Letter to the editor: Without consensus, no impeachment

In the last two impeachments, the facts were clear. Nixon was caught authorizing hush money, directing the cover-up, and using the IRS to harass accusers for starters. The consensus was that he had to go, and he resigned. Clinton was caught sexually exploiting a subordinate, lying about it under oath, and suborning perjury. The Dems and MSM saved him. The felonies were swept under the rug, but no one of either party questioned whether he committed them … not even himself.

In President Trump’s case, I have heard many legal experts argue it both ways. Yes, it was a quid pro quo. No, it wasn’t. Even if it was, does the suggestion of the quid pro quo rise to the level of impeachabilty? Yes, it does. No, it doesn’t. Is it possible that the phone call — just some talk, no action — even constitute a crime, let alone trigger a constitutional nuclear attack on the presidency? Yes, it does. No, it doesn’t.

In my opinion, you cannot overthrow the results of an election on maybes, “possiblies” and “it mights.” Of course, the Senate will not convict, especially now that Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi have honked off the Repubs. But the agreed merits of the case are not even close to being there. Schiff called witnesses who were “uncomfortable” with the phone call. So what? Their comfort does not bring down a president.

Until some sort of bipartisan consensus is reached, that serious breaches constituting “high crimes and misdemeanors” have occurred, then the will of the electorate must not be violated.

James F. Cataldi

Moon