Should US House be hold­ing im­peach­ment hear­ings?

The Morning Call - - TOWN SQUARE | A PLACE TO BE HEARD -

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi an­nounced Sept. 24 that the U.S. House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives will of­fi­cially ini­ti­ate im­peach­ment pro­ceed­ings against Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump. The al­le­ga­tion is the pres­i­dent mis­used his po­si­tion when ask­ing the Ukrainian pres­i­dent to in­ves­ti­gate a po­lit­i­cal ri­val. Do you agree the House should be hold­ing hear­ings to de­ter­mine if there is enough ev­i­dence to im­peach the pres­i­dent?

con­tents of the tran­script in his open­ing re­marks in the hear­ing. His prior ex­pe­ri­ence in im­peach­ment pro­cesses of judges was more dis­ci­plined and neu­tral.

The ac­tion by Pelosi is a clever one. By not hav­ing the House vote, the Repub­li­cans have no sub­poena power. Sounds like a kan­ga­roo court.

If there was any ev­i­dence in the call that the pres­i­dent com­mit­ted a quid pro quo to help his re­elec­tion, an im­peach­ment inquiry could be a con­sid­er­a­tion. In­ves­ti­gat­ing cor­rup­tion is not an im­peach­able of­fense.

Den­nis Killeen West Rock­hill Town­ship

ens. In ad­di­tion, the at­tempts by the White House to hide the phone con­ver­sa­tion in a high se­cu­rity com­puter sys­tem seem to con­firm a “con­scious­ness of guilt.”

When Amer­i­cans vote in 2020, they trust that the elec­tion will be both free and fair. Trump’s ac­tions could be a vi­o­la­tion of this trust and cer­tainly de­serve an in-depth in­ves­ti­ga­tion an im­peach­ment inquiry would pro­vide.

Rich Is­rael Beth­le­hem

wrong­do­ing‚ crit­i­cism of any­thing and ev­ery­thing, po­lit­i­cal grand­stand­ing and dis­rup­tions to do­ing the peo­ple’s busi­ness they were elected to do.

The above, in ad­di­tion to “some­what” slanted news cov­er­age, clouds my abil­ity to learn and form an opin­ion as to what is and isn’t wrong­do­ing on the part of the pres­i­dent.

It is at the same time pa­thetic and amus­ing that the loud­est voices claim­ing that the pres­i­dent is com­mit­ting il­le­gal acts and de­mand­ing im­peach­ment come from the usual po­lit­i­cal sus­pects who are far from be­ing of un­ques­tion­able in­tegrity and cer­tainly have agen­das of their own.

If, and it is a big if, a fair and un­bi­ased col­lec­tion of ev­i­dence that the pres­i­dent is vi­o­lat­ing his oath of of­fice can be found and proved, then pro­ceed with the im­peach­ment process as spec­i­fied in the Con­sti­tu­tion. If not, the cir­cus needs to leave town.

Mark Por­caro Lower Mount Bethel Town­ship

pos­si­ble be­fore draft­ing and vot­ing on ar­ti­cles of im­peach­ment. Im­peach­ment re­quires a sim­ple ma­jor­ity vote in the House, so we can ex­pect im­peach­ment to be ap­proved if the vote falls along party lines.

What is less clear is whether any of­fense will be egre­gious enough to ob­tain a two-thirds vote in the Repub­li­can-con­trolled Sen­ate. In any event, we can ex­pect in­creased ac­ri­mony, divi­sion, name-calling, threats of vi­o­lence and ac­tual vi­o­lence — all in the name of ad­vanc­ing the truth. If you self-iden­tify as a Repub­li­can and/or con­ser­va­tive, you al­ready be­lieve that the im­peach­ment process is a waste of time and an un­war­ranted po­lit­i­cal witch hunt. If you con­sider your­self a Demo­crat and/or lib­eral, you be­lieve that im­peach­ment is long over­due. If you are a mod­er­ate, you tend to keep your mouth shut and avoid con­sum­ing news. Af­ter all, folks in the po­lit­i­cal cen­ter are the sub­ject of ridicule and dis­dain in to­day’s po­lit­i­cal cli­mate.

Sadly, we live in a “post-truth” so­ci­ety. We at­tack the ve­rac­ity of any fact that does not align with our own pre­con­ceived ver­sion of the truth. As chil­dren we were taught that truth was ob­jec­tive and some­thing that could be dis­cov­ered. To­day we cri­tique not only opin­ions, but facts. Our cri­tiques are based on whether we like the news or­ga­ni­za­tions that re­ported the facts. Re­gard­less of the out­come of the im­peach­ment process, we are liv­ing in one of the sad­dest pe­ri­ods of po­lit­i­cal his­tory. Thankfully, our na­tion is strong enough to sur­vive the tur­moil that is on the hori­zon.

John Servis South White­hall Town­ship


U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is calling for hear­ings into whether Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump com­mit­ted acts that jus­tify his im­peach­ment. If the House voted to im­peach the pres­i­dent, he would be tried by the Sen­ate.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.