Letters to the Editor: 10-29-19

Open hearings, testimony standard of due process for president’s removal

This letter is in rebuttal to Ken Obenski’s Oct. 26 column on impeachment and due process. His condescending statement that opponents of impeachment “do not have even the slightest understanding of due process” reveals an appalling ignorance of history and lack of critical thought — the willful blindness of those sufferers of TDS (Trump Delusion Syndrome).

ADVERTISING


Due process, as defined by grand jury protocols or law enforcement procedures of evidence, is not the standard for impeachment and removal of a president.

Like it or not, Donald Trump was elected president in 2016. His election reflected the will of the people of the United States. Arguments about popular vote are irrelevant. President Trump won a large majority of the Electoral College and was duly certified as president.

To impeach and remove Trump from office requires that his opponents clearly and convincingly demonstrate to the American people his unfitness for office. It is not sufficient to throw “raw meat” at the rabid anti-Trump lumpen-proletariat and selectively release closed door testimony and allegations. The standard is not determined by rules of evidence in a court room.

The standard is demonstrating to the American people that their will — the election of Trump in 2016 — should be reversed by Congress.

This standard can only be met by conducting open hearings where testimony and witnesses can be examined and cross-examined in full view of the American people.

In 1972, Richard Nixon was re-elected with one of the most overwhelming majorities in history (both in the popular vote and Electoral College). Two years later, the Watergate hearings clearly demonstrated that the will of the people should be reversed — and Nixon resigned.

That is the standard of due process for removal of a president.

Kenneth Beilstein

Kailua-Kona

Tongue in cheek solution

So, we got big problems with our waste on the island as well as the state on how to dispose of it all. Well, looking at this problem and using a bit of “tongue in cheek” philosophy with a simplistic view showing the need for the TMT project to go forth. If for anything but to find, and plot a course to send all our unwanted garbage into space. Space as in several thousand light years away from Earth, and letting it float around until it simply dissolves or dumping it in the great beyond onto some barren planet, star, whatever. This could even be done in disposable space crafts that when it reached a desired location in the universe one pushes a button here on Earth and voila, job accomplished. The beauty of it is that it could be put out to bid to a private contractor (capitalist/entrepreneur) where it could succeed by not being left in bureaucratic hands to rot. Tongue in check, yes, but remember when Dick Tracy wore a I-phone watch back in the 50s and everyone just gave it a big hee-haw!?

ADVERTISING


Hugo von Platen Luder

Holualoa