Utah Senator Mitt Romney has been slammed for his refusal to call for Donald Trump's impeachment in a column published in The Washington Post.
Much of the weekend coverage has been dominated by the surprising call by Republican Congressman Justin Amash, who asked the Congress to introduce impeachment proceedings against the president. Romney, who appeared on CNN's State of the Union, said that although he commended the young Republican for his "courageous" statement, he could not find enough evidence in Mueller's report to push through with impeachment. Moreover, not unlike some of his Democratic colleagues who have expressed reluctance at the idea of impeachment due to how cumbersome the process is, such as Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Nadler, Romney said that impeachment ultimately came down to practicality.
"I believe that to make a case for obstruction of justice, you just don't have the elements that are evidenced in this document. And I also believe that an impeachment call is not only something that relates to the law, but also considers practicality and politics," Romney said, adding that the Senate is also inclined towards Trump, making the possibility of impeachment all the more remote.
But The Post slammed Romney's hesitation to call for Trump's impeachment, pointing out that the veteran Republican is once again missing when the country needs him most. According to the writer of the column, James Downie, there was no consensus in the Congress before impeachment proceedings were brought against Richard Nixon. In fact, as Downie points out, polls also showed that Americans were not in favor of Nixon being impeached, but House Judiciary began an impeachment investigation against the president in October 1973 more as a matter of principle than practicality.
It was not until a year later, in August 1974, when the Supreme Court forced the White House to release the Watergate tapes, that the American public finally began to side with the Congress.
"It wasn't until that August that the Senate would have convicted him either — and not coincidentally, that's when Nixon resigned. So citing the Senate and the public is meaningless," the columnist points out.Romney's other reasons were contested as well. The Utah senator maintained that there was a lack of "full element" to show Trump's alleged obstruction of justice, but experts have argued that there is no such thing as the "full element" of proof. If a citizen could be tried for the same actions, a president shall be held responsible too.