24 thoughts on “Mitt Romney’s speech about his vote.

  1. Milquetoast McRomney puts on a good act, doesn’t he? However, to the knowing observer, his decision was purely personal. He hates Mr Trump and proceeded to stab him right dead in the middle of the back.

    (He also stabbed his constituents in the back.)
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Statewide Initiative | Voter Accountability Act
    https://www.recallromneynow.com/

    Utah’s H.B. 217 could help Utah voters recall Mitt Romney
    https://noqreport.com/2020/01/31/utahs-h-b-217-could-help-utah-voters-recall-mitt-romney/

    Like

    1. @TK

      “Knowing observer” That would be you, no doubt. Thanks for the laugh.

      Trump will be known in the future mainly for his crimes and his impeachment. Romney will be known as the last Republican with any sense of honor and duty.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Mr Clinton’s impeachment was meaningless and historians will record Mr Trump’s as being even more ridiculous.

        I never expected the swamp-state to drain easily and I expect the slimy swamp-staters to continue going after Mr Trump. In fact, I’ll be concerned if they don’t continue going after him. For that would mean that he has succumbed to them.

        Mr Trump is stubborn — and yes, to the knowing observer, it is clear that he ain’t gonna quit.

        Like

      1. There were votes from both tribes not to even impeach in the first place. Even more bipartisan is the fact that one Dem even made his way into the patriots camp.

        If McRomney jumps tribes, it’ll be even.

        Like

  2. Ummm, there have been “bipartisan” votes to not convict, so what and not a first. Go back and check your “facts” or do you work for WaPo because I know better. That is a prime example of left wing manipulation of “facts”. You’re welcome.

    Like

    1. “ Romney was the only Republican to vote guilty, but he becomes the first senator to vote to remove a president of his own party from office.”

      Who was the other one?

      I will take the blame for incorrect information.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. You said he was the first to vote outside of his party. That is patently false. The greater aspect of this is that, unlike the other 2 impeachment, he is the ONLY senator to cross sides. Now THAT is telling.

        Like

        1. @BobR

          Len’s statement was clear. It was true. There is nothing patently false about it. He was referring to the votes to convict. Not the votes to impeach. And not the votes to acquit. To convict. And Romney’s vote was the first time that a Senator of the accused’s party voted to convict in an impeachment trial. Unless, as Len suggested, you can name another?

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Gosh, I can’t believe I have to explain a simple statement 3 times …oh, excuse me I forgot.

          “… at least it was a bipartisan vote to convict Trump. First one ever.” “Convict” is the operative word.

          I don’t mind being corrected. I have been married 47 years so I am used to it.

          But at least try to address what I wrote. Otherwise it is just another Trump Tweet.

          Liked by 2 people

    2. Show YOUR work. Multiple sources have reported the fact that no Senator from the impeached President’s party voted to convict.

      Yours is a prime example of the right wing ignorance of the facts. Led down that road by the orange faced leader.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Oh Len, I did address your exact statement that he was the first to vote outside of his party. I said that was false. I replied to your post before that he was the first to vote to convict outside of party as “bipartisan” with a so what, there have been “bipartisan” votes not to convict. What are you missing in reading comprehention? Simply put, you are trying to claim this is a “historical” event but it has as much relevance as the fact that for the first time, yesterday, I had a ham and Swiss sandwich with NO spicy mustard. IT’S HISTORY!!! It’s a good laugh though…

    Like

    1. @BobR

      Romney’s vote to convict was a historical act of political courage. Not quite in the same league as your mustard free sandwich. There have been three impeachment trials in the entire history of the country. It was only in this trial that a Senator went against his party. And he did so with an eloquent statement of principle.

      Of course, as a loyal Trumpkin you want to pooh pooh the importance of Romney’s historic speech and his vote. Fine. Be a parrot for Dear Leader if it makes you feel good. But, you can drop accusing Len of lying when he simply made a straight-forward statement of provable fact. The vote to convict WAS bipartisan and that IS the first time that such a thing has happened.

      Like

      1. “It was only in this trial that a Senator went against his party”. That is a blatant lie but I would expect nothing less from you. Chafee, Collins, Gorton, Shelby, Snowe, Spector, Stevens and Thompson, all Republicans, voted against their party in one or both articles in the Clinton trial. 7 Senators voted against their party in the Johnson trial. As much as you and Len try to make this a historical event to make an anti-Trump statement, it falls flat on its face like most other disagreements I have proven you wrong on. (Mic drop and a bow)

        Like

          1. Because apparently you can’t follow a thread, I will explain this at your third grade level. Len made a claim that this was the first time a senator voted outside of his party. You made the exact same claim that I said was a lie, a fact I have proven. I had already addressed the “bipartisan”first to vote to convict with “So what”there have been 2 other bipartisan votes not to convict with much greater bipartisan support than 1 senator. DUH!!! Understand now??DUH???

            Like

          2. @BobR

            This is too funny. Here is the statement by Len that set you off and left you foaming at the mouth with accusations of “blatant lies” and claims of some sort of intellectual superiority.

            “Of course, he didn’t have to, but at least it was a bipartisan vote to convict Trump. First one ever.”

            That is a TRUE statement. It was about the vote to CONVICT. It WAS bipartisan and it WAS the first time that such a bi-partisan vote to convict has happened.

            Like

    2. Sigh…

      You want the last word on this thread, you got it.

      (Geez, it’s just like your hero talking…rambling, pointless and now a ham and cheese sandwich.)

      Like

      1. Just as pointless as your assertion that Mitt made history somehow. Of course that was the point my friend. Nighty night.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s