Opposing view: From start to finish, impeachment is a sham

In October, before we saw how the House would treat the president, we suggested that if President Donald Trump were impeached, the Senate should simply vote to dismiss the articles of impeachment.

Now we’ve seen how “fairly” the House treated the president, and our feelings have only been strengthened. During the Intelligence Committee hearings that presented “evidence” against the president, he wasn’t allowed to have his counsel present, let alone cross- examine witnesses or object to the introduction of disputed testimony or evidence.

Instead, hearsay “witnesses” shared stories of what they had heard and what they had been told, but no one seemed to be able to offer direct “I heard it directly from the president himself ” testimony — except, of course, for Ambassador Gordon Sondland, who testified that the president had told him directly that he wanted no quid pro quo.

Nevertheless, the House — on a purely partisan basis, for the first time in history — voted to impeach President Trump.

So, what would be “fair” in the Senate? Democrats’ demand for witnesses who didn’t testify in the House is ludicrous. A majority of the House impeached the president based on the evidence that was presented. That’s the evidence that should be presented to the Senate — no more, no less. Why should the two chambers be working off different sets of facts?

But if, for some strange reason, four Republicans fall for the Democrats’ insistence that new witnesses be heard from, then certainly, for fairness’ sake, President Trump’s team should be allowed to call the witnesses he was denied in the House. By all means, let’s hear from the whistleblower, and Hunter Biden, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Congressman Adam Schiff. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and all that.

This entire episode is a sham, from start to finish. In the interests of fairness, the president should be acquitted — with new witnesses or without.