Letting Trump run out the clock

Re “Impeachment hearings haven’t yet connected all the dots,” Opinion, Dec. 10

How are we supposed to take seriously law professor Jonathan Turley and every other defender of President Trump who claims that the Democrats are moving too fast in their rush to impeach because there are still more witnesses to be heard and documents to be read, while failing to mention that it is the White House that is blocking release of these documents and those same witnesses from testifying?

This White House has already defied subpoenas in this impeachment inquiry and would appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, essentially running out the clock, if the Democrats were to try to compel testimony before moving forward with impeachment.

As for Turley’s claim that no quid pro quo with Ukraine has been demonstrated, he fails to mention the part of U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland’s testimony where he said that he had spoken to Trump more than 20 times, and that clearly there was a quid pro quo.

I saw and heard Sondland say this with my own eyes and ears. I don’t think I was the only one. Roy Friedland

Los Angeles

For a smart lawyer, Turley sure chose the wrong analogy by comparing this impeachment to a prized piece of modern art that consisted of a banana taped to a wall.

If the experts and many others feel that the banana is a work of art, what makes Turley, who is not an art expert, argue that it is not? Does he not like or understand the image of a Campbell’s soup can either? It may not be to his taste, and of course he has the right to dislike it.

Turley may not see the dots connecting the impeachment arguments or like them, but it does not mean that they are not there — in fact, millions of people do see them. And they don’t think it is just a banana on the wall. Sabina Dym

Newport Beach

Turley makes a valid point that the evidence would be more complete if former national security advisor John Bolton, acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and other key members of the Trump administration had testified.

But if these people have evidence that exonerates Trump, why did they ignore subpoenas or otherwise refuse to appear before the House Intelligence Committee?

Connecting the dots, a reasonable conclusion is that the White House is stonewalling, possibly because what Mulvaney, Bolton and others have to say won’t be favorable to Trump, and they don’t want to commit perjury. Perhaps we’ll learn the truth about what happened during a trial in the Senate. Mark Schrimmer

Irvine