Full disclosure: I’m a left-of-center liberal. My heart has been bleeding out over the past three years.
Some say that last week’s impeachment of President Donald Trump is a cause for joyful celebration. Maybe so. It needed to happen. Reckless disregard for our country’s Constitution and laws cannot be allowed to continue. Oaths of office are not just recited words. They are promises to the people to protect and defend the United States of America in all ways, but in particular from enemies foreign and domestic.
The core issue is that we are living in what is arguably the most disunited era in our country’s history since the Civil War. Step back from all your knowing and take an objective look at what’s been happening. The daily Sturm und Drang has morphed from disturbing to destructive. So much noise and vitriol. “United States” is not altogether accurate right now. That’s not something to celebrate.
It’s heartening to see that our system seems to be functioning as the founders intended. While impeachment is real and just, it’s only the beginning. There will be more histrionics and accusations, denials and tweets, rage, facts and falsehoods.
I’m grateful we have in place a mechanism to hold things together and progress until our country can begin to heal from all of this. Daunting but doable.
Barbara J. Gilbertson, Eagan
• • •
Party members and elected officials of the Republican Party have been upset by the decision of Christianity Today telling President Trump it is time to step down (“Evangelical tussling over anti-Trump editorial escalates,” StarTribune.com, Dec. 22). They aren’t telling people to vote Democratic but rather stating that Trump is not fit to be president due to his behavior and violation of laws, as no one is above the law.
I’m perplexed that other evangelical leaders support Trump. Trump has done much to hurt the environment and the poor, in addition to his bullying of individuals and calling people names even after they have died. Is this the new movement of evangelical leaders?
President Barack Obama inherited a huge mess with our economy. There were no plans for how to pay for two wars, the stock market was declining, people were their losing homes, and so forth. The economy has since been on the upswing thanks to Obama. While I didn’t agree with Obama on everything, let’s give credit where it is due. Experts now predict that we’re going to have issues with our economy, since Trump has been pushing the envelope. Much like driving a car 100 miles per hour all the time — you’re going to crash at some point.
While Trump states that Democrats are the do-nothing party, the Senate is sitting on many bills that were passed out of the Democratic House.
Let’s look at realism here.
Paul Tuveson, Woodbury
• • •
The Dec. 22 editorial (“Senate must do its duty, in fair trial”) fairly covered the second step in the impeachment process, the trial in the Senate, but the same cannot be said of its analysis of the first step, the House impeachment, to which it gave a pass. It says the House did its “due diligence” in conducting its hearings, but due diligence is not due process. The only witnesses allowed were those approved by Chairman Adam Schiff, with the result that four witnesses on President Trump’s list were not allowed to testify. And unlike during the Clinton hearings, the president was not allowed to have legal counsel cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses.
When Republicans said this wasn’t fair, they were told impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. If so, even though the Senate proceeding is called a “trial,” it is really only the second step in this political process. So then why does the Editorial Board castigate Sens. Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham, who admittedly will sit as jurors in the “trial,” because they have indicated that they have made up their minds to vote not guilty? What about Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker and our own Amy Klobuchar, who will also sit in judgment, even though one of them may be Trump’s opponent in November, and who have expressed their respective opinions on his guilt many times? True, as the Editorial Board says, the Senate proceeding may be “a show trial with a predetermined outcome,” but was the House proceeding any better?
Ronald Haskvitz, St. Louis Park
• • •
I’d like to address two of the “talking points” regarding the recent impeachment of the president. First, are we trying to “replay the 2016 election?” Since the removal of President Trump would lead not to a President Hillary Clinton but to a President Mike Pence, clearly not. Also, calling it a “partisan” impeachment obviously ignores the vote of Rep. Justin Amash. Simply because no Republicans voted for it doesn’t mean it wasn’t bipartisan. Democrats and independents voted for impeachment. In fact, the independent vote was unanimous. So can we please stop repeating these points, since neither one is true?
David Frederick, Coon Rapids
• • •
I am a rather independent person capable of gathering information, tossing it around like clothes in a dryer and coming to some kind of conclusion. I require neither biased written publications nor pollsters to come to some kind of conclusion. I have been known to ask pollsters if they have a hope for an honest employment.
I am certainly aware of the two charges of the U.S. House on the impeachment of the president. They are both interesting because, although lodged against the president, the House could also bear responsibility for the same thing. The majority Democrats exert their strength to impose an article devoid of factual basis simply because they want to. They are also guilty of obstruction because they do not want to submit their position to the courts, which resolve differences between the legislative and executive branches of our government. They cannot get the desired impeachment done by Christmas if they have to wait. Their disdain for the people who put them in office is obvious.
When I listened to President Richard Nixon avoid impeachment by resigning, it was because he had little or no support in the House. Bipartisan support for the impeachment of President Bill Clinton existed because he had clearly perjured himself. Trump is merely hated by Democrats, led by the speaker herself, who hate him for beating Hillary Clinton. This appears to turn the provision of the Constitution upside down. What a pity!
John Strahan, Brooklyn Park
• • •
I hope the House notices McConnell is obstructing justice routinely.
Barbara Vaile, Minneapolis
Malls and skyways are not your pooch’s fire hydrant
A front-page article Dec. 21 mentioned the Rosedale Center mall’s attempts to allow dog-walking (“With social media, Rosedale becomes a star”). The article’s acknowledgment that “the mess became too much and executives ended it” sadly reminded me of last winter’s bitter cold spell when several residents in the Minneapolis skyway assumed it was OK to create dog-walking paths on the very busy skyways. Witnesses will attest to walking over and around piles and puddles many times. With a warm spell now, our Downtown Council should begin work to have all connected buildings post signs preventing this practice. Taxes pay for official dog parks to use, and users, not building maintenance staff, must pick up after their animals.
Barbara Nylen, Minneapolis
We want to hear from you. Send us your thoughts here.