Mitt Romney Pulls Another Mitt Move, Weighs In On How He's Likely To Vote on Witnesses

Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, waits to participate in a mock swearing-in ceremony in the Old Senate Chamber on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 3, 2019, as the 116th Congress begins. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

 

It looks like the impeachment trial is pretty much going the way that the Republicans had predicted, Democrats slinging mud, White House lawyers disproving the claims, and likely on the way to a quick acquittal.

The only thing that could stall a quick acquittal is the calling of of more witnesses or new evidence.

Democrats would need four Republicans to flip to support their push for witnesses.

So guess who is saying he’s likely to sign aboard? If you guessed Sen. Mitt Romney, the alleged Republican from Utah, you would be right on the money.

Romney has a long history now of appealing for Trump’s help or largesse when he needs it or wants something and then throwing Trump under the bus when the positions are reversed. Not a good character trait.

From Washington Examiner:

“I think it’s very likely I’ll be in favor of witnesses, but I haven’t made a decision finally yet, and I won’t until the testimony is completed,” Romney told reporters Saturday.

Romney is one of a handful of key Republican senators that House impeachment managers are seeking to convince to allow more documents and witnesses as evidence in the trial. Chief among these is the testimony of John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser. […]

Romney’s comments echoed similar remarks he made earlier this month when he said: “I would like to be able to hear from John Bolton. What the process is to make that happen, I don’t have an answer for you.”

It’s not clear that Bolton will help the Democrats cause in anyway despite their efforts to call him and Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney. Mulvaney would likely fight it with executive privilege which could stall the trial. But that’s pretty much the Democrats’ only hope, as they scramble for more evidence to support their failing “overwhelming case.”

Democrats are hoping to pull people like Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) but it isn’t looking likely after first Nadler, then Schiff not only failed to prove their case, but they also offended the senators, the “jury.”

Democrats have already presented their case. If the crux of the claim is that Trump was trying to hold aid to pressure the Ukrainians, that’s already been disproved since the Ukrainians felt no pressure and no quid pro quo was ever communicated to them. That’s the bottom line. So what are other witnesses at this points supposed to prove?