Rep. Ken Buckās job with the impeachment hearings
Re: ā,ā Dec. 15 editorial
Amazingly, The Denver Post devoted two columns of editorial space to castigating Rep. Ken Buck for not attending the impeachment hearings, even though he voted on the foregone, partisan tally.
The Democrats would not allow certain Republican witnesses, like Hunter Biden, to testify; one Democratic congressman was caught watching golf and Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler was captured on video as he nodded off during the boring hearings. Like the Mueller investigation, the impeachment hearings were a waste of taxpayersā money, while there are many urgent items that need legislative attention.
Jay Moyers, Centennial
The Denver Post editorial board is right to take Rep. Ken Buck to task for his abysmal role in the impeachment hearings. And although Buck was a no-show for much of the hearings, his vote against the impeachment resolutions is even more distressing. After all, the testimony of 17 witnesses, the president¶¶Ņõap own words, the statement by Trumpās acting chief of staff and Trumpās actions to hold the foreign aid all indicate a quid pro quo, a high crime and misdemeanor, and more than warrant the removal of the president from office.
It is clear that the president was intimately involved in every aspect of demanding that Ukraine get involved in our countryās domestic politics. How Buck can ignore the overwhelming evidence and claim to uphold the rule of law and his oath to uphold the Constitution is beyond me.
Joe DiLaura, Erie
This editorial is either disingenuous or naive. Iām sure that Rep. Buck is ātaking this matter seriously,ā but does that mean he should not have already made up his mind? Putting aside whether or not Buck should have attended and sat through all of the totally partisan, Nadler-controlled hearings, does the editorial board actually believe that members of either party are still deliberating and have not long ago decided how they will vote on impeachment, or that either party will āset aside their partisan loyaltiesā?
If Iām not mistaken, Iāve heard many Democrats loudly and clearly proclaim that they would vote for Trumpās impeachment and removal from office, long before the judiciary committee hearings were even started. It¶¶Ņõap been a āforegone conclusionā for months that the Democratic majority will impeach the president, so let¶¶Ņõap not try to convince your readers that Buckās missing some of the hearings is any more important than Nadler dozing off during them.
Jim Malec, Roxborough
Re: ā,ā Dec. 11 news story
Rep. Ken Buck whitewashes a pending article of impeachment against President Trump for obstruction of Congress. Rather than challenging that accusation with valid, legal arguments, Buck diverts the conversation with irrelevant allegations against the Democratic chairmen of the impeachment committees.
Buck states, āchairman (Adam) Schiff and chairman (Jerry) Nadler have refused to turn information over and have claimed a privilege. When President Trump claims a privilege, all of a sudden that¶¶Ņõap obstruction.ā
This is a spurious comparison. Schiff and Nadler are not the subjects of a constitutionally specified impeachment process, nor have they (as Trump has) openly defied legal subpoenas for information and witness testimony.
Simply stating that Trump has āprivilegeā has no legal basis and does not insulate him from the subpoena process. Trump could invoke executive privilege, a defined legal term, but then risks losing in the courts as President Richard Nixon did.
Rep. Buck avoids this inconvenient truth and prattles on as if Trump is the victim. The oath of office requires a president to āpreserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.ā Rep. Buckās sanctioning of Trumpās open defiance of a fundamental, legal, constitutional process facilitates a drift toward authoritarian government. Buckās weak arguments excusing Trumpās behavior signal a cynical belief that the people of Colorado arenāt smart enough to see through his diversionary rhetoric.
It would be refreshing to see Rep. Buck engage in a fact-based debate with his Democratic counterparts concerning this issue, but Iām sure that¶¶Ņõap a situation he most wishes to avoid.
Craig Phelps, Littleton
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
