The impeachment tango

President Trump at the White House on Monday.
President Trump at the White House on Monday.EVAN VUCCI/ASSOCIATED PRESS

Impeachment is not a talking point — it’s a cornerstone of our democracy

The talking point that the impeachment inquiry is about overturning the results of the 2016 election is based on a false premise (“White House says it won’t cooperate,” Page A1, Oct. 9).

It ignores the fact that the Constitution was drafted with two provisions that are always in tension: It provides for the election of the president, and it prescribes the means to impeach and remove him or her from that office before completion of the four-year term.

Thus, serving as president is a conditional privilege and obligation — conditional upon adhering to the oath of office while steering clear of committing impeachable “high crimes and misdemeanors” that might lead to conviction and early removal.


Every officeholder in America — from dog catcher to president — risks removal from office before completing their term if they violate their contract with the voters. It’s part of what makes us a democracy.

Steve Low


It’s Trump’s way or the highway

“Good afternoon, sir. Do you know why I pulled you over?”

“Not a clue. Beautiful day, don’t you think?”

“According to radar, you were doing 106 miles per hour in a 55-mile-per-hour zone.”

“So? I’m a very important person, and you’re not the boss of me.”

“It’s my job to oversee your driving — it’s for the safety of others.”

“Is that a ‘D’ on your badge, Officer Schiff, Shifty, or whatever?”

“Yes, but it doesn’t matter. What matters is the evidence.”

“You can’t arrest me because you’re a Democrat.”

“What? The radar doesn’t lie, sir, you were doing 106.”

“ ‘D’ is for Democrat, sour grapes, witch hunt, treason, deep state coup.”

“Huh? Those two guys riding with you know you were speeding. They’ll talk.”

“They won’t, because I won’t let them. I’m protected. Privileged, even!”

“Sir, get out of the car.”

“No, you’re mean, and you can’t make me.”


Rick Littlefield

Barrington, N.H.

The evidence-free counter-narrative is an old strategy

In “Can the truth survive these Trumpian times?” (Opinion, Oct. 4), Scot Lehigh asks, “Pre-Trump, who would have imagined an American president who could establish a bizarre, evidence-free counter-narrative that would gull, or at least sow doubts in, a substantial portion of the electorate?”

The answer? Every evolutionary biologist and climate scientist alive.

The “rot, preposterous allegations, groundless assertions, and conspiracy theories” that Lehigh decries have been leveled against scientists in these fields — and their findings — for decades. The strategy of sowing confusion and coming up with ridiculous counter-narratives that directly oppose clear facts established by reliable evidence has been used against these fields — and against the public good — for a very long time. Perhaps the only difference now is that many people finally care enough to write about it.

Abby Hafer


The author is a biologist who teaches at Curry College in Milton.