Every day in the United States of America, criminal charges are laid against people who are accused of crimes. Once those charges are filed, a process begins by which guilt or innocence are determined.

In our nation’s capital, a similar process is playing out now, but rather than taking place in a court of law, this one is taking place in Congress, because the founders of this nation recognized that those serving in the highest echelons of our federal government, whether elected by the people or appointed by the executive and legislative branches, cannot be subject while in office to those same courts as the rest of the populace.

A measure of last resort, as intended by our founders, the impeachment now underway is only the fourth time in our nation's history such drastic measure has been deemed necessary.

It is a political process, yet, like the legal process that goes on in courts of law, once impeachment charges are filed, it is incumbent on all involved to see the process through to a fair and just conclusion.

The House of Representatives is given the sole power to impeach, be the "suspect" a Supreme Court Justice, the President or a member of Congress. The Executive, Legislative and Judicial are each a co-equal branch of government to insure that no one branch or any one individual acquire power over the people in contravention of that granted by the Constitution.

The U.S. House of Representatives, based on evidence and testimony sufficient to result in a majority vote of that body, has impeached President Donald J. Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

Yes, it was a vote along party lines. Yes, Democrats are in the majority in the House. Yes, it was a partisan decision. But the charges have been voted on and passed.

And now, once serious questions are answered, those two charges will go to the Senate, the body given sole Constitutional authority to try impeachments and to acquit or render sentence; removal from office and, if sufficiently egregious, to bar the impeached from further public service in an office of trust.

In the Senate, a two-thirds vote is necessary to convict and remove an official from a position of trust. And before sitting as "jurors," U.S. Senators must avow or affirm that they will give fair and unbiased consideration in reaching their decision, just as jurors in a court of law are required to do.

Yet Senate Republicans in positions of authority have, even before the charges could be formally forwarded, announced publicly that they have no intention of being fair; they are ready to dismiss. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), the senior Senator who will serve as "juror" and who will lead in developing the rules the Senate will follow in rendering a fair and unbiased decision, has gone so far as to say he is not taking a step without consulting administration lawyers; attorneys who will be working to exonerate the president.

There can be no hope that McConnell can or will be able to take the oath in good faith.

Senator Lindsay Graham (R-South Carolina), chair of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, has gone on record to say that his mind is made up, he doesn't need or want to see or hear evidence, he just wants to get it over with quickly.

House Democrats are holding the charges, waiting to see if the Senate Republicans will take their responsibilities, their oaths of office to uphold the Constitution, seriously. Thus far the vast majority have signaled their fealty to the president and political expediency rather than Constitutional duty.

It is no surprise that bipartisan feeling runs high in an impeachment; Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson both went through similarly high-charged proceedings. Nixon resigned rather than force such a terrible national ordeal.

The difference between the earlier processes and this is that those earlier impeached, in respect for the rule of law, abided subpoenas. This president has consistently, overtly and deliberately done all in his power to stymie the House investigation, ordering subpoenaed staff members not to appear, withholding documentation and appealing failed lawsuits clear to the Supreme Court to stall for as long as possible.

It is in spite of these machinations, House investigators obtained evidence sufficient to impeach.

To say their motive is merely to overturn the 2016 election is moot. To decry the Democratic party and its members as the enemies of the people is self-serving and clearly wrong; the Democratic Party is still one of the two main political parties in this country, those Democrats elected to serve in offices of trust large and small were elected by the people and they and their constituents have every bit as much right and responsibility as any other elected public servant or citizen.

And one of those rights is the right to expect justice, according to law.

For the Senate to belittle the process and exonerate the president without full hearing, without demanding the evidence and testimony denied the House, brings into question whether the rule of law is as highly esteemed as most Americans think it should be.

If he has done nothing wrong, as Donald Trump steadfastly professes, summary dismissal denies an innocent president the opportunity to defend himself, denies him due process, denies him the opportunity to clear his name and record.

If the president is not innocent and is not held to a fair and open Senate hearing as demanded by the Constitution, the result is tantamount to handing the authority and responsibility invested the Congress to the Executive and discarding for all time the checks and balances so carefully crafted to carry our government through just such crisis as we now face.

It is incumbent on the U.S. Senate, each and every member regardless of party affiliation, to abide their oaths of office and do what is morally right, not what is expedient or what will keep them in office. They are, after all, public servants, and there is no higher duty for any public servant than upholding our nation's laws.

Our government of the people, by the people, for the people, created just 12 score and four years ago, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, depends on it.

(3) comments


On calling witnesses for the Senate impeachment trial: why not allow both sides to call as many witnesses as they wish? We have a divided country with two very different views--probably fostered by each side listening to its "own favorite TV commentators"---so why not just have one big, open confrontation-trial and get this thing ironed out? All information--from both sides--has not been presented. And God bless America and help us preserve unity.

Mike Weland Staff
Mike Weland

Thank you for your response, Mr. Ketner. As publisher, I don't often respond to comments, but since you ask me specific questions raised so often in discussions about the impeachment now underway, I will make an exception.

You, as a former sheriff of Boundary County, are the last person I would think would to ask the first question. The House impeachment process, while differing in some details, was essentially an investigation.

They gathered evidence, first from the Mueller Report, which uncovered extensive criminal activity, stating explicitly that if the Special Counsel’s Office felt they could clear the president of wrongdoing, they would have said so. Instead, the Report explicitly states that it “does not exonerate” the President and explains that the Office of Special Counsel “accepted” the Department of Justice, Attorney General Wiiliam Barr's policy that a sitting President cannot be indicted.

It did not say that the House could not impeach.

The Mueller report details multiple episodes in which there is evidence that the President obstructed justice.

The Mueller investigation provided evidence that Russia engaged in extensive attacks on the U.S. election system in 2016, allegedly at the request of and for the benefit of candidate for the Presidency of the United States, Donald J. Trump.

You can read the Mueller report, heavily redacted by the Justice Department, at https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

It's lengthy, but you can read some of the key findings from the report on the American Constitution Society website here https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigation-education-project/other-resources/key-findings-of-the-mueller-report/

But the House did not immediately pursue impeachment on these grounds, because an anonymous whistle blower forwarded to chairs of both the Senate and House chairs of the Select Committees on intelligence a nine page memorandum that, if evidence confirmed it, alleged that the sitting president of the United States, Donald J. Trump, was again attempting to engage a foreign country, this time the Ukraine, to interfere on his behalf in an election by initiating on his behalf an investigation into the affairs of a key political rival, former vice president and now a private citizen running for the presidency, as well as Joe Biden's son.

You can read the whistleblower letter at https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20190812_-_whistleblower_complaint_unclass.pdf

As a former investigator, you should be able to see that an investigation was warranted, which the House, led by the Honorable Adam Schiff, Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, conducted.

That investigation resulted in impeachment on two counts.

Now as to allegations into the affairs of Joe Biden and his son.

First up, both are private citizens, hence subject to prosecution in a court of law, not the in the halls of Congress. Second, if there was sufficient evidence of corruption aganst either Biden, why didn't President Trump turn to his Attorney General, William Barr, to investigate?

Barr has the lawful authority. I can't say for certain, but I would imagine the reason is that there is not sufficient evidence to bring charges, let alone prosecute.

If Biden & Son were suspected of wrongdoing in the Ukraine, it would be the purview of Ukranian authorities to prosecute, not the president of the United States, and there would be no legitimate reason for President Trump to ask President Zielinski for a favor as he admittedly did, releasing the redacted transcript of his "perfect" phoone call to prove it: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf.

If President Trump was concerned about corruption, why did he allegedly withhold for 55 days $391-million in Congressionally-approved funds, as recent emails, withheld in spite of lawfully issued House subpoenas until ordered released only recently after Administration lawsuits to deny them failed, reportedly seem to indicate?

It's not about Democrat or Republican, pro-Trump or Never-Trumper.

I simply do not believe that anyone who is subject to the laws of the United States, be it Joe Biden, his son Hunter, Hilary Clinton or even the President of the United States, should be placed above them.

At this point in time, I'm not sure if Congressional Republicans or Trump's staunch supporters share that belief.

Chris Ketner

I think the U.S. Senate should be every bit as fair and impartial as the House Of Representatives was in this impeachment process. Don't you think so Mike?

Are democrats afraid that the Senate is going to call witnesses that show the Joe Biden did use his office at Vice President to get a prosecuting attorney in Ukraine fired because his investigation would show that his son, Hunter Biden, was given a job on the board of directors of a Ukrainian gas company that paid between $50,000 and $80,000 a month because his father was the Vice President of the United States. Is that what democrats call "unfair"?

So, what do you think, Mike? Is there "probable cause" to believe that Joe Biden used his office to stop an investigation into corruption in Ukraine that involved his son, Hunter?

And if... there is probable cause to believe that Joe Biden, the former Vice President of the United States, used his office to interfere with a corruption investigation in Ukraine that involved his son, Hunter Biden, do you believe that should be investigated?

And if.... there is probably cause to believe that Joe Biden sent his son to Ukraine to collect the pay off for using his position as Vice President of the United States gain a profitable outcome for this Ukrainian gas company, don't you think that should be investigated?

Or do you believe that, like Hillary, Joe Biden should not be investigated or charged with any crime because he is a democrat running for political office?

President Donald Trump asked the Ukrainian President to continue the investigation.

And that is why Trump is being impeached.... to cover up Biden's corruption. And of course to force Trump out of office because democrats don't like him.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.