To the editor: Ken Gormley’s case for censure instead of impeachment has merit to a point.
Like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), I was hoping impeachment would not be necessary. Now we are here. If Trump’s only misconduct was leaning on Ukraine for his own political advantage, censure might send a strong enough message to limit that behavior in the future.
Having said that, censure is not an adequate response to the obstruction of justice committed by the Trump administration in failing to provide subpoenaed documents and blocking witnesses. That speaks to the very balance of powers inherent in our Constitution and must be addressed by the strongest means possible, which is impeachment.
Barbara H. Bergen, Los Angeles
To the editor: Gormley’s suggestion of censure via a joint congressional resolution sounds appealing at first, but it would never pass out of this Congress.
To succeed, both the Senate and the House must pass and reconcile the legislation, which will be subject to endless debate and attempts to amend, or be referred to one or several House or Senate committees, where it would probably languish forever.
Even if Congress were to send a joint resolution of censure to Trump, he would veto it, gambling there would not be enough votes to override. I know where I would place my wager.
Trump has had more than enough chances in his life to correct his bad behavior. Gormley is naive if he thinks this time will be different. Like it or not, for this situation impeachment is the only remedy the founders put in the Constitution.
Stuart Sheldon, Murrieta