There's a great line from the movie I, Robot that often springs to mind when it comes to politicians. Will Smith plays a cop, and he is the only one in the city to realize there's a problem with the newest line of robots, which have already killed at least one person — despite hardwired programming to the contrary. In the scene, he's confronting one of their design scientists, who is brilliant but willfully blind to the obvious problems. He yells, "You are the dumbest smart person I know!"

"Dumbest smart person" should be engraved on an award. Mitt Romney and the three other Republicans considering calling witnesses in President Trump's impeachment trial would be the final four.

Clearly, Romney, Collins, Murkowski, and Alexander are all smart people. They're successful. They've managed to get elected to the Senate. Romney himself is a near-billionaire in his own right. But they are willfully blind to the obvious-to-everyone-else tactics of the Democrats.

Romney especially — as a businessman — should know better. He should know that insiders can become blind to problems that someone from outside the system can see clearly. That's the entire point of business consultants. Romney himself was a consultant. And yet, now that he's a Washington insider, he appears to have forgotten what he once knew about strategy.

The Democrats' strategy is (or should be) clear to one and all: use the impeachment trial as the means to retake the Senate.

It is not about impeaching Trump. If it were, Democrats would have put together a rock-solid impeachment case, one that senators would be compelled to vote for, not have to be convinced or cajoled to vote for. An actual attempt to impeach Trump would not be articles based on supposition about Trump's intent and vague charges of "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress."

Given such standards, any sitting senator or congressman could be impeached under "abuse of power" every time he exploits his elected position to send endless mailers to his constituents to brag about his successes, whereas his challengers have no such ability. A veto could be considered "obstruction of Congress."

The Democrats have always known they do not have the votes to remove the president — especially not based on these weak and vague articles. The weakness of their case belies their actual strategy: retake the Senate.

How? By using the tools they always use. Innuendo. Suspicion. Accusations of "hiding" the truth. The snowballing effect of people "suddenly" convinced of the case to add even weight to the charges.

None of these tactics is new. They've been used in the Russia collusion hoax. They were used in the Mueller probe. They were most recently used in the Ukraine "whistleblower" rollout. (Note especially how Trump blew up their planned snowballing of "other whistleblowers" who were all going to come forward — until he released the transcript.)

And yet, despite the obvious-to-everyone-else tactics, fearful Republicans like Romney want more witnesses. Seventeen witnesses have been called. The only witness with firsthand knowledge, Sondland, confirmed Trump said no quid pro quo.

So why is it that there are 17 witnesses who are effectively on the opposite side of what John Bolton alleges, and yet one witness, Bolton, will somehow now prove the Democrats' case? Trump himself says Bolton is wrong. Why is it Bolton should be believed — but Trump shouldn't be?

"Dumbest smart person" once again springs to mind.

Opening the door to Bolton will not stop the flood. Democrats will yammer for still more witnesses "out there" who have "the real truth." By surrendering, Romney et al. empower the Democrats' strategy to string this out, give weight to suspicions, and thereby create the appearance of potential guilt. When the Senate eventually acquits Trump, which it most certainly will, the Democrats will have their rallying cry: "We could have impeached if only we'd had the Senate."

The Senate is where Democrats know that Trump is doing the real, long-term damage to their progressive agenda. He's remaking the courts with record-breaking conservative appointments to courts at all levels. Because progressive agendas are not popular to win on a national level or even garner legislative wins, progressives have (and successfully so) turned to legislation from the bench. How often have Republicans — like Romney and Collins and Murkowski and Alexander — all warned against this?

So if the goal is to retake the Senate using the strategy of impeachment, then why are Republicans willing to play the Democrats' game? On their turf? And even handing them the ball?

The best counter-strategy, as Romney well knows (or used to), is not to play your opponents' game. Where are Romney's answers to take the ball away and play a different game? He used to be a strategist. This is an opportunity not only to turn the impeachment on its ear, but to turn around his own flailing image. Be a warrior, Romney. Isn't that why Utah elected you?

The best answer is to dismiss the articles of impeachment solely on constitutional grounds. It's simple: the merits of the case do not meet constitutional standards. That's the vote. Do these charges rise to the level of constitutional grounds for impeachment? No.

Doing so changes the dynamics and public perception. Instead of "they're hiding something," it becomes "this isn't constitutional." The case should be scoffed at because it truly is weak.

It also changes the dynamics of who is "at fault." It puts the blame on Democrats — for not proving their case and for bringing unconstitutional accusations. It's not the Republicans' fault that the Democrats plowed ahead with a shoddy case.

Thus, instead of impeachment failing because of "unfair Republicans" or because Democrats don't control the Senate, it fails because of the Constitution itself. That's a very, very different message to the average voter. Democrats simply failed to meet minimum constitutional standards.

If the Democrats want to go back to the drawing board and they can continue to double, double, toil and trouble in the Capitol basement — fine. Let them. Think of the message that sends.

Meanwhile, Republicans can get on with improving the economy, incredible trade deals that will build on the last three years of success, and solving other problems real Americans really care about.

So we'll see. Are Romney et al. smart smart persons? Or are they truly the dumbest smart persons?

Mark Anderson holds an MBA and is all but dissertation in his doctorate. He hosts I Spy Radio, a conservative talk show in blue Oregon.

Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr.