I am in favor of the editorial page presenting both sides of an argument, but if the point of the argument is whether or not one plus one is two, then there is only one side. The top half of Friday's commentary page was the case for impeachment ("Trump's inquiry defiance is hard to defend," Oct. 11). The bottom half was Hugh Hewitt attempting to defend the indefensible with numerous ridiculous arguments ("House kangaroo court is breaking with precedent," Oct. 11). While reading it, I felt embarrassed for him. The Star Tribune needs to stop presenting the other side when there is no other side.

At the risk of repeating a few well-explored points, first, the phrase "kangaroo court" is out of line because an impeachment proceeding is not a court at all. It is more akin to a grand jury deciding whether or not to hand down an indictment. If they do, then President Donald Trump will have his day in court in the Senate. Second, Hewitt quotes the White House's letter complaining that the "House has not provided the Committees' Ranking Members with the authority to issue subpoenas." Tell me how the Intelligence Committee was run when the Republicans were in control. He cites "lack of any basis for … inquiry." The White House transcript of the phone call is in itself sufficient basis for an inquiry.

And finally, ignoring all the other holes in Hewitt's position, I submit that a proper sporting analogy is not corrupt officials but unruly, obnoxious fans shouting, "Kill the umpire!"

David M. Perlman, New Hope

• • •

On Sept. 10, 2018, Trump issued an executive order concerning foreign interference in U.S. elections. In the order, he found that "the ability of persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States to interfere in or undermine public confidence in United States elections ... constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States." Consequently, the order set forth mechanisms for imposing severe sanctions on any persons so interfering.

In a July 25 phone call Trump solicited from the Ukrainian president information that would hurt his potential opponent in the 2020 election, Joe Biden ("I would like you to do us a favor, though").

This is what Speaker Nancy Pelosi means when she says that Trump is "self-impeaching."

How can anyone claim that Trump has not committed an impeachable offense when he requested a foreign leader engage in the very behavior he has found to be "an unusual and extraordinary threat" to our country's national security?

William R. Goetz, Minneapolis


Hate coming from whom, exactly?

I had to do a double take at a reader's letter that found fault in the behavior of some protesters at Trump's Minneapolis rally. Among the perceived offenses? "An endless stream of hate and rage," "harassment and intimidation" and name-calling. Dude, are you joking? These behaviors are the foundation of Donald Trump's entire career and presidency!

It could be easily argued that the protesters were simply living up to the behavioral standards he sets. Oh, except that they didn't financially profit from them.

Travis Anderson, Minneapolis

• • •

The most shocking thing about Trump's rally in Minneapolis was not the bombastic, vulgar tone of his speech, the number of racist statements or the number of incorrect statements, but the fact that a solid red wall of "Cops for Trump" was standing behind him. As a result, I have a few questions for those officers.

Do you think that our democratically elected mayor is a bad guy? Do you believe that if given a choice, Minneapolis would like to rid itself of our Somali and Hispanic neighbors? Do you believe that the U.S. Congress has no right to oversee the president? Do you believe that standing behind Trump improves your relationship with Minneapolis minority communities or the majority of Democratic citizens you are supposed to protect and serve?

Or were you just simply happy to raise a middle finger to all of us Democrats who pay your salaries?

I respect every person's right to have and express an opinion, even those with whom I disagree. However, I was appalled by the red wall of cops looking like they sponsored the event.

April Spas, Minneapolis

• • •

The people who protest against Trump think he is a "hater" while they are "lovers." They believe that "Love Trumps Hate." But some of them flip the bird at his supporters, call them nasty names and throw things at them. That isn't really demonstrating their point. If you really believe that "Love Trumps Hate," please stop flipping the bird, shouting and throwing things.

James Brandt, New Brighton

• • •

How reassuring the Readers Write section in the Star Tribune can be. Five letters appeared on Oct. 12, the day after the White House's current occupant came to Minnesota to indulge in customary bad behavior, that reinforced my high opinion of my adopted state ("Turn Minnesota red? Hmm"). Happy to be here!

Patricia Calvert, Rochester, Minn.

• • •

What a sad state of affairs for those of use who love the state in which we live! The following quote by 22-year-old Abubakar Abdi, born and raised in Minnesota, makes me ashamed that people in the Twin Cities and surrounding areas who support Trump and attended his rally, booed at the mention of our Somali community:

"I didn't know we were hated like that," he said. "Donald Trump is one man, but what scares me is the amount of support he has" (front page, Oct. 13).

I am waiting to see if GOP leaders in our state Legislature are made of sterner stuff than some of our federal leaders who have traded their ethics for power while following Trump. Citizens of Minnesota: Please demonstrate humanitarian principles for all of our community's people!

Kate Mura, St. Paul


Go forward, not back, on garbage

St. Paul voters will head to the polls this November and be presented with an option between progress for our city or going back in time. An option between environmental sustainability or greater air pollution. An option between an organized city or more wear and tear on our streets.

Yes, I am talking about the trash referendum! ("Garbage? Just beginning of St. Paul troubles," Opinion Exchange, Oct. 12.) When was the last time you thought about how the way our trash is collected impacts the environment, our roads and city in general? It turns out, it's a lot!

When our City Council decided to organize the way we collect trash here, we made a leap of progress for our community. Having one hauler, instead of 15 driving up and down our streets all the time, our neighborhoods became safer; our air, cleaner; our roads, less damaged. Despite the progress organized trash has made for our city, some people want to turn us back. My question as a young person is: Why? The fervor at which some in our community work against advancing our city particularly concerns me. Being progressive means finding progressive solutions in everything, not picking and choosing progress here but not there.

This November I want voters to keep in mind that the question of organized trash is a question on progress or regression, and I urge my neighbors to vote yes in favor of keeping Ordinance 18-39.

Sami Banat, St. Paul

We want to hear from you. Send us your thoughts here.