speak in defense of Trump when the facts are in his favor and I speak against him when the facts are against him.


You complain about a partisan impeachment but then you attack Romney for not voting along party lines... stop being a hypocrite. You don't care about partisanship, you only care when it is present and not in Trump's favor.


I defend the truth, I don't care whose side it is on.
How many times must Trump provably lie to your face before you stop defending him? Does the Kool-aid make Trump's lies not count or does it make you blind to them? Every one of Trump's own picks and buddies who end up with something to say against him get labeled as liars. His lawyers, his associates, his senior staff picks, etc. Trump's own wife could come out and say Trump did something wrong and his followers would find a way to claim she was just another anti-trumpet.

Bullshit.  If you are already convinced of guilt, dragging the trial out for a couple more weeks to hear from a witness WHO NEVER TESTIFIED IN THE HOUSE makes zero sense.

It makes perfect sense. If you were in a murder trial and a new witness became known are you gonna claim we can't hear from them because they weren't present for the grand jury? Any new evidence that becomes available always has a place to be admitted in a trial. You are making up stuff here.

If his testimony was that important, Schiff should have left the {illegal} Bolton subpoena active or had it reissued after the House voted to hold the impeachment inquiry instead of cancelling it.

An illegal subpoena? Do tell, how is the House issuing a subpoena illegal? Go ahead, show me what law they violated.

It's not the Senate's job to call witnesses unless they need to clarify testimony that was given before the House.

Their job is to hear the evidence and vote on whether to remove the president so yes, hearing any witness they want is part of their job and it is completely within their power to do so.

Yeah yeah, you claim TDS to distract from your blind loyalty. By your logic anyone who critiques Trump for almost anything has TDS. I guess you think even the facts have TDS because they aren't in Trump's favor. I speak in defense of Trump when the facts are in his favor and I speak against him when the facts are against him.


You complain about a partisan impeachment but then you attack Romney for not voting along party lines... stop being a hypocrite. You don't care about partisanship, you only care when it is present and not in Trump's favor.


I defend the truth, I don't care whose side it is on.
How many times must Trump provably lie to your face before you stop defending him? Does the Kool-aid make Trump's lies not count or does it make you blind to them? Every one of Trump's own picks and buddies who end up with something to say against him get labeled as liars. His lawyers, his associates, his senior staff picks, etc. Trump's own wife could come out and say Trump did something wrong and his followers would find a way to claim she was just another anti-trumpet.

Show me where I said Romney should have voted along party lines?

We all know you can't, so don't even bother deflecting.

Romney should have voted to acquit with the evidence (or lack thereof).. If the case the House presented was enough for him to convict, then I'd like to know what that evidence was.

We're lucky Romney lost in 2012.  He's an idiot.  Funny how the Left (and you) defend him now, but in 2012 he was a dog abusing, misogynistic, racist, money-grubbing capitalist vampire who killed a woman he never met with cancer.   

It is my understanding that the standards of an impeachment are different and many folks are incorrectly equating their knowledge of criminal and civil court proceedings, the idea that the defense needed to prove innocence is/was absolutely absurd.  I do think there's a lot more to all of this that are currently "behind the scenes" that prevented the defense from hitting back to hard, but just my speculation.

The defense could have sat back and not introduce any arguments but that wouldn't look very good for Trump so of course they are going to go up and try and show Trump didn't do anything wrong.


What do you think limited the defense from hitting back too hard?

It makes perfect sense. If you were in a murder trial and a new witness became known are you gonna claim we can't hear from them because they weren't present for the grand jury? Any new evidence that becomes available always has a place to be admitted in a trial. You are making up stuff here.


An illegal subpoena? Do tell, how is the House issuing a subpoena illegal? Go ahead, show me what law they violated.


Their job is to hear the evidence and vote on whether to remove the president so yes, hearing any witness they want is part of their job and it is completely within their power to do so.

This was not a murder trial.  Your analogy is rejected.

If this had been a real trial with a real prosecution, the judge would have dismissed it before the defense ever made a single argument based on the fact THERE WAS NO STATUTORY CRIME AND INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.

Show me where I said Romney should have voted along party lines?

We all know you can't, so don't even bother deflecting.

Romney should have voted to acquit with the evidence (or lack thereof).. If the case the House presented was enough for him to convict, then I'd like to know what that evidence was.

We're lucky Romney lost in 2012.  He's an idiot.  Funny how the Left (and you) defend him now, but in 2012 he was a dog abusing, misogynistic, racist, money-grubbing capitalist vampire who killed a woman he never met with cancer.   

You complained about a partisan impeachment and then complained when Romney voted with democrats to remove the president. Why would you complain that he voted to remove unless you thought he should have voted against removal (AKA along party lines). You didn't explicitly say he should have voted along party lines but you attacked him for not doing so. You didn't need to explicitly say it it exists in your comments logically.


Dog abusing racist who gave a woman cancer? WTF are you talking about 

The defense could have sat back and not introduce any arguments but that wouldn't look very good for Trump so of course they are going to go up and try and show Trump didn't do anything wrong.


What do you think limited the defense from hitting back too hard?

You can't keep up with the facts, huh?

The inquiry was not voted on by the House before Pelosi tagged Schiff to start the inquiry.  That's overstepping her authority.  A committee cannot issue a valid subpoena until they have been given authority to start the investigation by a House vote.

And you said you listened to the defense team!!!   

You complained about a partisan impeachment and then complained when Romney voted with democrats to remove the president. Why would you complain that he voted to remove unless you thought he should have voted against removal (AKA along party lines). You didn't explicitly say he should have voted along party lines but you attacked him for not doing so. You didn't need to explicitly say it it exists in your comments logically.


Dog abusing racist who gave a woman cancer? WTF are you talking about 

Again, you can't show where I said that.

You're exactly like the so-called witnesses who assumed, presumed and deduced what Trump wanted but never even spoke to Trump.

LOL!  Give it up, Trollboy!

This was not a murder trial.  Your analogy is rejected.

If this had been a real trial with a real prosecution, the judge would have dismissed it before the defense ever made a single argument based on the fact THERE WAS NO STATUTORY CRIME AND INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.

Irrelevant. You have failed to make any valid argument as to why new evidence or new witnesses could not be introduced to the Senate trial. The Senate could have done so and they voted not too. There was nothing unreasonable about Romney's request and there was nothing contradictory for him to be able to vote to remove absent the additional witness. You are making up stuff here.

Again, you can't show where I said that.

You're exactly like the so-called witnesses who assumed, presumed and deduced what Trump wanted but never even spoke to Trump.

LOL!  Give it up, Trollboy!

I already quoted you criticizing Romney for voting to remove the president. You are just lying through your teeth to cover your hypocrisy.

If you don't care he didn't vote partisan then just say so and stop whining that Trump didn't fall in line with papa Trump

I think this thread is done.  Trump is still president