Mitt Romney Impeachment Logic Explained

A look at Mitt Romney's impeachment logic.

First off, I believe Mitt Romney was sincere. Romney is well-known for his Mormon faith, “I am profoundly religious. My faith is at the heart of who I am.”

But if his faith history or emotional speech wasn’t enough for you to believe his sincerity then you can at least see how logically Mitt Romney has much more to lose by voting for removal. From a purely self-interested political perspective, his vote to remove was reckless, hence why no other Republican chose to do so. And Mitt Romney is not known to be a risk-taker (except maybe in style which i personally find dapper) It would be enormously risky for a Republican to put all his red chips on “removal” for some highly unlikely future political payoff. There are much easier ways for a Republican to differentiate themselves for a 2024 presidential run without earning the hatred of the Trump base, which will be necessary for a Republican nominee to win at least part of in 2024.

His eyes were on the law and God. But just because his motives were well-intentioned doesn’t mean his judgement was sound. So let's examine his rationale...

Senator Romney’s case revolved around the White House’s defense…

If those are indeed the three key defenses then I think it’s fair to say Mitt Romney’s analysis is correct regarding the first and third defense…

So then all that is left, according to Romney, is the White House’s second defense, which is where I think Mitt Romney’s conclusion may be wrong…

So Romney said the White House counsel didn’t present any evidence that a crime was committed, which for argument’s sake we’ll say is true, but a senate trial is not the same as a courtroom trial, a Senate juror is allowed to look at all the evidence, including that which can be found outside of the counsel’s presentation.

Personally, I think there is enough evidence to warrant an investigation into the Biden’s. I can speak from personal experience when I worked as an assistant to New York’s second-highest ranked Republican, New York State Deputy Majority Leader Tom Libous, he was investigated by the FBI because his son got a cushy job at a fancy law firm despite his lackluster resume. That law firm was receiving state contracts. The accusation was that Tom Libous made those contracts contingent upon the hiring of his son.

Ultimately, the FBI couldn’t prove “corruption” and “bribery” so they got him for lying under oath and his son on tax evasion.

In my opinion, if that warranted an investigation (something they ultimately couldn’t prove) then why shouldn’t the Vice President of the United States warrant an investigation? I’m not saying Biden is guilty of bribery or corruption, which are the crimes Republicans are suggesting he may have committed, but I think based on legal precedence there is enough evidence to warrant looking into...

Here are the facts:

Joe Biden was Vice President of the United States who was made point-man of Iraq, Ukraine, and China. When Biden was made point-man for Iraq, four days later his brother gets a half a billion dollar housing deal there. When Biden was made point-man for Ukraine, his son made 8 million dollars (despite Hunter Biden having 0 experience in Ukraine or oil). And according to a legal document, the Ukrainian prosecutor (who Joe Biden bragged about getting fired) stated that, *“Burisma Holdings and Hunter Biden are involved in a corruption affair.” And then the legal document laid out a money laundering scheme involving 14 million dollars where money was being disguised as loans. This legal document was attained, despite resistance from the U.S. embassy, because Hunter Biden’s partner was charged with Securities Fraud. When Biden was made point-man for China, Hunter Biden joined his father on a flight to China on Air Force Two in December 2013, at which point Hunder Biden’s firm, Rosemont Seneca, entered a joint venture with China-based Bohai Capital to form BHR with over a billion dollars in funding.

I think each of these facts should raise enough of a red flag for even Biden’s staunchest supporters to support an investigation if only to clear his name and ensure the legal precedence that power is always held to a higher standard of transparency.

And you might say okay, Anthony, but let’s not pretend that Trump was motivated out of a desire for “transparency” or to “drain the swamp,” but he was purely driven out of a desire to help his own 2020 reelection chances.

And this maybe true, but I am not a hypocrite and so just as I wouldn’t assume malicious intent of Mitt Romney I won’t for Donald Trump unless there is a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise.