Democrats in the House of Representatives remind us of the old West judge who promised defendants he would give them a fair trial — then hang them. The “impeachment inquiry” engineered by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is no more than her attempt to pursue a vendetta.

Our nation’s Founders never meant for impeachment to adhere to the same standards as a criminal trial, of course. They understood impeachment is a political process.

Still, they envisioned safeguards for that process. One is that even an inquiry should have some bipartisan support.

Mr. Trump, in refusing to allow those in his administration to testify before the House inquiry committee, has cited that as one of his reasons. Mrs. Pelosi, D-California, should have asked for a vote by the whole House on whether to launch the process, the president maintains.

And why not vote on the matter?

Democrats hold a comfortable majority in the House. There are 235 of them opposing 197 Republicans (one lawmaker is an independent and there are two vacancies). Mrs. Pelosi could win a vote.

Clearly, however, her fear is that no Republicans would vote in favor of the inquiry — exposing the process as a purely partisan one.

If the case against Mr. Trump is as strong as Mrs. Pelosi and other Democrat leaders claim, Republicans should be in favor of pursuing the congressional investigation. Most of the allegations are known.

Democrats in the House are on a fishing expedition, purely and simply. They hope to come up with enough allegations — whether they can be proved or not — to harm Mr. Trump in next year’s presidential election. That is not the purpose for which the nation’s Founders provided a mechanism to try and, if advisable, to remove a president.

(8) comments

Ping

Where did the whistleblower(s) go?

Ping

OMBD

ralcabin

I watched the first part of the Democratic debate held last night in Ohio. I wanted to hear all 12 candidates viewpoints on how they would serve as President. Instead for the first part, at least a half hour, I listened to all 12 attack Trump, as they answered questions on impeachment.

Sanders, Booker & the lady from Hawaii, tried to steer the debate back to important topics, our economy, insurance, environment, etc., still the barrage of questions continued for all 12, about Trump.

Apparently Biden, had nothing to do with his son, knew nothing about it, & it's all Trump's fault.

I grew tired of all the whining, complaining, & attacking, & stopped watching. I heard what I have heard since Trump took office, impeach him !!! Why the nerve of the guy, not a red blooded polititian, being President, impeach him !!

I was trying to be bipartism, I was trying to see what these candidates could offer America. Real classy bunch, behaving so much better themselves, not trying to cause division at all. I tried to watch once, I won't watch again, how depressing all of them were to listen to, full of hatred & wanting revenge. So this is better behavior ????

Rattler

Yrs we have daily reports of corruption but on democrats. The ag was getting too close to the truth so lets take the pressure off democrats by a smoke screen on trump. How sad the double standard is

Trump 2020

Jim McCarthy

First of all, TY, to the other commenters who challenged the distorted history in the star editorial. Understand that your accurate report of history will not change the Star bias. Star, would it matter if a vote on impeachment was partisan? Then, your editorial would scream about it. Have you actually considered the evidence about the President's behavior? Try challenging the evidence. Between Giuliani's conduct of a shadow foreign policy in Ukraine and the President's "though" favor, what do you say is in error about that evidence?

rljonesy

What a twisted way to view this process. Too much Rush, Hannity, etc?

CRT

Where in the Constitution does it say impeachment should be bipartisian? Since I can't post an active link, I'll provide these facts to you: Though the full chamber voted to start impeachment inquiries against Presidents Bill Clinton and Richard M. Nixon, nothing in the Constitution or House rules requires it. And outside of presidents, there are several cases of judicial impeachments that began without a vote.



“In the past, House committees, under their general investigatory authority, have sometimes sought information and researched charges against officers prior to the adoption of a resolution to authorize an impeachment investigation,” according to an October report from the Congressional Research Service.



For example, impeachment inquiries into three federal judges in the 1980s began without explicit authorization by the full House, according to the report.



While the whole House voted to start impeachment investigations into Mr. Clinton and Mr. Nixon, whether such a vote was taken in Mr. Johnson’s is more ambiguous. In the second attempt to impeach the 17th president, the full House voted on and approved resolutions authorizing the Committee on Reconstruction to begin a general investigation and to obtain the evidence gathered previously by the Judiciary Committee. But those resolutions did not explicitly authorize a second impeachment inquiry.



“There’s no requirement in the Constitution that the House do anything specific, in any order, prior to voting to approve articles of impeachment,” said Stephen Vladeck, a constitutional law professor at the University of Texas.



Mr. Bowman, who called the White House letter “a parade of absurdities,” noted that impeachment is just one of the powers granted to Congress so “if you took the White House argument seriously, it would mean that there has to be a vote” before any House committee could begin hearings on legislation related to interstate commerce, budgets or even establishing post offices.

Spock Here

"Engineered" is an interesting word to use when we are provided daily "evidence" of corruption in plain sight. But do keep plugging away

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
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.