Impeachment: If not now, when?


To the Editor:

The following is an open letter to U.S. Rep. Bill Keating.

Thank you for your work as representative in Congress for the 9th Massachusetts District. We appreciate your service.

Over the past few months, I read through key sections of the Mueller Report. I found numerous examples of egregious behavior on the part of President Trump, both in welcoming Russian assistance in his election and numerous obvious efforts to subvert, delay, and restrict the investigation conducted by Robert Mueller. It was easy enough to follow the congressional inquiry during the Mueller hearings.

The House Judiciary Committee is investigating the president’s actions to consider articles of impeachment. The committee seeks documents the president continues to withhold. I urge you to closely follow these deliberations.

Recently there was another mass shooting, this time at a Garlic Festival in Gilroy, Calif. The alleged gunman, age 19, legally purchased an assault rifle in Nevada, and killed three people; two were mixed-race children. 

Don’t kid yourself. The abhorrent language that flows from the president’s Twitter account has consequences. Fellow Congressmen of color recognize this detestable diatribe for what it is. I urge you to follow this situation as it continues to develop.

Finally, I strongly urge you to consider supporting an impeachment inquiry. If not now, when? No one is above the law.

 Thomas Dresser
Oak Bluffs


  1. No one is above the law? How about the millions of illegal immigrants in this country? Shouldn’t we apply the law to them?

    • We should not hold accountable the POTUS for not upholding his oath of office because there are illegal immigrants?

        • I’m going to email the guy from the grassy knoll, ask if he’d like to add anything new.

        • BS: I like how concise your language here is, however, your claim is neither plain nor simple. Suggesting the Mueller probe is fraud requires evidence. You provide none, and to my knowledge, there is no evidence in existence that would substantiate this. Can you link one that is reliable/not bias?

          • From Mark Penn, Hilary Clinton strategist and pollster: ““I think any reasonable person looking at what happened here says this investigation had no foundation and whatever foundation it had was not only wrong, but corrupt. I think Christopher Steele was part of the FBI when he leaked, lied, and then was fired. Page and Strzok are clearly biased. The head of the FBI was clearly biased. The head of the CIA appeared to be doing illegal leaks as well. This whole thing was corrupt. There is a doctrine called the fruits of the poisonous tree that says when investigations get started like this, when searches and seizures are done on this basis, they should be thrown out. “

          • BS: The request was for reliable/not biased. Mark Penn’s comments have been pro-Trump (meaning NOT neutral) since the election.

    • BS: Your point lacks coherence. Are you suggesting that we should not hold the President accountable for the laws he has broken because other people are also getting away with illegal things? By that logic, no one should ever be arrested for anything because I once jaywalked. You’ve also created an either/or scenario where there need not be one: Our country is capable of both arresting illegal immigrants AND prosecuting a powerful man for his crimes. If this is an appeal to emotion, it’s an unlikely way to find an audience as MV Times readers are largely liberal and are likely to see the actions of the most powerful man on earth as more significant than the immigrants you’re concerned about.

      • No, we should certainly hold the President accountable for breaking any laws. To date there’s not a shred of evidence that he has broken any law. My point is that the moonbats keep screaming that no one is above the law yet they ignore our immigration laws. Why aren’t they encouraging Congress to update our immigration laws encouraging the open borders they support.

        • The article above is an open letter to Bill Keating, about trump. Do try to stay on topic, please. There is no need to change the subject.

          • The writer brings up the notion that no one is above the law. I’m merely agreeing with the topic. Perhaps you didn’t read the article in it’s entirety.

        • The Mueller investigation shows that he broke laws, but that as a sitting President he can not be charged with such. The only justice that can be brought against a sitting President is impeachment, which Democrats have rightly surmised will not be sufficient to remove him from office… not because he is innocent but because Senate Republicans would never allow it.

    • if congress does not hold the president accountable for crimes he commits, why should I obey the law ?
      By the way, seeking asylum is not a crime in the United States– Separating children from their parents at the border after a federal judge specifically forbade it is . Also failing to appear before congress when subpoenaed to do so is a crime– time to lock lock scary skelataly ann and bar boy up.

      • Er, because you are not above the law but the President actually is… at least while he is in office.

        Seeking asylum is not a crime. However, it is incredibly unlikely that the current number of “asylum-seekers” fulfill the intention of the legal mandate to not turn away those seeking asylum.

  2. After having read the many, varied points of this letter, I, too, am literally trembling with rage right now.


  3. Given how close the election is, I think we should focus our energies on voting him out of office. Nothing seems to stick with this guy and these inquiries energize him and his base.

  4. t2 the people elected to congress swear an oath to uphold the constitution. They do not swear to worry about the consequences of upholding that oath. trump has numerous impeachable offenses — Tom is correct– congress should do their job, and let the chips fall where they may. To do anything less is dereliction of duty.

      • BS: Pursuing his crimes is a full-time job. Thankfully, Mueller took that job for two years. He specifically stated that his report did not clear the President of crimes. If he was not currently in office, he would have been charged with obstruction of justice. There is also the matter of ordering his subordinates not to comply with Congressional subpoena, which is not only a crime but a violation of his oath of office. Yet, some choose to ignore these facts in light of such sterling logic as “other people also do bad things der libs…”

        • The ignorance here is appalling. Mueller could not have exonerated anyone. Nor could any judge. Our jurisprudence system does not exonerate anyone, they are either found guilty or not guilty. Mueller could find no evidence which would have led to a guilty finding of any crime thus it was not pursued.

          • Guidance on Federal Prosecutors (I follow a goodly number on Twitter): The reason their conviction rates are high is because they go for “sure things.” When Mueller said there was enough evidence to indict Trump after leaving office, he was speaking as a former Federal Prosecutor.

  5. Trump didn’t break any laws- the report determined that. That’s also why after two years the media has made such a pivot and slowed or stopped all the Russia talk.
    However to answer your question now is the best time to impeach – especially if you do want to hand Trump a 2020 win.

    • Obstructing the investigation was breaking the law. Conspiring with an adversary against the country is high treason. You might consider Mueller refusing to discuss Donald Jr with Congress. Hint: They don’t discuss active cases.

      • New Englander I would hate to have you on my Jury—anybody’s Jury. If He was breaking the law why hasn’t he been arrested? There is no law named Collusion. There is Collusion for price fixing against Sherman anti trust or Robinson Pattman but no law for colluding with a country. On Obstruction Mueller remained silent even though the job of a Prosecutor is to rule one way or another. Do you understand the law?

        • Andrew: You can do better than that. It’s not the act of collusion, it’s the purpose of it. In this case, the reason is treason. Your attorney would not want me on the jury, especially if your defense requires he try verbal stunts like that.

          As of Mueller, his role was not Prosecutor, it was Investigator. And as he was working under the authority of the DOJ, he followed DOJ guidelines that he was not allowed to indict. But Mueller did say during the hearing that once Trump is out of office, there was sufficient evidence to indict. Got it yet?

        • Andrew: He did not remain silent. He noted that if the President was not in office he could have been charged with these crimes.

    • “Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President
      clearly did not commit obstruction of justice , we would so state. Based on the facts and the
      applicable legal standards , however , we are unable to reach that judgment.”
      Volume II of II Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III Submitted Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 600.B(c) page 2

      “Third, many of the President’s acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with
      the government and suggestions of possible future pardons , took place in public view. That
      circumstance is unusual, but no principle of law excludes public acts from the reach of the
      obstruction laws. If the likely effect of public acts is to influence witnesses or alter their testimony,
      the harm to the justice system’s integrity is the same.” Ibid, p.7

  6. Wow, Mr. Dresser read the Mueller report and even Mueller didn’t read it. Not a fan of the Donald, but the poor bastard has been a victim of a witch hunt since he took office. He will win again if the Dems don’t come up with an electable candidate, which will be tough after watching the debates last couple of nights.

  7. Don- I don’t think it is dereliction of duty to not engage in a fight that you have no chance of winning that entrenches the person that you are trying to defeat. You and I may might convict him in an impeachment proceeding but the Constitutionally authorized body – the elected US Senate – will not. Let’s beat him where we can – the election.

  8. BS, “How about the millions of illegal immigrants in this country? ” is changing the subject and deflection.

  9. We have a conundrum. If we put bernie in the market will crash. Guess where all that insurance money is invested? I might just vote for the best looking candidate. Tulsi Gabbard is pretty hot.

    • Bernie proved in last election he does not want to win, many of these candidates are just running for the selfies and being able to say on Facebook that they ran for president. The democrats have let the children into the room the result was predictable.

Comments are closed.

Previous articleNo parking for one day at Veterans Memorial Park
Next articleSharks slug five homers, down Danbury, 16-5