I will keep it simple, but first, let me clear up something that was seldom spoken of but is of great importance to both sides of the aisle. There is a written agreement between the U.S. government and other foreign nations, particularly our allies, where both sides agree to expose the unlawful or corrupt activity in their country by any U.S. citizen, which includes government officials, and we are obligated to do the same for them. Therefore, President Trump is obligated to investigate any corruption in the U.S. or in those affiliated countries if it is suspected. That means he can and should seek help from that government. That agreement alone should have made the impeachment case null and void.
Now concerning Mitt. I voted for the man when he ran against Obama, but he failed us by letting Obama out-talk him. But notice how he had no lack of words when he lashed out at Trump in 2016 with a series of name-calling such as crook, fraud, con man, etc. and spoke his conscience. I see all the comments to the editor defending Mitt’s vote to impeach and how heroic it was that he voted his conscience. The problem with his vote is he didn’t vote according to the law. The two articles were predicated upon the phone call, so by law, the president had to be tried on what he did and said on that call, not on what people think he said and what they think his intentions were politically.
I’ll end with this, during the impeachment all the witnesses were called by the prosecuting side, 17 or more, and the president's team WAS NOT ALLOWED TO CALL ANY WITNESSES so they had to defend the president with testimony from the Dem’s witnesses only. Then the Dems believed the Senate should call more witnesses for them in hopes they could strengthen their case which they had already presented to the American people. What’s up with that? Folks, it’s called fairness and the Senate did the fair and right thing by judging the case as it was presented to them and they did it by following the rule of law.