Letter: Checks and Balances

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    April 30, 2019 10:42 a.m.

    To "Nipun Gunawardena" why move forward with impeachment when the Mueller report also states that while the obstruction issues are there they don't rise to the level required to prosecute. If they are not sufficient to prosecute, you can't impeach because NO CRIME was committed.

    To "unrepentant progressive" but Trump is only doing the same things that Obama did while in office. If Obama was so good for doing the things that he did, why is Trump so bad?

    You do realize that the Hillary Campaign, using your standards, conspired with the Russians. So, while you don't like Trump doing it, what is your opinion of Hillary conspiring with the Russians?

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    April 29, 2019 12:42 p.m.

    When did it become okay for any candidate to utilize the resources offered by a foreign government to win an election? And also to provide that foreign government with information useable to slime another candidate?

    Whether the Trump campaign knowingly conspired may never be answered. However, the simple fact remains that a foreign power manipulated Social media to elect a preferred candidate. That foreign power hacked into emails, and has been accused by a Republican of potentially altering computer election counts (see Senator Rubio's comments about that.)

    Such actions are not in the country's best interests.

  • Neanderthal Springville, UT
    April 28, 2019 3:56 p.m.

    "There is significant evidence he was in contact with the officials of a country that helped influence our election..."

    Being in contact with officials of another country does not mean the contact affected an election. Even so, Russia, or any other country, can influence our elections all they wish since they are not subject to our election laws.

    And Americans can effect other country's elections. So, why can't Russia effect ours? Trump has a relationship with Israel's Netanyahu which probably helped him get elected.

    "... and there is definite evidence he attempted to obstruct justice."

    Trump has the right to fire anyone in the Executive Department of the Government... for any reason... or for no reason (sez James Comey).

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    April 28, 2019 7:35 a.m.

    In their defense of Trump, the GOP has shown itself to be the enemy of the Constitution. We were not founded to have an unanswerable Chief Executive. The Legislature and the Courts were established to insure us all against another "king".

    Yet by defending the President, who is intent on stonewalling efforts to establish his guilt or innocence, the modern Republican voices tell us they want a dictatorship. Well, at least one to their liking that is.

  • Freiheit Salt Lake City, UT
    April 28, 2019 7:10 a.m.

    We can, and probably should, argue long and hard about who knew and did what and when with regard to the 2016 election and other matters since. That being said, I would point out that in the present political situation, impeachment is such a dull sword as to be completely useless. The simple fact is that impeachment, the bringing of charges against a president by a majority in the House of Representatives, does not equate to removal from office, as many who urge such action seem to imply. Yes, a trial would then be held, and we and the world might be treated to a smorsgabord of sensational revelations. But that wouild all be meaningless unless 67 senators vote for removal. At least 18 of them would have to be Republican. The odds of that happening are so minuscule that winning a billion dollar powerball would be a comparative certainty. Absent new information (unlikely) or a massive attack of conscience (even less likely) the talk of impeachment remains just talk. As Speaker Pelosi once opined, he just isn't worth it. Maybe we should look to actual policies and legislation for the country instead.

  • Edgar Samaria, ID
    April 27, 2019 8:05 p.m.

    This letter is about oversight of the Executive Branch. It is a Constitutional duty of the Congress that the Congress failed to conduct from January 2017 until January 2019 when patriotic members of Congress found the courage to do their job.

    Joe5 tells a tale about the Clinton campaign colluding with Russia, yet two years of investigation by the Republican appointed special prosecutor found nothing of the sort.

    Mike Richards suggests if there evidence of crime, it should be taken to court. That’s what Congress is attempting to determine but the Trump Administration is doing everything in their power to block their efforts. If there is nothing to hide then why the full court press to stop it from becoming public, from becoming evidence in a trial?

    1covey suggests President Trump cooperated more than any other president but I wonder how he came to that conclusion when Trump refused to testify in person and the man who claims to have “one of the all time great memories” answered 30% of his written responses with the phrase “I don’t remember.” Bill Clinton gave blood to Ken Starr, literally, during the Whitewater investigation. Now that is cooperation.

  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    April 27, 2019 12:48 p.m.

    To the contrary, what is obvious is that Hillary, her campaign, and the DNC were in cahoots with a foreign power and if Trump has obstructed anything, it is the injustice of sedition with the Democratic party trying to overturn the last election and force the duly elected president from office using whatever means possible including false accusations, the 25th amendment, wire tapping and spying (including consideration of have insiders wear a wire, recruiting insiders who might be willing to turn, creating an obviously partisan anti-Trump committee to spend two years trying to "get the dirt" on him, obstruction of virtually anything the administration wants to do (and then reversing course in a matter of weeks), threats of impeachment, threats of imprisonment for Trump, his family, and his staff, and despite more than two years of constant harassment, being completely unable to come up with anything that comes close to sticking.

    Now maybe you are just smarter than the rest of us and can find a smoking gun that people who pursued it full-time for two years have been unable to come up with. Maybe you're just that smart. If so, trot it out so the rest of us can be enlightened.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, UT
    April 27, 2019 12:02 p.m.

    Is there evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to overthrow the 2016 Election? Mueller says no. The Justice Department says no. Yet, there are those who think otherwise, including the media. If there is evidence, then take it to court. In America we are innocent until PROVEN quilty. Mueller told told us that he had no proof. That means that, regardless of how much we may like or dislike Trump, he is innocent of all the charges that the Left has thrown at him since before the election.

    In America, Congress is not authorized to keep the President in line. Those who hold such a position could find how our government is organized by spending just thirty-minutes reading the Constitution. In that brief period of time they would learn that our government consists of three branches, separate but equal. Congress has no authority to direct the President.

  • 1covey Salt Lake City, UT
    April 27, 2019 11:49 a.m.

    It is no crime to meet with other national leaders, even those who are competitive in a threatening way; we are not in a declared war with anybody. Diplomacy short of war is where we are at. Did you not read the conclusion of no collusion/conspiracy in the report. No crime means no obstruction. Would you not vehemently oppose false accusations ? And do you realize that unlike a trial where fairness is paramount, there was no cross-examination of the witnesses. It is noted elsewhere that President Trump cooperated more than any other President in furnishing Presidential documents to Mueller, even though for political reasons Trump lambasted the investigation.