Opinion: Trump is exactly the kind of president who should be impeached

To the editor: Barbara Radnofsky points out that impeachment is an orderly constitutional process that is from time to time necessary. Can any reasonable person doubt that this is very clearly one of those times? (“The Founding Fathers provided us with a way out of troubled presidency — the direct, doable process of impeachment,” Opinion, Oct. 16)

President Trump has repeatedly shown that he is extremely unfit for his position, and his actions have already caused substantial harm to our country. We should not be required to wait until special counsel Robert Mueller completes his investigation, as there is already a virtual smorgasbord of good reasons for impeachment.

Citing just one example, there is Trump’s practice of lying almost every time he speaks, such that no one can believe or trust a word that he says. How can this by any stretch of reason be acceptable?

Our representatives in Congress must wake up and carry out their constitutional responsibilities to our country, impeaching and removing this dangerous and unfit man from the presidency.

Gertrude Barden, Porter Ranch

..

To the editor: Radnofsky is correct that impeachment is a reasonable way for members of the House to deal with a troubled presidency.

Of course, any members who may decide to proceed toward impeachment must first realize a presidency is troubled. Alas, many who could reach such a realization are too often more afraid of losing their seats (and lucrative post-Congress lobbying careers) than they might be of the effects of a troubled presidency.

As for Alexander Hamilton’s concern for a presidency’s “harm to society,” one needn’t look hard to see a country that has, since last November’s election, become more divided and more hate-filled than it had been for decades. Does such division and hatred qualify as harm to society?

The decision to answer the question in a manner that might alleviate any harm rests with the House — no matter what the rest of society thinks.

Mary Stanik, Oak Creek, Wis.

..

To the editor: Trump’s tweets keep coming, creating drama that occupies the attention of the news media and thus the public.

Important question: Where should the press draw the line between ignoring the president’s tweets (not allowing them to drive the daily news) and focusing on how dangerous and erroneous his statements are (on the assumption that these are the words of the president and therefore they matter)?

As someone who studies communication, I believe there is no easy answer.

On the one hand is the discovery function of communication: By reporting the tweets, the news media fulfill their function of covering and fact checking Trump. On the other hand is the inoculation effect of communication: The more coverage of Trump’s tweets there is, the more likely his abnormal behavior becomes normalized and the less attention gets paid to other potentially more consequential things he is doing.

Richard Cherwitz, Austin, Texas

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook