Not a law

TO THE EDITOR: Show me the law, or the established policy, or the Supreme Court ruling that prohibits quid pro quo bargaining between the U.S. and foreign governments.

If any such prohibition exists today, it certainly wasn't in effect in 2016 when (as he has boasted on stage and in his memoirs) then-V.P. Joe Biden told Ukranian President Poroshenko there would be no billion-dollar loan guarantee unless Ukranian state prosecutor Viktor Shokin was fired within the next six hours.

Two days later, after Shokin's dismissal, Biden told Poroshenko an extra $335 million was on its way “for reforms of the security sector of Ukraine,” and an additional billion-dollar loan guarantee was under consideration. Quid pro quo, whether we approve of it or not, has long been a strong element in U.S. foreign relations.

Another point: if/when Hillary Clinton announces her candidacy for the Democrat's nomination, soon, are you going to argue that the present administration's Department of Justice must shut down all its investigations into the possibilities of a Benghazi coverup, dossier fabrication, and a quid pro quo foundation?

C'mon, self-educated and free-thinking Americans, let's not get sucked up into a highly-charged rush to burn witches. Let's step back, out from the roused rabble, and cool down long enough to see that there is presently no legal or constitutional path for impeachment and conviction of this president.

With or without the tense drama of an impeachment process, our nation is bound for difficult times. Isn't it in our best interests, right now, to demand fairness, civility, truth and informed judgment in our news media, our social media, our politicians, and ourselves?

JANE CHARVAT

Clintonville

 

No more Stefanik

TO THE EDITOR: Today's issue of the paper had three lead stories on Ms. Stefanik.

In the past two weeks there have been at least one lead story on Ms. Stefanik daily. These articles have not been that newsworthy.

One of today's articles express Ms. Stefanik's opinion that a question about her identity was sexist. Ms. Stefanik has not been very newsworthy or very visible in the press until recently. Most people outside our district do not know who she is, so the question was appropriate.

Let's face it. The world is generally sexist to women where the assumption of most individuals meeting a woman are not interested to know of their position or occupation in the economy. I am surprised that Ms. Stefanik was surprised by the question.

It would also be appropriate for your paper to report more objectively on the matters of Congress instead of just reporting Ms. Stefanik's criticisms.

Mr. Schiff is not to be underestimated. As a former United States prosecutor and well-trained attorney, he is building evidence for the impeachment proceedings. The closed sessions are equivalent to private depositions, which are standard procedure in any trial activity long before a case comes to trial.

If Ms. Stefanik educated herself more on legal proceedings, she might better understand the activities of her committee. I am also assuming that as a member of this committee she has been present at all of these sessions which are being promoted in the press by the Republicans as attended only by the Democrats on the committee. If Ms. Stefanik is not attending these sessions, then she is not fulfilling her responsibility as a committee member.

I would like to see more objective and weightier reporting in the Press-Republican that is examining of the impeachment process.

BARBARA DWYER

Keene

 

 

 

Recommended for you