10/1 Letters: Trump has convicted himself of using the power of his office for personal political gain

Trump admitted it

Forget the whistleblower’s report. Forget the alleged cover-up. Forget the rogue foreign policy carried out by Rudy Giuliani on behalf of the president.

Focus only on the transcript of President Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian president, which Trump has admitted is true and which he described as “perfect.” These facts are undeniable, incontrovertible.

Trump has convicted himself of using the power of his office for personal political gain. This is an impeachable offense, a clear violation of the emoluments clause in the Constitution.

For this, he should be removed from office.

Peter V. Andrews, Louisburg

Thank you, Dems

Many thanks to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The Mueller investigation was quite helpful, but the impeachment inquiry should assure the re-election of President Trump.

The focus on Ukraine will bring out all the information about Joe Biden’s alleged abuse of his office.

And the focus on socialism by the 2020 Democrat candidates is helpful as well.

Don Stacey, Hillsborough

A precedent?

We are setting a precedent. In order to remain competitive in future elections, all U.S. presidents would need to entice the help of foreign countries to dig up or manufacture dirt on their political opponents.

If such actions become the norm, our elections would become an international campaign for the presidency with our presidents utilizing weapons and other aid as incentives for foreign countries to enter into our election process and using the power of their office to cover it up.

Is this really the road we want to go down?

Is the whistleblower really a “rotten snitch,” or a defender of our democratic election process and Constitution?

Karen McGrew, Raleigh

Border wall vote

Regarding “Tillis votes again with Trump on border emergency declaration, despite NC military cuts,” (Sept. 25) and related articles:

So, we are building a wall at our southern border that is being paid for by the Mexican government? Well, no, in this case, it is being paid for by ambulatory troops at Camp Lejeune and elementary school students at Fort Bragg.

It surprised me that our two U.S. Sens., Richard Burr and Thom Tillis, voted for this idea. Gentlemen, I disagree!

Robert L. Mitten, Raleigh

Politics over troops

Regarding “Tillis talks about impeachment, military cuts in visit to Fort Bragg,” (Sept. 27):

In justifying millions of dollars in cuts to military bases, Sen. Thom Tillis claims military leaders told him the money is not needed. If so, why was the money requested by the military and allotted by Congress in the first place?

Doesn’t the fact that a report listed the living conditions at Fort Bragg as the worst of 43 bases undermine Tillis’ claim that the money isn’t needed?

While I have no doubt President Trump and Sens. Tillis and Richard Burr would put politics over the troops and their families, I’m more skeptical that our military leaders would do likewise.

Mark Slattery, Raleigh

Dog fighting bill

Regarding “22 of his 30 dogs were killed. Now their NC owner is going to prison for dogfighting,” (Sept. 25):

The recent verdict in the Orange County dog fighting case offered a sobering reminder that the vicious blood sport of dogfighting still occurs in every part of the country. It also helped shine a light on a state law that automatically designates dogs rescued from dog-fighting rings as “dangerous,” an unfair label that requires them to be euthanized.

Dogs that have already suffered at the hands of their abusers deserve the chance to be evaluated to determine the most appropriate placement option for each. N.C. lawmakers have introduced legislation that gives local animal control agencies the ability to evaluate an animal before any legal designation takes place. We urge N.C. lawmakers to pass this bill.

John McHugh, Raleigh

N.C. Legislative Director for ASPCA

Focus on renewables

Duke Energy is telling us that they are concerned about climate change and pledges zero carbon emissions by 2050.

Their plan mainly consists of replacing coal burning plants almost entirely by natural gas plants. However, natural gas plants emit carbon dioxide and leaking methane gas contributes to climate change. By 2030 their planning documents aim to deliver very little energy from renewables.

Building gas powered plants and pipelines is costly. A better way is to use more solar and wind power, coupled with battery storage to achieve a cleaner future.

2050 is too late. We owe it to our kids (and their kids) to reduce our carbon footprint as quickly as possible without the continued use of fossil fuels.

William Dolbow, Durham