Fruit of poisonous tree argument unfounded
House minority leader Kevin McCarthy’s suggestion that President Trump’s Fourth Amendment rights have been violated is unfounded. The fruit of the poisonous tree argument, which stems from a legal principle invalidating evidence gathered in the course of a fourth amendment-violating search, does not apply to an impeachment inquiry.
For example, if police search your home without a warrant, the gun they discover cannot be introduced as evidence at your murder trial. The Constitution does not contain language that requires a full House vote to commence an Impeachment inquiry. The House is exercising its legitimate powers to investigate the president’s actions regarding Ukraine and is empowered to create and vote on the rules used for impeachment proceedings. All rules outlined for present-day Impeachment proceedings are consistent with those used for presidents Nixon and Clinton.
In closed-door hearing incident, facts matter
Re: the Oct. 31 letter “Republicans should defy Schiff.”
The letter writer says he doesn’t “know of any law that allows the chairman of the House intelligence committee to exclude any legitimate members from attending meetings or hearings.”
That never happened. Members of the committee were never excluded. Both Democratic and Republican members of that committee regularly show up and cross-examine witnesses.
However, the Constitution says the House of Representatives makes its own rules. The House parliamentarian has repeatedly declared that a closed meeting of a committee hearing depositions may exclude anyone who is NOT a member of that committee.
Thirteen of the Republicans who made a show of shoving past capitol police officers and breaching cell-phone security are actually members of one of the committees that were meeting and could have strolled in perfectly legally if they hadn’t preferred to make a spectacle for TV.
Three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon were:
1) obstruction of justice, including making false or misleading statements, withholding relevant evidence, making surreptitious money payments to obtain silence or influence witnesses; 2) abuse of power and a general disregard for the rule of law; 3) defying duly authorized subpoenas.
Ample red flags exist to suspect similar crimes and trust breaches on the part of Trump, with aiding and abetting by White House officials, including Vice President Mike Pence.
Bill Clinton was subpoenaed to testify about a personal failing. His impeachable offence, besides lying to the American people, was lying under oath about it.
Trump and Pence should be subpoenaed to testify under oath about suspected official improprieties. Perjury may well be a fourth article.
Finally, Trump’s treasonous Ukraine dealings appear to warrant article number five.
U.S. House and U.S. Senate conservatives, moderates and liberals need to step up and honor their oath of office.
Carrie Cecil’s great skills
as a sports journalist
Until recently, I had never noticed (ie, “read”) a “Carrie Cecil’s Red Zone” Arizona Daily Star sports article. After reading my first, I realized I had been amiss by oversighting her earlier contributions.
I now look for her byline, as much as Ryan’s, Greg’s, Michael’s and Bruce’s.
Carrie’s unique skills naturally inject fun and enjoyment into her paragraphs. Her “Red Zone” articles offer reader-friendly, keenly insightful, diversified commentary. The series is full of snap, zest, thoughtfulness and, when indicated, expresses poignant or good-humored sensitivities.
Kudos to Carrie for the meaningful contributions she has made to her readers as an Arizona Daily Star Sports contributor and analyst.
Democrats losing sight of their responsibility
The Democrats can only see President Trump. They are so angry still over his election that they are obsessed with finding a way, no matter how specious, of removing him from office. They can’t focus on anything else. In the meantime, the Democrats aren’t doing what they are supposed to be doing. They are not considering comprehensive immigration reform, they are not considering how to improve health care. They are not passing the trade agreement replacing NAFTA. They may not want to approve it but they owe it to us to consider it. They won’t pass the Defense Appropriation Bill, which by the way includes the military aid for Ukraine (go figure) I think they have lost their focus and should be ashamed of how they have forgotten what we sent them to do. Perhaps they will get reminded at the ballot box.
Letter fails to look
at reliable news sources
The letter asserting that Republican committee members in Congress should defy Adam Schiff and walk into their committee meetings displays the ignorance that comes from failing to look at legitimate news sources.
In fact, Republicans who are members of the relevant committees not only can attend, but have been attending, all the closed sessions.
The Republicans who have not been allowed to attend are not members of the committees and are excluded by the rules established by those same Republicans.
The Star also does a disservice when it prints such letters without noting below it the correct objective facts.
The writer is entitled to his subjective opinion that the process is “unfair;” he is not entitled to misstate the objective facts.
Warren offers policies
that are discredited
Re: the Oct. 30 article “Finding a foxhole might be wise for elitists like Warren and me.”
The author claims that elitists and intellectuals such as Elizabeth Warren and himself should control government. Yet they did during the Obama years, which resulted in the slowest economic growth periods since 1949. Now that Trump has jump-started the economy, do we really want to go back to those slow growth days?
The author says that Warren, being a “smart, progressive” leader, “has a plan for everything.” Her socialistic plans would lead us down the path of socialism as in Venezuela.
It is precisely the so-called intellectuals like the author and Warren that citizens voted against to elect Trump. Warren and the author have only the discredited socialistic policies of Karl Marx to offer us. No thanks.