To the editor: Jonathan Turley again attempts to defend President Trump by using a silly analogy.
In a previous essay he compared the impeachment to meaningless modern art; now it is supposedly an impulsive mistake made by the Democrats in the chaos of the holiday season. Lacking any exculpatory evidence, when Turley does deal with substance, he uses arguments he must know to be untrue.
While ignoring the voluminous evidence about the corrupt quid pro quo, he neglects to mention that Trump’s “perfect call” included an explicit request for a foreign government’s interference in our election. This by itself is an impeachable act.
As for the charge of contempt of Congress, no further testimony is necessary. Trump’s stonewalling of subpoenas for documents and instructing his staff to refuse to testify is a matter of public record. Do we wish to create a precedent that any future president accused of wrongdoing can defy congressional subpoenas by declaring that the investigation is a hoax?
Cyril Barnert, Los Angeles
To the editor: Turley makes an assertion that is belied by empirical evidence: “What’s most disturbing is that the Democrats know the current record of evidence falls well short of a viable case for conviction in the Senate.”
What’s “viable” when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and other Republicans have already stated that they will not uphold their special oath of impartially in an impeachment trial?
Turley assumes that court rulings on compelling testimony by key ex- and current Trump administration officials might be issued in the short term. Those parties should be compelled to testify, but what happens if a court decision is not issued quickly?
Would the House then be accused of dragging out the process to move it closer to election day?
Jennifer Pinkerton, Glendale
To the editor: I am confused. The impeachment of Trump was rushed through the House because of the urgency of the offenses he supposedly committed. But Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) is withholding the articles of impeachment from the Senate until she knows its procedures for a trial.
That negates the urgency of this witch hunt.
As for her charge that the Republicans are being partisan, doesn’t she really mean the Democrats? Because when I looked at the final tallies, there were some Democratic votes against impeachment, and polling shows it is losing ground in public opinion.
Barry Levy, Hawthorne