Disagrees with columnist’s take on impeachment

This is in response to Tom Zirpoli’s Nov. 20 column, “Ukraine corroborates the Trump shakedown.” Zirpoli wrote: “Everything the whistler-blower said in his/her official complaint has been corroborated by the witnesses mentioned above.” Those witnesses were ambassador William Taylor and State Department official George Kent, who corroborated nothing. They are politically motivated, partisan, career bureaucrats repeating hearsay and conjecture, who obviously felt they should make Ukrainian foreign policy. The problem with their assumption is the Constitution states the president makes foreign policy, not unelected bureaucrats. Texas Congressman Ratcliff showed them the telephone transcript and asked them to identify the crime: they said nothing, because there is no crime.

Another problem with Zirpoli’s statement is Ukrainian President Zelensky and his foreign minister have repeatedly stated there was no pressure and no quid-pro-quo. Regardless, Zirpoli wants you to believe the New York Times. According to Political Insider the liberal mainstream media has published over 500,000 stories about Russia Collusion, which I believe to be all lies, and most with anonymous sources. Zirpoli, like the Democrats and their servile mainstream media accuse Trump of doing exactly what the Democrats did. Joe Biden is on tape bragging that he will not gave Ukraine $1B in aid unless they fire the prosecutor investigating the company (Burisma) that is paying his son (Hunter) $83K a month, so they fired him: that’s quid-pro-quo.


This corrupt impeachment (in search of a crime) inquiry started with an anonymous, partisan, leaker (by statute not a whistler-blower) working with Adam Schiff’s staff, if not Schiff himself, to destroy the president. His/her lawyer, Mark Zaid, tweeted in January 2017 that “the coup has started” and “we will get rid of him.” Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff keep saying they are protecting the Constitution, when in reality they are destroying the Constitution by denying the president his civil-liberties of legal council and “due-process of law” (V Amendment), right “against unreasonable searches and seizures” (IV Amendment) and the right “of an impartial jury” and “to be confronted with the witnesses against him” (VI Amendment). This is an inquisition not an impeachment inquiry.

I wonder what Zirpoli would write if an anonymous person spied on his private telephone conversation, accused him of a crime, publicized hearsay and innuendo, created a Kangaroo Court that denied him his Constitutional rights of due-process, legal council, witnesses to defend himself and the right to face his accuser?

Carl Burdette


President’s tweets could be used against him

Even though all elected representatives are duty bound to get all of the facts and act on behalf of the American people in an impeachment trial, history tells us it is a partisan process and that the defending party does some really unbelievable spins on every single piece of evidence offered.

I take offense to this new modern media of “tweets.” We watched in real time as the POTUS tried to inject into this process via tweets that are not under oath and which obviously were meant to intimidate a witness.

Adding to my distaste for this practice the Mensa-claiming president says he has a right to free speech. What this brilliant man failed to say is that which every police officer knows by heart and tells anyone they apprehend, that they have the right to remain silent. Should they fail to remain silent everything they say can and will be used against them in a court of law!

Steven Davidson

New Windsor