Founding fathers editorial misleads the readers


I’m writing in response to your editorial titled “Founders Fathers saw impeachment differently.”

I disagree with virtually every point that you claim as support. Generally, your concerns reflected mostly procedural rather than factual discovery, unlike the Mueller report and recent witness testimony (including Trump appointees and Republican witnesses).

To begin, you said “Democrats in the House of Representatives remind us of the Old West judge who promised defendants he would give them a fair trial, then hang them.”

An inquiry is not a trial, House members are not judges and no verdict has been made. Considering the obstruction and refusals by President Trump and the Republicans to prevent an inquiry, it’s a wonder that any evidence was found.

1) Re: “an inquiry should have some bipartisan support”

Yes it should, but Trump and the Republicans have so polarized Congress that it’s impossible for that to happen. Obstruction and refusal to honor subpoenas has shown that.

2) You described Democratic efforts as a vendetta and fishing expedition. Considering that the Republicans obstructed and blindly defended Trump, what would you expect? The Democrats have followed the rules the Republicans had established and the Founding Fathers envisioned when a president is suspected on misfeasance, malfeasance and corruption.

3) Finally, you said “Republicans should be in favor of pursuing a congressional investigation.” I agree, but yet the Republicans had another chance to show their bipartisan belief when the House voted to formalize the impeachment procedure. Not one voted yes. So much for their belief in a Constitutional solution.




Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)