Damage control
Re “Impeachment how-to,” Opinion, Oct. 16
Barbara Radnofsky points out that impeachment is an orderly constitutional process that is from time to time necessary. Can any reasonable person doubt that this is very clearly one of those times?
President Trump has repeatedly shown that he is extremely unfit for his position, and his actions have already caused substantial harm to our country. We should not be required to wait until special counsel Robert Mueller completes his investigation, as there is already a virtual smorgasbord of good reasons for impeachment.
Citing just one example, there is Trump’s practice of lying almost every time he speaks, such that no one can believe or trust a word that he says. How can this by any stretch of reason be acceptable?
Our representatives in Congress must wake up and carry out their constitutional responsibilities to our country, impeaching and removing this dangerous and unfit man from the presidency. Gertrude Barden Porter Ranch
Radnofsky is correct that impeachment is a reasonable way for members of the House to deal with a troubled presidency.
Of course, any members who may decide to proceed toward impeachment must first realize a presidency is troubled. Alas, many who could reach such a realization are too often more afraid of losing their seats (and lucrative post-Congress lobbying careers) than they might be of the effects of a troubled presidency.
As for Alexander Hamilton’s concern for a presidency’s “harm to society,” one needn’t look hard to see a country that has, since last November’s election, become more divided and more hatefilled than it had been for decades. Does such division and hatred qualify as harm to society?
The decision to answer the question in a manner that might alleviate any harm rests with the House — no matter what the rest of society thinks. Mary Stanik
Oak Creek, Wis.
Trump’s tweets keep coming, creating drama that occupies the attention of the news media and thus the public.
Important question: Where should the press draw the line between ignoring the president’s tweets (not allowing them to drive the daily news) and focusing on how dangerous and erroneous his statements are (on the assumption that these are the words of the president and therefore they matter)?
As someone who studies communication, I believe there is no easy answer.
On the one hand is the discovery function of communication: By reporting the tweets, the news media fulfill their function of covering and fact checking Trump. On the other hand is the inoculation effect of communication: The more coverage of Trump’s tweets there is, the more likely his abnormal behavior becomes normalized and the less attention gets paid to other potentially more consequential things he is doing. Richard Cherwitz
Austin, Texas
After reading about allegations of money laundering and ethical violations against Rodriguez, the former school board president, my heart really goes out to his colleagues in their quest to do ethical school business when such a murky mist engulfs them at district headquarters.
As a retired employee of the district, I have known some members personally, and they all had the best interests of children at heart.
If a dark cloud continues to hang over the school board, then Rodriguez should gather the courage to resign his seat. Perhaps the salient words of comedian George Carlin are apropos for this gloom: “Remember, behind every silver lining, is a dark cloud.” Tom Kaminski
Manhattan Beach