To the editor:
So now, as on June 3, Robert Lee is interested in evidence. He needed little of it on Aug. 23, 2014 in describing President Obama as “an enemy of the constitution in office” — an impeachable charge if true. It’s laughably ironic in light of President Trump’s passing of sensitive, ISIS-related intelligence to Russian officials in the Oval Office on May 10.
Insistence upon evidence is further ironic considering a current White House that is happy to play fast and loose with it. There was nothing factual about Trump’s charge that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower. When NBC’s Chuck Todd questioned Trump’s claims about his inauguration crowd size on Jan. 22, spokeswoman Kellyanne Conway introduced the concept of “alternative facts.”
The president claims that deals he recently struck overseas will mean millions of jobs and billions of dollars for Americans. The well-respected Politifact, along with a senior economist at Moody’s Analytics, beg to differ. President Trump’s withdrawal of our nation from the Paris Climate Accord leaves him holding hands with only Syria’s Bashar Assad in denying its evidence. Nicaragua balks only in favor of a stronger agreement.
“Where’s the evidence?” implores Mr. Lee about media accusations against an administration that is increasingly evidence-optional. Moral evidence abounds; but, I join any insistence upon the rock-solid type that a court or impeachment case would require. That will take time; that is what special counsel Robert Mueller is for.
Many of us, including Mr. Lee, are old enough to recall Watergate, although, analogies between then and now are still mushy. The truly damning evidence that cinched Richard Nixon’s resignation in the face of removal lay on tapes of June 23, 1972 presidential conversations. Held securely within the White House’s castle keep, it took 25 months for the legal tumblers to align and open the locks that a president can place.
Perhaps we will see if the 45th president is as crafty as the 37th.