Letters to the editor for Dec. 26
The impeachment made me pro-Trump
I reluctantly voted for President Trump because I was not sure whether he knew how to govern effectively relative to domestic affairs, nor did I know whether he could adequately handle international relations. I have been pleasantly surprised to see that he has done an excellent job in both areas and the proof is in the thriving U.S. economy that is the envy of the world, and in his diplomatic initiatives to leaders of other nations trying to enhance and secure a foundation for lasting peace.
Yet, until recently I was not ready to publicly support Mr. Trump. But the Democrats in Congress have provided all the incentive necessary to change my mind. When impeachment of a President becomes a wholly partisan, Constitution-mocking, baseless travesty, and becomes merely a political tool, then informed citizens can no longer stand quietly by.
The Democrats have been searching for any pretext to impeach Trump since Hillary lost the election. “He colluded with the Russians; he violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution; he bribed, or extorted, the Ukrainians; he obstructed justice.” But finally, they settled on vague and inane “abuse of power,” and “obstruction of Congress,” because there is no factual constitutional basis for this impeachment.
Impeachment was never intended to be used, and never should be used, merely because one political party dislikes the democratically elected President.
The Democrats lost in 2016, and will almost certainly lose the 2020 presidential election. They richly deserve to lose after taking this frivolous action!
Tribune editorial on censure
I find the editorial from the Chicago Tribune arguing for censure rather than removal to be disturbing. The central point with which I disagree is the conclusion that what President Trump did in regard to the Ukraine did not seriously affect our national security or internal governance. These conclusions are stated in the editorial without any supporting reasoning whatsoever.
My argument:
1. In his conduct with the Ukraine, the President put his personal interest above the stated interest of this country. The stated interest was to provide aid to Ukraine in their fight against Russia. The personal interest was to try to get an advantage over political rival Joe Biden (the deal on the table versus the deal under the table).
2. Deals under the table hurt us as to both our friends and adversaries.
3. Our friends will look at us as unreliable. Why should they contend with deals under the table to get the deal on the table?
4. Our adversaries (Russia) will see us as weak. We didn’t act promptly in providing aid to the Ukraine. Plus anyone looking for deals under the table is susceptible to manipulation. To create problems between us and our allies, all our adversaries have to do is convince the President that he would benefit from a deal under the table.
If the editorial board of the Tribune thinks these effects do not substantially harm our national security and governance, all I can say is, “I strongly differ.”