SALT LAKE CITY, Utah, April 4, 2023 (Gephardt Daily) — Utah U.S. Senators Mitt Romney and Mike Lee both released reactions on Twitter to former president Donald Trump’s arraignment Tuesday on 34 felony charges related to possible fraud in a New York case regarding hush money paid to former porn star Stormy Daniels.
Both Senators were suspicious of the charges, but Romney also shared his take on Trump’s character.
“I believe President Trump’s character and conduct make him unfit for office,” Romney tweeted. “Even so, I believe the New York prosecutor has stretched to reach felony criminal charges in order to fit a political agenda. No one is above the law, not even a former president, but everyone is entitled to equal treatment under the law. The prosecutor’s overreach sets a dangerous precedent for criminalizing political opponents and damages toe public’s faith in our justice system.
“No one is above the law, not even former presidents, but everyone is entitled to equal treatment under the law. The prosecutor’s overreach sets a dangerous precedent for criminalizing political opponents and damages the public’s faith in our justice system.
“The charges and evidence will be duly considered and the outcome decided by a jury with an obligation to fulfill its responsibility with the utmost care and impartiality. The American voters will ultimately render their own judgment on the former President’s political future
“Finally, it is also incumbent on all elected leaders to discourage violence and anger in response to this situation.”
Lee also was also critical of the indictment.
“I have spent my life in the law, I hold our justice system in the highest regard.
“This isn’t justice, solemnly and blindly carried out. This is using the law to selectively punish for political gain. It is a disgrace and will profoundly change our country for the worse.”
To read more about Trump’s arraignment, click here.
ok lying Mike Lee, with all that ‘law’ experience, just how do you conclude that a grand jury indictment is not “justice” before allowing the court to hear the evidence ? Perhaps you should try to find ‘alternative electors ‘ to right this wrong.