To the ecditor,
Thank you for the letter about Rep. Pocan and the impeachment process. I agree with Pocan, that if Trump were innocent, he’d be anxious to have witnesses testify for him, and with the letter writer that the pretexts for impeachment “stink.”
According to a definition by a contemporary of our founders, Noah Webster, whatever the Congress decides is unacceptable behavior, whether it’s spitting on the sidewalk or treason, is grounds for impeachment. So, House Democrats are well within constitutional bounds. But does that make their two articles good reasons to remove Trump from office? I say legitimate yes, but good, no.
I think the founders arrived at their impeachment threshold with the intention of eliminating as many legalistic escape routes as possible, which might serve those who would support the morally and ethically insupportable, and they did so by placing the most power where it belongs; in the people’s House, where they hoped trust would reside forever.
So while I admit that Pocan, et al., are justified in bringing their articles to a Senate that the founders knew might vow; “There will be no difference between the president’s position and (mine),” I think that these articles reflect behavior that Trump has, over the term he’s been tolerated, made acceptable in comparison to far worse exploits.
Dismissing what most agree is immoral and unethical, as the price of his Faustian bargain, it remains that Trump has proved incapable of maintaining an effective and trustworthy administration and of being an arbiter for a united America, for a good America, much less for a great one and in the longer term, for a safe and secure one.
Admittedly I’ll never get over Trump’s presidency. But I think I speak for many when I ask other letter writers whether – no matter what – they can.