Letters to the Editor: A house divided over impeachment
Stop the charade
For three years we have listened to the Democrats demonizing President Donald Trump for beating Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. This has culminated in this Reps. Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and Jerrold Nadler show that has been a stream of repetitious false arguments from the impeachment managers about the horrendous crimes committed by our president. It is obviously scripted based on the prepared questions by the Democrats. All the charges were based on suppositions and speculation as to what the president said in the now infamous phone call to the president of Ukraine.
This brings me to another issue. Because it is a crime to lie to Congress, I wonder why Nadler and Schiff have not been charged with this crime for the numerous lies they have told about the supposed crimes the president has committed.
The Senate voted to not have any witnesses. This makes sense in that the Democrats said they had an “airtight” case when the documents were “slow walked” to the senate with such pomp and ceremony.
It’s time for Congress to end this nonsense and get on with meaningful work we are paying them for.
Tim Hancock, Versailles
Is change needed?
Abraham Lincoln famously said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
Is our “house” divided?
The House of Representatives sends articles of impeachment to the Senate that demand careful examination and serious debate.
Instead, the Senate blows off the articles and turns the debate over to prevaricating lawyers, whose contempt reflects the president’s contempt for the process. The Senate ignores the constitutional issues raised by the House: Can a president enlist foreign interference in our elections on his behalf, using public funds as leverage? Is a president obliged to answer congressional subpoenas?
Instead, the Senate offers blanket denials of presidential misconduct and makes snarky attacks on the House for even bringing articles of impeachment.
No Henry Clay, no Alben Barkley, no John McCain to debate the issues.
The president declares independence by refusing to answer congressional requests for information and by asserting acts by him are legitimate on their face.
Can this “house” stand?
The government of a parliamentary system is not so divided. Its elected legislature appoints the prime minister and has the power to call him to account through parliamentary questions and remove him by a vote of no confidence for serious cause.
Something for us to think about.
Willis J. Sutter, Lexington
Fear shows lie
For those who have conveniently chosen to forget this, here’s something that we all know to be true: Innocent people are not afraid of what a witness might say. The Republicans can try to spin it every which way they can, but that’s the truth and they know it. To say otherwise is just a lie.
Greg Kring, Lexington
Crucial question
I thought Sen. Amy Klobuchar asked the most penetrating question during the impeachment trial:
“In the last impeachment trial in the Senate, involving Judge Thomas Porteous, who was ultimately removed, the Senate trial committee heard from 26 witnesses, 17 of whom had not previously testified in the House. What possible reason could there be for allowing 26 witnesses in a judicial impeachment trial and hearing NONE for a president’s trial?”
Sens. Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul — America is still waiting for an answer.
Phillip Johnson, Lexington
Future reckoning
The blatant lies congressional Republicans continue to repeat in their attempts to save the president’s neck at the impeachment trial will come back to haunt them. If they’re lucky enough to be forgiven by God for spitting on the Constitution and the oaths of office they all took, they will most assuredly be judged by their own families and constituents. What is going to hurt them the most is when their grandchildren learn in school how their beloved grandfather or grandmother defended a corrupt president accused of trying to cheat to win a presidential election. I can see some of those Republicans now, sitting at the family dinner table and trying to explain to a civic-minded grandchild why they protected the president the way they did. After the 2020 election is over and every ugly thing that was purposefully hidden from the American people can no longer be held under “executive privilege”, I wonder how they are going to defend themselves. “I had to do it to save the Republican Party. Party trumped country.”
Yolanda Averette, Lexington