Better case needed
Ken Gormley's column “The lesson of Watergate & Nixon's resignation” makes no mention of President Obama but makes sense in the context of a broader discussion about impeachment. The timing and tone resembles a vague threat.
Andrew P. Napolitano's column “The only constitutional remedy left: Impeachment” is not so subtle. He uses bullet points. Too bad for him none of them represent a crime.
If the Republicans are going to start these proceedings, they better have a better case than guilt by association (IRS so-called scandal) or longstanding issues inherited from an earlier era (VA, immigration, NSA spying). Otherwise they, along with their comrades in the media, are wasting we the people's time.
Is the Trib's Opinion staff aware that the current Fox News talking point that conservatives are supposed to fall in line with is that the Democrats are the only ones currently talking about impeachment in order to garner sympathy in the upcoming general election?
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.