A few days ago, a reader sent in a letter to the editor basically calling on the President to show proof that he is innocent of the myriad charges the Democrats are leveling against him. It seems clear that many on the left believe that the “due process” clauses in the Constitution were intended to be solely for those who are Democrats.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which applies in federal cases, clearly states that no person can be held for a crime without an indictment from a grand jury being presented, nor can such a person be required to be a witness against himself.

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment states, “... nor shall any State deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

"Due process of law is a constitutional guarantee that prevents governments from impacting citizens in an abusive way. In its modern form, due process includes both procedural standards that courts must uphold in order to protect peoples’ personal liberty and a range of liberty interests that statutes and regulations must not infringe.”


It seems as if many on the left believe they can hurl charges against someone and that someone must be compelled to prove their innocence. And, until the person can prove beyond a doubt that they are innocent, they are to be considered guilty.

However, many also staunchly believe that those rules do not apply to their fellow Democrats, but only to those who are Republican.

We are on the road to Constitutional destruction. Speaker Pelosi proceeds with an impeachment inquiry without following historic precedent; choosing not to call for a full vote of the House of Representatives to authorize an impeachment investigation. Rather, she has appointed a Committee Chairman, who has a less-than-truthful history, to conduct an impeachment investigation that denies Republicans on that committee the right to subpoena and interrogate witnesses; unprecedented!

The Chairman was less than candid when he denied any knowledge of speaking to the (so-called) whistle blower who made a claim against the President concerning a phone call he had with the president of the Ukraine.

A number of issues should be investigated. For example, until a short time ago, a “whistle blower” was required to be someone who had first-hand knowledge of the incident being reported. The rule was changed to allow a third party, who did not witness the reported act, to be able to be the “whistle-blower.” What must be investigated is when and why and by whose authority was the whistle-blower rule changed ... because in a regular court of law throughout this great nation, the information provided by this whistle-blower would not be allowed as “evidence,” as it is third-hand “hearsay.” And, as things turned out, the committee chairman who first denied prior knowledge of the (so-called) whistle blower in fact did have knowledge, as he first called the chairman and received his guidance and direction on how to proceed with his (hearsay) charges.

Now, as to the content of the telephone call between the two country leaders, the President willingly made the contents of their discussion available. As he has in the past, he provided all the documentation requested by the Congress. But we, as citizens, should be deeply concerned about this precedent, where a telephone conversation by the leaders of two countries gets exposed to the public by a disgruntled employee who just happens to be of the other political party. Are we prepared for this to happen to all future presidents? Are we prepared for the fact that other world leaders will be suspect of and wary about any communications with our president or various department heads? Shall we demand to go back and review every conversation President Obama had with other world leaders? You know ... “Tell Vladimir I will have more flexibility once I get re-elected.” Isn’t that worth a wonder or two?

There are many more examples, but you get the picture. The issue is President Trump. I don’t care if you don’t like him, that’s your prerogative. I do care about our country and our Democratic Republic.

What we have learned from this “resistance” movement should scare every one of us. The previous administration weaponized the deep state. The CIA violated the law by getting foreign intelligence agencies to spy on a presidential candidate. The head of the CIA took the infamous “dossier” information and spread it to the Senate Majority Leader, Democrat Harry Reid, and into the FBI. Would you have tolerated that if the information was detrimental to President Obama? Or Secretary Clinton? Are you prepared for the FBI to be weaponized as it has been for use by any other president, regardless of political party?

Wake up! Hold politicians accountable, the Republic demands it.

Recommended for you

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
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.