On Dec. 29th the Standard-Examiner printed a letter from Grant Protzman of North Ogden. I believe Mr. Protzman did a good job explaining the two step impeachment process. I also believe he accurately represented the Washington Post Op-Ed by Daschle and Lott, citing their pride in conducting a fair Senate trial of President Clinton.

However, his own unfairness and bias was glaringly illustrated in two instances:

1. He stated, "a clear, open, fact filled trial by a fair and open minded Senate is now needed to decide the two questions of guilt and punishment." In actuality, the Senate has every right to decide that there is nothing illegal in the two articles from the House and thereby not waste the time of a trial. In addition, if there is a trial, the Senate can determine guilty OR NOT GUILTY, and if guilty, only then determine the punishment. Protzman excluded just two "unimportant" words, namely, "NOT GUILTY".

2. On a more important note, he also carefully neglected to report how the first step in the impeachment process in the Clinton impeachment was also conducted in a fair manner by the House, in which both sides were allowed to have their desired witnesses testify. But had he mentioned that fact, the readers would have realized that was not the case in the Trump impeachment, but rather, it was travesty of fairness. Not one Republican desired witness was allowed to testify.

Mr. Protzman's 245 words were disguised to appear like rational, common sense call for fairness in this very important procedure. But when studied more carefully his deceptive exclusions illustrate his real modus operandi, namely to demand fairness from his political opponents while purposely ignoring the recent and historical lack of fairness from his political side.

Martin Manning


See what people are talking about at The Community Table!