Mitt Romney announced on Wednesday he will break with his party and vote to convict President Trump on the Democrats’ first article of impeachment, which alleges abuse of power. This decision shouldn’t come as a surprise: He’s been vocally critical of Trump’s dealings with Ukraine for months, and he voted in favor of additional witness testimony during last week’s trial.
Romney’s vote is respectable, yet meaningless. He argued on the Senate floor that Trump recruited Ukraine in his efforts to investigate corruption, and because that investigation had to do with the president’s political rival, Joe Biden, Trump’s intentions were blatantly “personal and political.”
Romney described his choice to convict as a difficult one. “Over the past few weeks, I’ve received texts and calls from many who demanded I stand with the team,” he said, noting that he considered doing just that.
“I support a great deal of what the president has done, and I’ve voted for most of his policies,” Romney continued. “But my promise to God to impartial justice required that I put my personal feelings and political biases aside.”
There is certainly an argument to be made that Trump abused his power. But that argument depends on Trump’s intentions. Democrats have arguably failed to prove that his intentions were personal; they have certainly failed to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is why Maine’s Susan Collins, another moderate Republican senator, announced she would vote to acquit Trump. Collins agrees with Romney that Trump’s actions were “improper” but does not believe that “the House has met its burden of showing that the president’s conduct, however flawed, warrants the extreme step of immediate removal from office.”
Romney is arguing otherwise. He said in an interview with Fox News’s Chris Wallace that there is no doubt Trump was in the wrong, and that the reason he hoped to hear from former national security adviser John Bolton was so Bolton could provide evidence that would change Romney’s mind. “I had hoped Bolton would raise a reasonable doubt,” Romney explained.
But this isn’t “impartial justice,” as Romney has claimed. Complete justice requires more than a half-baked case, which is what the House gave to the Senate. It requires firsthand witness testimony, but the House failed to do its duty and go to the courts to subpoena the necessary witnesses. Why? Because impeachment is nothing more than leverage the Democratic Party hopes to use in the 2020 election.
If Romney has enough doubt about Trump’s motives that he thinks Bolton might have changed his mind, then he has just admitted there is reasonable doubt. By his own admission, he should be voting to acquit.
Romney is taking impeachment more seriously than the Democrats. He seems to believe sincerely that what he is doing is right. I disagree with his conclusions, but I admire his conscientious commitment and political independence.
Still, it’s obvious the Democrats are attempting to lower the standard of removal from office for shallow and partisan reasons. Romney thinks he is gaining something by giving them an inch, but he isn’t. He has inadvertently given the Democratic Party the justification they’ve been seeking. Can that really be worth it?
