To use an old Mormon hymn phrase, that makes reason stare. The idea that Congress would have to anticipate all of the offensive things a president could possibly do, and then make them a statute? ... What if the president decided to pardon every Republican in prison nationwide, while leaving every Democrat locked up? There's no law against that! So it's not a crime or misdemeanor. But it's obviously absurd.
What is absurd about saying, for non-criminal offenses, we have elections? What is absurd about arguing — as Trump's attorneys and others in fact argued — that, were there no such a restriction on impeachment, any political party that gained control of Congress while an opposing party member controlled the White House could impeach such a president for anything that — to use Romney's word — its members found offensive." Under Romney's prescription, the United States would effectively become a parliamentary democracy — something that Trump's defenders argued was clearly against the intention of the founders. And Romney dismisses such objection as "absurd"? He owes his constituency, and he owes the founders of this nation, an explanation.
HERE’s ANOTHER ONE OF ROMNEY’s FLAWED REASONING:
Romney describes Trump’s request as an “appalling abuse of public trust,” yet it was made before 25 other government officials, and none commented. He describes it as a “flagrant assault.” And he says “corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive, destructive violation of one’s oath of office I can imagine.”
The first question that last particular statement raises is how exactly any information coming out of an investigation and Ukraine would “corrupt” an American election.
The second question is whether or not Romney is aware of the fact that in the previous administration, the IRS was subverted to impede conservatives from organizing in the run-up to the 2012 election. (Where was the impeachment then?) And is he aware that the FBI was (not openly, but secretly) used to spy on the Trump campaign in the 2016 election? He doesn’t have to imagine these things; they occurred.
Does he not think that these undisputed offenses might “perhaps” (got to have that weasel word) be more abusive, etc. to one’s oath than Trump’s contended offense, even if we assume the worst? And if so, with words like “appalling” and “flagrant” already used to describe Trump’s contended abuse, what words does Romney use for the far more ominous abuses of the Obama administration?