Has anyone in this country not decided how he or she feels about the impeachment of President Donald Trump?

We assume there must be a few such people. Perhaps they live in caves or are fortunate enough not to have access to televisions. For many of the rest of us, though, this entire impeachment process has unfolded with a grating, grinding familiarity. Even the vote of the House of Representatives to formally adopt articles of impeachment passed with little drama.

Battle lines have been drawn. Democrats know their side. Republicans know their side. Precious few venture from one to the other — or even acknowledge the other side’s right to exist.

But somehow, someway, the 100 members of the U.S. Senate have a responsibility to put the preceding paragraphs and the truths they depict entirely out of their minds in the weeks to come. They will be jurors in the impeachment trial of the president.

The Constitution even requires them to take a separate oath to do so: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.”

Some in that body have suggested they won’t be impartial jurors or will work directly with the president’s team to dismiss the charges from the House. We trust that these senators are merely posturing politically. Surely they understand the gravity of the situation.


Look, we understand that these requests are difficult in these hyper-polarized times. We know that senators may not be inclined to take them. But we also now that the Constitution of this country matters. The conduct of the president of the United States matters. So does the conduct of the House and Senate.

And while there are questions to ask about the process, there will always be those who avoid the subject by focusing on distractions. Think about a little boy who was accused of taking a cookie and responds by blaming his sister for spilling a glass of milk last week. His accusation may be correct, but did he take the cookie? What parent would allow him to go unpunished?

The president is accused of pressuring a foreign country to investigate a potential political rival and using foreign aid as leverage. How would Republicans react if similar accusation were brought up against a theoretical President Hillary Clinton? One can imagine.

On the other hand, Democrats must also reflect on what they would do or say about the process if impeachment charges were leveled against that theoretical President Clinton. Surely they would have process questions as well.

The times and the duties of senators are serious. Together, they should commit to an impartial, fair and just process.

Topeka Capital-Journal

(24) comments


If I'm ever under indtement I'll just run for Pres as it seems to grant immunity, Worked for Joe Biden. run for sheriff that way if they investigate you they'd be doing it to a political opponent, gary berry wary


I appreciate your honesty on Zelansky's comments.

And I agree that the Impoundment Control Act is a good thing (perhaps they need to make it less "cumbersome", as they said but still....). I was just pointing out how interesting it was who would like to see it undone. As for it being a crime, that's still up to the courts.

"Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) is asking the Government Accountability Office (GAO) for an opinion on the legality of President Trump's decision to hold up Ukraine aid."....

"The GAO announced last month that it was probing Trump's decision to delay $400 million in security assistance to Ukraine. The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has said it followed the correct procedures in holding the funding, which was released in mid-September. "

"Mark Sandy, a senior OMB official,....told House lawmakers that he raised concerns that if the Ukraine aid was delayed for too long, it could “be a violation of the Impoundment Control Act.”

"Trump has repeatedly stated that the release of the aid to Ukraine was not conditional, citing concerns about corruption inside the Ukrainian government as the reason."

So I'll see what further evidence, if any, comes to light and let the courts decide. I mean, for example, Schiff repeatedly claimed on every news broadcast that he had concrete, irrefutable evidence that Trump was guilty in the Russia probe.... and that turned out to be false. (If he had all this evidence, why didn't he turn it over to Muller????) So just because those who hate Trump already have him tried and convicted, I prefer to actually look at the facts and let the facts decide. Time will tell.


Zelinsky is a coward for letting Donald Trump punk him out on TV.


Some interesting reading on the Impoundment Control Act - and especially interesting in seeing who is in favor or giving that full power back to the Prez.... check out the names.... (Obama, Kerry, Gore....)

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was passed as Congress felt that President Nixon was abusing his authority to impound the funding of programs he opposed. The Act effectively removed the impoundment power of the president and required him to obtain Congressional approval if he wants to rescind specific government spending. President Nixon signed the Act with little protest because the administration was then embroiled in the Watergate scandal and unwilling to provoke Congress.[6]

However, the procedure set up by the Act was cumbersome. All recent presidents supported the restoration of the impoundment power, including Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. Politicians such as John McCain, John Kerry, Al Gore, Pat Buchanan, Jeb Hensarling, Russ Feingold, Joe Lieberman, Judd Gregg and Paul Ryan also supported the restoration of the power.[7]

The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 gave the president the power of line-item veto, which President Bill Clinton applied to the federal budget 82 times[8][9] before the law was struck down in 1998 by the Supreme Court on the grounds of it being in violation of the Presentment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.


At the end of the day, the Impoundment control act is still the law, and for good reason. Trumps withholding of $400 million of aid approved by Congress is still a crime. What good is Congress if the President can just "line item veto" anything he wants? Checks and balances exist for a very good reason.

And thanks for correcting me on Zelenskyys words, the version I watched had an interpreter talking over Zelesnkyy.... which seems weird since he was speaking english.


Zelinsky knows to not bite the hand that feeds him. He was told excatly what to say.


Ok, NOW I see the paragraph breaks. (Apparently, between submission and display, its all ran together, my apologies).

And on that note, in all fairness, perhaps you got your quote info from someone like CNN or MSNBC, or maybe NBC - I still remember how they manipulated the Trayvon Martin 911 call.... sad...





It seems none of my paragraph breaks showed up in the last post, so hopefully here's a clearer link to what Zelansky actually said, contrary to what was claimed in another post here.


Actually, I have watched the video, and you misstated what he said. He actually said "nobody pushed me", right before Trump said "In other words, no pressure".

"I’m sorry, but I don’t want to be involved [in] democratic, open elections of USA. We had, I think, good phone call, It was normal... I think you read [in the transcript] that nobody pushed me," he said when asked about impeachment proceedings pushed by House Democrats regarding his July phone call with President Trump.

Again, I've looked up multiple sources: "“I think you read everything. I think you read text,” Zelensky said to the gathered reporters on Wednesday. “I’m sorry, but I don’t want to be involved to democratic, open elections of U.S.A. No, you heard that we had good phone call. It was normal, we spoke about many things. I think, and you read it, that nobody pushed me.” “So no pressure,” Trump added."

Then later on Zelensky said “We have an independent country and independent general security. I can’t push anyone,”.

Nice try, but here's the video.


"IF" a democrat breaks the law, hold them accountable. They already have. Time and time again, as I've detailed just a very very few of the many. In not one single case were any of them held accountable. We have quite the double standard in this country. It rings hollow to keep repeating that first sentence, and then continually they get a pass.

Yes, I have looked into the Impoundment Act, and it seems there is no clear consensus even yet. (Well, if you're a Democrat, then the jury has already reached its decision, just like the FBI wrote it exoneration letter for Hillary months before they even interviewed her, or just like they decided they would impeach Trump the day after he was sworn in - and, to quote, "if that failed, they would bring up something else to impeach on, and if that failed, then something else, etc, etc, etc...) But I HAVE looked into that, and most (the impartial ones, at least) legal scholars say its up to the courts yet to decide - the fact that the money was released complicates it even further. Gee, if only he had publicly bragged about it as Biden did. Then everyone could "claim" he should be prosecuted.... and nothing would happen. You know, fair/equal treatment and all of that. Too bad he chose to be a Republican.

Gary, I DO know that some murders have been committed.... Epstein, for one ;-). But anyway, I really, sincerely do hope that you get some help someday.


First of all, we are not talking about murder here. I don't doubt for 1 micro-second that "quid-pro-quo" to some extent or another takes place all the time in our government dealings, and on BOTH sides. I mean when Biden came out and publicly bragged about it, hardly anyone on either side of the aisle barely batted an eye. Nobody cared at the time. NOW.... all of a sudden.... its suddenly the worst thing in the world. AND.... if someone murders someone and gets away with it, I agree, that doesn't mean anyone else should get away with it. But if someone murders someone and gets away with it.... I ALSO don't believe that anyone else should be jailed just because "someone presumed" that they committed a murder. As a matter of fact.... before anyone gets jailed for the murder, I think there actually needs to be a dead body. Which we don't have. Ukraine says they never felt any pressure, they never initiated the supposed inquiry into Biden. SO.... where's the body?

I haven't posted here (or even paid attention to many of the editorials) for a long time.... DUI (Democrat Useful Idiot, to use his own term for Trump in a recent rant) Gary is reminding me why. I posted to his PUI rant because I couldn't keep from laughing - I do so enjoy a good comedy piece now and then. Apparently he has no clue which party ruled/represented the "evil South" at that time and fought for slavery... and was the birthplace of the KKK.... (sigh). Oh well, his latest rants were good for yet another good laugh. Tis the season to be merry! Should probably lay off the eggnog a little before posting though.... ;-)

Yeah, more people voted for Hillary than Trump. 4.3 million votes in California alone. Which means Trump won the other 49 states by over 1 million votes. Thank God the founding fathers had the wisdom to not let 1 state rule over the other 49.

Bill Clinton exercised executive privilege 14 times. Bush the junior 6. Obama once over Fast and Furious scandal (which was overturned by the courts). I'll bet not once did the liberals here post here using all caps and lots of exclamation marks and foaming the mouth what a travesty of justice or "what is he trying to hide" during Clinton's 14 or Obama's. (Probably did on Bush's 6 though). Which makes me somewhat skeptical of a lot of claims here about wanting "both sides treated the same".


My belief is nobody is above the law, and I'd never spend my time making excuses for people who break it. And don't worry about Gary... Snowgypsy's nonsense evens out his nonsense. KB is icing on the cake.

Zelenskyy also actually said "Nobody can pressure me" and Trump immediately said “In other words, no pressure,” and then thanks Zelenskyy for his answer. Zelenskyy also says “I don’t want to be involved in “democratic, open elections in the United States." and also mentions that he doesn't know and has never talked to Rudy Giuliani... pretty convenient. The video is on youtube. You should watch it sometime.

So as you can see, Zelenskyy actually never said "no pressure", and no inquiry happened because "nobody can pressure" president zelenskyy into doing anything. That is what he actually said. Trump withheld Federal aid approved by Congress to Ukraine before making the call to Zelenskyy on July 25th to ask for a Biden investigation. The money wasn't released until September. I guess the "body" you're looking for is "The Impoundment Control Act of 1974" which "establishes procedures to prevent the President and other government officials from unilaterally substituting their own funding decisions for those of the Congress. "

Trump withheld $400 million in aid approved by Congress the same day he asked the President of Ukraine to investigate his political opponent. That aid was not released until Sept. 11th, which was in violation of the law. Republicans just keep saying things like "no quid pro quo", "no aid withheld", and "no crime", and 190+ Republican congressmen voted Nay on impeachment. Pretty sad. Republicans need to take a step back and look at the whole picture here instead of focusing on one tweet at a time.

If a Democrat breaks the law, by all means, treat them the same. Nobody should be above the law.


During the IRS scandal, Lois Lerner asked if her destroyed Blackberry's data could ever be recovered - when she was told "No", her answer was "Perfect". Then 20 more hard drives at the IRS that had been part of the email exchanges suddenly "crashed" and were destroyed. The excuse is that they just went bad. Yes, hard drives do occasionally crash, I'm in IT and I know that. However, for 20 that were all part of a certain circle to all crash at the same time - well, a statistician calculated the probability of that happening, and you actually have a better chance of winning the lottery 7 consecutive time than that happening. So when you show me a 7-time-in-a-row lottery winner, I'll rethink my conclusion that they "got away with it". And we are peeling back the onion layer by layer on this entire Russia conspiracy hoax, will be really interesting in the months ahead. (Except, of course, if Dems get control of both houses, then all the corrupt FBI/IRS actions will be swept under the table). Sad to see how corrupt certain people in the FBI were, to the extent of writing a letter exonerating Hillary 2 months before she was even interviewed. Then somehow a "glitch" happens and alot of texts/emails between Page and Strzok and other officials were suddenly deleted, (although some or many were eventually recovered). I can almost predict the next "computer glitch" or hard drive crash, if/when a politician has something to hide. Yeah, lets let all that slide, then lets convict Trump on heresay.

Yes, alot of America is getting really sick and tired of this.


Aim_High, I can actually agree (for the most part) with your last post, with a slight difference, regarding "look the other way because Hillary got away with something is silly".

Treating BOTH sides the same goes BOTH ways. In regards to this original article, I have not made up my mind to that extent. Right now, all I see is he said-she said, and "my presumptions", etc. And I am not about to convict anyone on that. Claims of multiple people heard this or that.... well, I can get a bunch of my friends all together, and we can all agree to claim this or that, and then I can cite multiple sources. But if and when cold, hard, convictable facts come out, then at that point, I want Trump treated EXACTLY the same way as Biden when he bragged about his quid-pro-quo, and Hillary's felonious acts. I, and much of America, are really getting sick and tired of the double-standard. And if you're going to claim that its silly to look the other way because so-and-so got away with something, (and it continues to happen, time and time and time and time again) - then I can claim that it is silly to convict someone on something equal to or lesser than is ignored when it happens on the other side of the fence. Equality goes BOTH ways.


By that logic, if one person gets away with killing someone, all murderers should get away with it... If Hillary or Trump have committed crimes, they should be punished regardless of if one or the other got away with it. We can't let murders go free because one got away... Our justice system isn't perfect, and just because Hillary hasn't been brought to court yet doesn't mean she never will be.

It is nice to know there are Republicans out there who still care about due process, it's just too bad none of them are in Congress.


And Justice81... I posted on a previous thread how thrilled Putin was and how unhappy many of our European allies were when Obama cancelled the missile shield the Bush admin had been working on for 6 years. They even wrote a public letter to Obama stating they felt their defense needs were being ignored at the expense of pleasing Russia. Gee, imagine what the headlines here would be like today if the Trump did something concrete and comparable to the delight of Putin...


I didn't defend anything. I merely pointed out the hypocrisy of stating that "they can't come up with a candidate who respects and follows the law". Didn't have one on the Dem side last election, either. And yes, I still care about it. Turn it around 180 - do you expect anyone to care about Trumps supposed crimes when those same people look the other way and ignore Hillary's? Perhaps we should treat EVERYONE the EXACT same way... Gee, what a novel idea! Of course, when Hillary mentioned possibly running again in 2020, polls immediately showed her leading the Democratic field. Doesn't seem like a party of folks who want a candidate who "respects and follows the law".


You won't see me defending Hillary's or anybody elses crimes to the point of blindly voting to aquit before any trial has began, which is what this article is about. And yes I care about Trumps crimes... if anyone commits a crime, they deserve whatever justice they get. Republican or Democrat should really have nothing to do with how a trial should be judged, but here we have an entire political party participating in what I would consider jury rigging. The idea we should look the other way because you feel Hillary got away with something is silly.


Well, I'll take the bait, "Aim_Low". Anyone with 1/2 of 1/2 of 1/2 of a brain (that's 1/8, for the math challenged) would know that anytime a political candidate takes the actions of, (AFTER the FBI has issued a subpoena for it - look it up on factcheck.org at https://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/the-fbi-files-on-clintons-emails/) - of deleting 10's of thousands of emails, having the hard drive acid-washed, and having all of their blackberry's and cell phones beaten to pieces with a hammer.... well, anyone with 1/8 of a brain knows that person has committed multiple felonies and should be behind bars. But it didn't happen, did it? Anyone with, 1/8 of a brain, might be curious as to why someone would go to such extreme lengths to delete "yoga appointments, wedding plans, etc...". Must be some pretty serious yoga and weddings, LOL. As you said.... "pretty sad ...... who respects and follows the law". In case you weren't aware, destroying evidence that has been put under subpoena by the FBI IS a felony.... or, if you're a democrat... just "extremely careless". I ALSO watched the "star witness" Sondland admit, when being questioned, that he didn't have 1 single shred of evidence that the quid-pro-quo (you know, like that thing that Joe Biden bragged about publicly) - took place - ONLY his own PRESUMPTIONS - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Bzz8WY66VM. Well, I presume that several posters here are, in fact, bank robbers and wanted criminals. Well I guess that's enough to convict now, right?


I didn't lay any bait... but you must have that pea size brain you're talking about if you're expecting anyone to care about Hillary Clintons crimes and disregard for congressional subpoenas while you're here defending Trumps crimes and disregard for congressional subpoenas.


But for real Gary, Does running for Pres make Biden immune from prosecution? an isn't Pelosi using the house to investigate a political rival on the eve of a election? Tell me Gar I needs to know


Gee Thanks leader Lukert. I'm a liberal socialist now . it was just that easy to convert me HIGH TAXES GOV CONTROL of ,well, everything YEEEEEAH I suddenly want kale an beer that tastes like horse feed now that I'm a Democrat


I am sure the Senate will be just as impartial as the House was if the House gets off its butt and actually sends the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Since it was televised, those watching were able to see what "evidence" the House had, and make an informed decision to what they felt was worthy or not. Most people realize this is nothing but a stunt being pulled by Democrats who become more desperate after every Democratic debate with President Trump being proclaimed the winner of said debate. In truth, the Dems have did more harm to Biden, which I think the other potential contenders for the 2020 nomination for president are probably thrilled about as it was "rumored" he had the best chance against Trump, and the liberals were not happy about that. So Pelosi decided to toilet flush Biden down the hole with Dems having nothing to lose, and Biden being her stiffest competition. So, the impeachment is more about the divisions and hatred within the Democratic Party than a phone call that President Trump made. And, all of us who know what McFeelThemUp Biden is knew that he was never a real threat to Trump anyway. What a circus!


I watched, and anyone with half a brain is able to see what "evidence" the [White] House has [hidden]. The rest of the people don't matter, as they just repeat the same nonsense over and over... "Democrats are desperate... Dems done more harm to Biden... McFeelThemUp Biden..." Yada Yada Yada.... Keep making desperate attacks... the only candidate you have is Trump, who is almost as braindead as his base. Pretty sad they cant come up with a candidate who respects and follows the law.

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.