To the editor,

In the current impeachment process, a criminal charge is lodged against a person (politician) and politicians are the ones to judge whether the person is guilty or not guilty. If found guilty, usually decided along party lines, these same politicians decide on the sentence.

Politicians have no business judging anyone. Nothing is based on evidence, just which party you belong to. This current impeachment process, as the one against Bill Clinton, was a forgone conclusion from the start. Nothing about this process is justice.

Would a better process be to run it like a traditional trial but with some notable changes? Perhaps the trial could be at the Supreme Court. Since the attorney general is appointed by the president, that office would defend the president instead of the prosecutor as tradition.

It would be run much like a traditional trial. There would be a preliminary hearing to weed out frivolous charges. The nine Supreme Court justices would act as judge and jury during the trial. Instead of politicians arguing about rules of the trial, the rules would be known beforehand. I realize the Supreme Court is not entirely impartial and there have been past decisions I scratch my head at. But it has to be better than the current ridiculous political process.

Mike Klune

McFarland

(1) comment

John Costello

Mike, I think you're suggestion is based on some fundamental errors. You said;

"a criminal charge is lodged".

Not true, the malfeasance need not be a criminal violation.

And; "politicians decide on the sentence".

Again, not true. The punishment is mandated in the Constitution as removal from office and forestallment of any future appointment.

And this; "politicians have no business judging anyone"

The Constitution says they do.

And this; "nothing is based on evidence"

Again untrue; witnesses and evidence are referenced and presumed in The Constitution, they were simply precluded this time by a political party that broke their oaths to try the House case for impeachment. It was not a trial.

With this; "Nothing about this process is justice", you've hit the nail on the head.

But with this; "Perhaps the trial could be at the Supreme Court", you're not accounting for our system's commitment to the separation of the powers of presumably co-equal branches of government.

Unfortunately, I can't dismiss your idea because that system now lies broken. The Senate majority dismissed the House's articles without a fair trial, thus denying the house its role and simultaneously they increased the power of the executive branch by making it far less accountable to Congress. Our elected officials. Us.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.