What Sen Romney is not saying is he will support Trump. This is in contradistinction to Sen McConnell who has on more than one occasion condemned Trump for Trump's attempted insurrection, or AG Barr's same condemnation, but both WILL support Trump. That, I do not comprehend, but Romney's comment is a weak attempt to question the judicial validity of prosecution based on TIMING.
There is no doubt as to the facts of the case. There is little to no doubt Trump was involved. Trump's team offered no real defense to refute the facts of the case, but relied on disparaging co-conspirators. Really??? It's how prosecutions against conspiracies work.
So what is Romney talking about? Romney doesn't represent the political criticisms i.e. weaponization, front running opponent, etc, he represents the idea why it has taken so long to make the prosecution, but not necessarily for political reasons. This is a weak point and had he taken a little time to consider what is was saying, ,he would have deduced the complexity of any prosecution against any former (or current) president.
It's an obvious exercise in the non-political realm of even contemplating a prosecution of a former president. This is BIG as some would say. Its never been done in American history (since we have had more less upstanding people occupying the WH, until now), so the prosecution better have an overwhelming case to present, or this would set back any chance of ever prosecuting any criminal occupying the WH. And that's just from a non- partisan perspective.
Now let's consider the partisan view. There is an optical view that any prosecution of any member of the opposition party would be in fact a political prosecution, regardless of the facts. Some consideration must be made and decided on solely by the facts of the case. Are they overwhelming ... is it a "crime" worthy of prosecution? So yes there are for some "crimes" prosecutorial discretion. So when it is not the case?
Should any prosecutor neglect their duty to uphold the law, and in particular to ignore the law for any person, regardless of their place in society, political affiliation, or job, it would be tantamount to overturning one of the fundamental tenets of the Constitution i.e. no man is above the law. In the Hush Money Case, the facts made it abundantly clear a crime had been committed by a former president, and he can not under any circumstances be allowed a pass simply because he was a former president, or of a different political party, or what his current activities may be.
Now had Romney done a thought experiment, he would have found it was years before the "crime" had been revealed. It took years to gather the evidence. And due process had to be ensured that it was not simply a political prosecution (almost unheard of in America) before proceeding. The timing is unfortunate as it allows conspiracy theorists to have a field day promoting political prosecutions. Had the NY AG's office not proceeded it would have been one more nail in the coffin of Democracy.
