Failure to bail out the Democrats’ weak case does not rise to a cover-up | Letters
This is in response to a recent letter where the author admitted he had little legal knowledge but concluded the Senate Republicans were guilty of a cover-up since they offered no additional witnesses or documents in the impeachment trial.
You don’t need to be a legal scholar to know that the prosecutor’s duty is to gather all the witnesses and documents (before trail) to present their best case. Where is the legal precedent allowing the prosecutor to demand the defense introduce more witnesses to make the process more fair? Particularly, in light of the House’s own secret hearings, leaked documents and strong-arm tactics?
Failure to bail out the Democrats’ weak case does not rise to a cover-up.
The call to Ukraine’s president could be judged as reckless, but how can the president be removed from office when the aid was released in time without penalty or demand of further investigation?
The president provided a phone transcript and none of the Democrats’ 18 witnesses testified that his actions were illegal or warranted impeachment. Additional witnesses such as Joe Biden, Adam Schiff and the whistleblower would further damage the prosecution’s case.
The outcome is predictable. The president will be acquitted and the Democrats will continue their three-year rant that Trump is dangerous and they are only pursuing impeachment as their honorable duty to save this great nation (from the millions of deplorables) and to protect the Constitution.
This will continue until November ... and quite likely for the next four years.
Brian Thoreson
Moss Creek
Lindsey Graham, the flip-flopper trying to be relevant
Thanks for your recent article from McClatchy DC telling me that U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham denies he has changed during the President Donald Trump era. I think he’s telling the truth. Everybody knows about Lindsey’s 180-degree flip-flops over Trump. He’s gone from calling Trump “a race-baiting, xenophobic religious bigot,” to playing Trump’s defender and golfing buddy. How can that happen?
Since he’s up for re-election this year, I watch for articles that let Graham speak for himself, about himself. I also search for candidates who actually care about South Carolinians’ needs and opinions. (Graham has not held a Town Hall for two years.)
Last February, Mark Leibovich published an article revealing Graham’s thinking on Graham’s favorite subject: himself (as stated by his beloved sidekick, the late U.S. Sen. John McCain). It’s called, “How Lindsey Graham Went from Trump Skeptic to Trump Sidekick.”
Graham once held prominence as a senator known to support bipartisan deals on critical issues. Much of that moral authority has dissolved into Trump’s cauldron of partisan politics.
When people continue to ask Graham what happened to him, he often retorts: “What happened to me? Not a damn thing.” He told Leibovich: “Well, OK, from my point of view, if you know anything about me, it’d be odd not to do this.”
Leibovich asked what “this” was. “‘This,’” Graham said, “is trying to be relevant.”
How does supporting Trump make Lindsey relevant, or is it just crass survival he’s thinking? Re-election.
Kathleen Leopard
Bluffton