The Aurora Advocate impeachment editorial dated Nov. 20 and titled "Whatever the outcome, impeachment hearings deserve attention" read, "Pundits on the right dismiss the whole inquiry as a dishonest attempt to oust a duly elected president. But multiple credible witnesses will testify that Trump tried to use the power of the presidency to pressure a foreign government to do him a personal favor."

There were no such witnesses.

In the second week of the Trump impeachment hearings after the "witness" testimony was complete, three law school professors invited by the Democrats were asked by a Republican questioner to name any Trump crime that the witness testimony had described. The professors remained silent indicating there were no crimes.

Moreover, The articles of impeachment developed by the Democrats do not cite the Advocate editorial claim that "multiple credible witnesses will testify that Trump tried to use the power of the presidency to pressure a foreign government to do him a personal favor."

The three law school professors mentioned earlier said the language in the Constitution could be interpreted to allow for impeaching Trump even if he didn’t break the law. One professor reportedly had suggested at one time that Trump should be impeached for accusing the media of "fake news."

There is real irony here. The Advocate published an editorial making a claim that is wrong. If Trump correctly notes this is fake news can he be impeached?

I’m not a Republican donor by the way, but the way things are going I’m thinking about it.

Richard Smith, Aurora