Impeachment talk is predominant

Impeachment is almost the only thing the Democrats mostly complain about. Whatever President Trump does will always be wrong to the liberals or those envious of the President being liked, wanted and will be reelected in 2020.

Today it seems that they are complaining about the latest release Trump gave out for public review. Below is some of what I found in it.

“Impeachment in the United States is the process by which the lower house of a legislature brings charges against a civil officer of government for crimes alleged to have been committed, analogous to the bringing of an indictment by a grand jury. At the federal level, this is at the discretion of the House of Representative.” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment in the United States).

Can somebody tell me what crime President Trump did? The only thing I have noticed since his election is to provide for the citizens and businesses to succeed in whatever they wish to do or have. What is so wrong with that?

The Democrats are behaving like spoiled children who want something they can not have or earned and will do anything to get it.

The President must have the freedom without obstacles to keep this nation and its citizens safe and free.

We are a nation of free speech. The Democrats have a right to speak their mind. However, they often assume incidents that have no factual basis. Most of us have done this at least once from hearing from someone we trusted.

Ida Temple


Letter writer did not consider all possibilities

Ms. Temple argues for mandatory life sentences for anyone convicted of a crime while in possession of a firearm.

Mandatory sentencing has been tried in many jurisdictions such as the Graves Act in New Jersey, which required mandatory minimum sentences for certain crimes involving firearms. As a result, the courts became backlogged with criminal cases in which the defendant, facing the mandatory minimum sentence decided to go to trial rather than plead and be sentenced under the act. This meant the diversion of judicial resources from civil and family cases to criminal courts, and generated backlogs in those courts.

Another problem with her proposal is the law of unintended consequences. Suppose a hunter inadvertently trespasses on private property and is arrested. Should he be sentenced to life for trespassing? Or suppose a hunter is found to be in possession of marijuana? What of a person whose concealed carry permit has expired and if found carrying a pistol?

It’s impossible to predict all the situations in which a person convicted of a minor criminal offense would be imprisoned for life. This is why district attorneys and judges have the discretion as to what to charge and how to sentence in criminal cases.

Ironically, Ms. Temple is or was active in the Tea Party, with “Tea” being an acronym for “Taxed Enough Already.” Is she willing to pay the additional taxes for additional judges, assistant district attorneys, public defenders, court clerks, court staff, probation officers, sheriff’s officers, correction officers, etc., plus the additional jail and prison space, and the per-prisoner cost of incarceration for life?

We elect our district attorneys and judges, who are presumably experienced and intelligent. Shouldn’t we trust them to effectively administer the law in those cases where life imprisonment for minor crimes is not warranted?

Jim Tutak