Thread by @tolmanbrett

Ok. So a few thoughts on what Romney’s vote was all about in a small thread:

Impeachment is entirely a factual and legal issue. Requiring intense marshaling of inculpatory and exculpatory evidence and then a careful and thoughtful analysis of the law through those facts. 1/x

The junior Senator from Utah, Senator Romney has done neither. He does not articulate the evidence—the witnesses, the emails, the transcripts or other documents which prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the President committed a crime as contemplated by the Constitution. 2/x

He does not argue an interpretation of the impeachment laws or precedent which justify his proceeding to vote for conviction. Glaringly, he does not explain how he can vote for additional witnesses—decrying the absolute need for such witnesses in order to sufficiently judge...3/x

whether to convict—and then go ahead and vote to convict without such “vital” witnesses being called. (eg Bolton) There is no analysis of the articles and their deficiencies; no analysis of the House failures, the lack of witnesses or process provided to the President; 4/x

and no analysis of the 50+ pages of careful legal analysis of the only disinterested witness, Professor Turley. Consequently the level of analysis fails to comport with the gravity of the moment. 5/x

What is documented, however, is Romney’s utter disdain for President Trump. His mortification at having sought his endorsement. His embarrassment when seeking a cabinet position of which he was unceremoniously denied. His criticism of the President’s brashness and decorum. 6/x

Not to mention the audacity of the presidency going to someone like “Trump”—who is crass not refined, blunt not thoughtful, real not pious—and not what the senator believes a president should be. Like himself. 7/x

So in the end, he voted. It was a vote he knows would cause an adversary frustration—giving himself some personal satisfaction—but have no real legal meaning. It’s a vote he could cast while cloaking himself in the twin robes of moral outrage and definition of character. 8/x

The temptation to cast such a vote is fed by the fleeting high praise and pronouncements of moral superiority being offered by those on the left who equally detest this President. So I ask you, is such a vote courageous? My answer is no. Unequivocally. 9/x

Courageous is someone like @SenTedCruz who endured personal attacks in the election process by this President but rose above such to illustrate this one principle: do not answer a legal and factual question with a personal or moral judgment. 10/x

Courageous is someone that doesn’t give in to their personal desire to exact revenge. Courageous is putting in the work to analyze the evidence and the discipline to keep personal emotion out of the decision. End/x