Dear Dave:
Congress has received 0 (zero)(nil)(nothing)(nada) requested (not subpoenaed) documents from DOJ/WH. Judiciary, Intelligence, Ways and Means, etc... hence the subsequent subpoena(s).
Your opinion is noted, and summarily dismissed.
Regards,
Luis in Canada
16
Mr. Brooks,
Have you been reading, watching, or listening to anything that's been going on lately? Donald Trump and his entire family are traitors to the United States of America. They worship money, sex and power. That's it.
On January 21, 2017 I wrote to my Senator, Richard Burr that I wanted him to IMPEACH Donald Trump.
On Feb., 8, 2017, I received a returned response from him...in the mail! He told me: "Thank you for expressing your concerns over President Trump. I want you to know that I take your concerns seriously...."
After 2 years Senator Burr has subpoenaed Don Jr. Better late than never. These are a family of criminals. What don't you get? Do you need a vacation?
25
My head is about to explode. It's very simple David. DT is an abomination and the republicans in congress are, to put it mildly, cowards. I'm sure you see this and I would like you to put in print (I dare you) that the founding fathers would find the behavior of Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, and all Trump the enablers very disappointing.
12
My My David it seems you can't help but gloat over the "back-and-forth combat" you have so diligently stoked for your bosses Chuck and David and their cabal. Thank God for history, upon which you will be listed
on the wrong side of.
6
Shame on you, David, for providing cover to this most un-American President. This up is about refusal to have basic oversight, and you know it, or should, and willfully choose to ignore it.
9
Brooks if Trump is re-elected in 2020 you may find your paper is facing lawsuits for anti trump propaganda based on new law Trump , Barr and McCONNELL have rammed thru approved by Trump's supreme court. Trump will stay in power at all costs including loss of our democracy . It can happen here and it is happening as Giuliani goes to Ukraine ordering them to go after Biden in the name of the KIng!
6
Yes ,we are in a constitutional crises and Russia is winning. they are winning big time because of the effort of the Republican party to make sure the Putin/Russia/Trump/Barr win all the battles. The House Democrats must be smart, fast, decisive and severe in their dealings with this cancer. I know it is difficult to believe that the Republicans would destroy their own Democracy for power and money. But look at their actions. From now on, that the Republican Party tried to destroy our Democracy will be in the history books of America for all to see.
5
Fortunately we do not have a complete totalitarian dictatorship as Donald Trump admires in Russia and North Korea. The election of 2018 saved us from a complete 'railroad' of Trumpian fiats in the next two years. Observe how Trump's followers mimic his hand-clapping that imitates Kim Jong-Un. Just today, Trump's former attorney McCann joined his ' S-list' by refusing to go along with 'no obstruction, no collusion'. Our country will survive Trumpian dictatorship. Donald Trump mustl be checked.
4
Given the intransigence of the Trump administration, the time from request to subpoena is irrelevant. Trump will NEVER release anything that might prove what is already known, namely that he is a fraud. Always was and always will be.
3
I suspect the divide between Democrats on whether Nadler should go scorched-earth on Trump is between those who dislike behavior more and those who dislike his policies more. As someone who dislikes his policies more, I'd be much happier Congressional Democrats stopped this nonsense, focused on governing the country, and found a candidate who could beat him in an election.
David Brooks: "My advice to Democrats: If Robert Mueller isn’t blocked from testifying, hear what he has to say and then see where we are."
That, Mr. Brooks, is looking like a BIG 'if'.
2
I am reacting sadly to this myopic 'white wash' of the Republicans by a journalist who I had previously thought above such partisan opinions and slanted reporting. With Brooks casting this, yes, Constitutional crisis as both sides being wrong he is glibly saying "I don't really care"!
Congress "has to be willing to use its power in positive ways". What power? Power of persuasion? Trump has said and done everything to avoid cooperation and by say no to every request has clearly overstepped his authority. He is breaking the rule of law in so many ways. This is an abuse of power and a clear violation of his oath of office.
What is to be done? Pound sand? This is more than a "spoiled-boy['s] will". It is undermining directly the Constitution. We are dealing with a sociopath. Period. No conscience. No shame. No concern. This is rapidly turning into an existential crisis that needs more than 'playing nice'. Corruption is spreading far and wide. Comey has illustrated this and it is time for Brooks to stop equivocating.
8
Brooks has been getting the leagalities and the politics of this matter alll wrong. He seems to be implying that the conflict between Nadler and trump is somehow pesonal, when it is constituitional.
6
Trump is destined to become a synonym for tawdry.
Trumpian will mean the exact opposite of Victorian.
3
Dear David, I am one of your admiring followers.
I know you are a good person!
But on this one, you have lost one of the basics of the life of the higher mind.
Your politicized frame of reference has narrowed to the most particular.
The fact is that the largest of human values is under attack by the president and his supporters in the Republican party.
This is not just matter of personalities. It is a matter of political attempts to undermine those things that you, and other good Americans, treasure so highly.
Please, David, show us what we know you really value!
I have confidence in you as a good person!
1
I wonder how David's piece will look if/when read side by side with the Mueller report absent the redactions?
2
Nice try David. But of course, it isn't just Barr who is stonewalling on the Dictator's behalf. There is nobody anywhere in this "cabinet" who is willing to speak anything like the truth about their fearless leader, if indeed they are capable of perceiving it. Mnuchin is equally in contempt and should also be cited.
1
Debilitating fighting between aggrieved opponents shockingly defeated in the election, desperately trying to manufacture constitutional crises; and an odious, egotistical personality continually thumbing his nose at them.
Mr. Brooks, you may be right to criticize Democratic behaviour in this case but is that the most important thing you could be writing about now? Our president is trying to become a dictator and be above the law, subverting our constitutional processes and you've got nothing to say about it? I think you need to rethink your priorities.
1
It's my belief that the entire Democratic Power Structure in Washington DC is in panic, because it wasn't just Comey and Brennan and Clapper freelancing the destruction of the Trump Presidency by rumor and innuendo. Not only was this instigated by Hillary Clinton and her Steele dossier, but we will find out soon that Obama was in on it, and if so, then Pelosi, Schumer, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and other high level democrats knew about this. That's why the Democrats are being enormously destructive...not for the Constitution, but to protect themselves. This is bigger than Watergate, but not in the way they would have you believe.
I agree with Mr Brooks. Trump is a horrible President, hopefully the most horrible we will ever have. And I believe he has done things that rise to the level of impeachable. Still I want the voters to throw him out of office next year. Although I understand the frustrations of Nadler and Democrats in Congress and across the nation, prematurely calling this a ‘Constitutional crisis’ and talking about impeachment and subpoenas only plays into his hand and allows him to play the victim at his rallies and on FoxNews.
1
"...the Democrats want the show because it just feels good to bash the administration."
I'm guessing it feels better to be the administration that's able to turn its back on the bashing and successfully ignore it.
1
David, what do you think is so important to Trump that he is stonewalling any responses to democratic requests whatsoever? Trump loves to be seen as a fighter. It does not seem to matter if the fight is legitimate or not. Nancy Pelosi proved that Trump is mostly show. The democrats need to move ahead, they are in the right to defend Congress's status. Maybe Trump is trying to get back at Pelosi by neutering Congress, among other wrongly perceived personal foes. Who knows.
Trump is in the wrong job and in the wrong place. If he can stay out of an American jail, he should go to Russia where he can become a filthy rich oligarch and live near Putin. He could become best friends with his conspirator, Putin. America is not to Trump's taste, he wants to be a dictator, soak the poor and live in luxury. Russia is perfect for him.
.
7
I can't stand Trump, but he won the election, and Mueller's just inquiry failed to produce clear evidence of collusion. If people want to live in a world of make believe, I can't really do much to change that, but it's completely clear to me that Democrats are just going to keep on looking for dirt on Trump until they find it. This isn't really about right or wrong-it's about getting rid of Trump any way they can. Hey, I'm a lifelong Democrat, so it's not fun for me to say this, but sometimes you have to look in the mirror and recognize that what you see isn't so good. That's exactly how it feels to me right now.
I liked your first couple of paragraphs! Plus, the general theme of Trump happy to be bashed by Dems is also on the mark. But Republicanism has changed. It started with Ronald Reagan, who in private was a lot more right wing than most people realize.
Besides all this, Trump will eventually start a war, and he won't have any friends to help. Republican rhetoric is fast losing friends. The USA too.
3
It has been remarked here that Mr. Brooks has "lost [his] ethical compass." Untrue. Mr. Brooks is following his long tradition of taking two sides, finding what he thinks is the midpoint between them and then blaming both sides equally.
It's not a compass that Mr. Brooks needs, it's an established set of policy beliefs from which he can consistently judge. There aren't "good people on both sides" of this argument. There is but a President who would trample over the Congress and the Constitution that established it, and everyone else.
10
David is wrong. If Nadler sees the full, unreacted Mueller report, he will know, and informed by Justice Dept. officials, what passages MUST BE KEPT SECRET. If the House votes to impeach Trump, than the courts may/might be required to settle which information must be kept secret for national security reasons.
4
David Brooks notes that congressmen can’t hold two opposing thoughts: they cannot both love and hate their opponents.
This brings to mind F. Scott Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald noted that The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.
We can only conclude that our congressmen do not possess first rate intelligence.
3
Moral compasses are essential but they don’t win elections. If anything Trump is showing us that politics has become a race to the bottom.
7
This is . what Brooks wrote after Barr's summary came out,
"Maybe it’s time to declare a national sabbath. Maybe it’s time to step back from the scandalmongering and assess who we are right now.
Democrats might approach this moment with an attitude of humility and honest self-examination. It’s clear that many Democrats made grievous accusations against the president that are not supported by the evidence. "
Brooks fell for Barr's lies without even hesitating. Now he is saying that Nadler is the problem, a "villain" in this showdown.
Just when I thought Brooks' eyes were opening to the corruption at the core of the GOP he falls into his usual smug "both sides-isms"
23
Brooks is unusually obtuse on this one. The Judiciary Committee's need and right to see the entire unredacted Mueller Report is paramount to their oversight and legislative functions.
Ditto the need of the Intelligence Oversight Committees for more information. Anyone with experience in counterintelligence understands that Mueller's assertion that he couldn't establish conspiracy with the Russians misses the point entirely.
Volume 1 of the Report establishes completely the grounds for denying to anyone from Trump on down access to sensitive ('classified') information because they know that Trump and minions have been totally compromised by his actions and lies documented in the Report. The Russians ALWAYS take advantage of such leverage.
As a former member of the intelligence community I can confirm that anyone who had as many surreptitious and lied about contacts with adversarial power agents would have been immediately investigated for treason and immediately dismissed. Trump and minions got us into this mess, not Jerry Nadler ... and certainly not for mere political advantage.
18
Brooks is an intelligent Republican who decided that he can not support Trump. This must be a difficult position for him, and I expect it causes him lots of frustration and anxiety.
This piece is an example of creative spin, a wishful analysis that seems to be clinging to the idea that his party still might be able to act with respect for Constitutional law.
Trump fired Sessions because he would not twist the position of Attorney General into functioning as the President's personal lawyer. He then appointed Barr, who is willing to fight for ironclad Presidential Infallibility and authority over all. Shameful.
17
Sure, Mr. Brooks, focus on the one issue of Trump refusing to send Congress what it legitimately wants in regards to the Mueller report. And what should be done about the fact that Trump refuses to allow Congress any information it is constitutionally permitted access to, even down to Interior Dept. data?? Maybe the problem isn't the Democrats. Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth if Obama had been one tenth as obstructionist to the Republican House as Trump has been to the Democratic one? The Republicans' hypocrisy in feigning devotion to the Constitution yet supporting Trump without question is mindblowing.
11
When you have a bear tearing down the kitchen door, it's difficult to be discreet in your response.
Donald is a direct threat to our national security and to our alliances and economic interests. He sides with our foes.
Once he is removed from office, we can discuss the academic value of oversight alternatives.
7
So far off the mark, I wonder where David has been these past two weeks. The President has declared all out stonewalling on any/all Congressional ATTEMPTS at legitimate oversight--hello security clearances!!--and his declarations are being backed up by the non-actions of his Administration.
So, Congress is just supposed to say what? "Let Mueller testify." About Security Clearances? About tax returns? Nadler is trying to save the Constitution and David wants him to stand down.
14
Brooks has failed to grasp that the grave digger of American democracy is McConnell assisted by his Republican colleagues, who thwarted Obama from the very start of his presidency. They remained silent when the birthers began their campaign to de-legitimate Obama's presidency, which continued with the unprecedented decision to deny Garland the courtesy of a hearing. This disdain of proper order was carried over into the Kavanaugh hearings, which degenerated into a Republican-led circus designed to successfully obfuscate the issues. The damage to the institutions of government have given the Republicans control of the levers of governance,
and with luck, it will take a generation at least to reconstruct confidence in democracy.
10
Brooks. You have lost your ethical compass. With 40% of the nation fooled, a propaganda media machine the likes of which we have never seen, a partisan Senate choosing party over country and headed by one of the most partisan leaders in history, a Supreme Court, possibly packed with executive power ideologues, and most importantly, a demagogue president bent on power, we are definitely in a constitutional crisis.
156
@Ron Cumiford
What makes you think he ever had one? Or if he did, that it worked?
5
@Ron Cumiford You have stated it succinctly. Trump is more than a demagogue however, he has crossed over to a full blown sociopath. This is not normal.
10
The Mueller report is just a small part of it. Donald Trump has declared that he won't cooperate with the House on anything. Enough already! He has no respect for the Constitution and his behavior just gets worse every day. Bring it on!
8
Mr. Brooks, you're wrong, wrong and wrong. This administration has consistently stonewalled from the very beginning. Even when they have spoked, they have contradicted themselves consistently. Your attempt at 'both-sidesism' is craven at best.
It's all about getting some questions answered. It's not about finding a 'gotcha' detail here and there.
So stop. Just stop. You demean yourself.
16
David's columns used to be sustenance for my soul. Now often it's just the witch in Hansel and Gretel saying "I'm not a witch."
6
Is David Brooks capable of writing anything that isn't 'let's blame both sides'?
12
To quote an old republican, “I paid for that report” Mr Brooks.
8
As long as Americans will cherish a good fight, the political system will stay awfully expensive and useless.
The usual attempt at false equivalence.
13
Unfortunately, Mr. Brooks has a conservative reflex muscle in his brain that forces him to always look for a false equivalency to soothe his soul as a life-long Republican.
11
As soon as Mueller is done with his job as Special Prosecutor, The White House cannot prevent his testifying before the House.
37
@Joe They are trying to block McGahn.
3
You are flat out wrong. When exactly is it time to "go to the mat"? When will it be a constitutional crisis in your eyes? Is what Barr has said and done acceptable to you? Is the White House's complete and total blackout if ANY information to Congress OK?To be honest, I thought you had some integrity and patriotism. I was wrong.
7
Hey Brooks,
Putting Trump and Nadler on the same level is sheer rubbish on your part. Nadler is one of the few people in Congress who is taking a strong stand against turning the U.S. presidency into a dictatorship, which is what Trump wants it to be. And here you come peddling a false equivalence. Give me a break! Shameful on your part.
13
Brooks just admitted via twitter that if a key premise of his column is incorrect (which, it is), then Nadler is correct.
Do better, NY Times. Stop this irrational “both sides”-ism.
13
Typical pearl clutching from Ms. Brooks. "It's all just so tawdry, it gives me the vapors!"
Mr Trump has clearly broken nearly every precedent restraining Presidential power, and it looks like he's broken many laws as well. You shouldn't blame the Democrats for calling him to account for this, just as you wouldn't scold firemen for getting water on the floor after an arsonist burned down your house.
I don't know why the Times keeps publishing this nonsense. Stop confusing simple mindedness with even-handedness.
9
Mr. Brooks, seriously, are you trolling us?
9
I'll trust my former Congressman Jerry Nadler's political instincts any day over David Brooks's.
15
Between the Obama birth certificate production and the Hilary Clinton Benghazi hearings, the previous administration was far more cooperative when the opposition was in power than it is the case now. Brooks' "both sides are doing it" argument isn't very valid.
Obviously if Republicans aren't thrown out entirely in 2020 it means that the country hasn't hit rock bottom yet. I would like nothing better than to have them be in full power again with super majorities if the voters don't vote decisively for Democrats so that they can ruin the country again. It's why we had 2018 happen and either that trend continues or it means 2016-2018 wasn't enough. It's a shame the average person has to suffer under Republican policies but if that's the price to pay for the vast majority of the country to step up and get to the polling booth (even if there is some meddling it can't go against a much higher participation rate) then so be it. Like I said, a democratic society gets the government it deserves.
2
"It took the Republicans about eight months between the time they issued a subpoena to Obama Attorney General Eric Holder... and when they actually voted to hold him in contempt of Congress. The Democrats went from subpoena to contempt in roughly three weeks."
Not nearly fast enough.
Holder and Congress had a disagreement in good faith, at least on Holder's side. This Republican administration is flatly refusing to comply with ANY Congressional subpoena, regardless of the subject or merits. As Brooks says, this is an attack on the balance of powers defined by the Constitution.
We are in a fight to save our democratic institutions. If Congress messes around for another eight months before it goes to contempt, there may be nothing left to save.
8
This article is a fine example of the problem of so-called "balanced coverage." There is no symmetry between the actions of Trump and Nadler. Trump is systematically testing and torturing the balance of powers in the federal government, in an unprecedented and dangerous pattern of power seizure. Nadler is insisting on the constitutionally mandated rights of Congress. To equate them in any sense, as David Brooks tries to do here, simply wrong.
17
So let me get this straight. So a president who has been investigated for colluding with a foreign power to win an election and, who may have obstructed justice during said investigation has the right to squelch the overseeing branch of the government with regards to seeing the complete results of said investigation? In other words, the president has basically said that he will not be overseen by the House of Representatives and that he is above the law. ("When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal") And this is not a constitutional crisis? Pray tell, Mr. Brooks, just what does it take for you to consider it a constitutional crisis? Will it take Trump arresting Rep. Nadler and other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee and throwing them in prison? Will it take Trump and Pence adjourning the House and the Senate under their interpretation of what is executive privilege? Is that the bar above which you require?
12
It's sad to see Brooks try to justify the stonewalling of Donnie and his merry men with his silly effort at equivalency. Congress has a duty to exercise its oversight. Like other authoritarian leaders that Donnie likes so much, he seeks to take total power if he can. He's packing the courts from top to bottom with radical right-wing, politically-wing activist judges hand-picked by radically right-wing groups. He has taken over the Republicans in Congress. He's installed his crooked stooges in his cabinet.
Russia interfered with our 2016 election to elect Trump, and they are doing the same thing already in our 2020 election. Trump has done everything he can to thwart an investigation into Russian interference and efforts to prevent the interference in 2020. He still denies on and off that it even happened in 2016. He takes Putin's lies over his intelligence community. He welcomes the further Russian interference because it helps him and other Republicans. He has sent his attorney to Ukraine to try to get them to interfere in the next election. What does Brooks think the Congress should do?
12
I must disagree with the fundamentals of the arguments that this columnist supports here. Calling the current situation a constitutional crisis is very much warranted, insofar as the executive branch has steadfastly refused to cooperate with congressional oversight on any level. Additionally, the attorney general's blatant misrepresentation of the Mueller report's findings was obviously designed to obfuscate the facts, allowing three full weeks of propagandistic rhetoric made via presidential tweets and so-called "fake news" articles in the MSM proclaiming "no collusion, no obstruction" to the point where much of the public believes it. Witness McConnell's proclamation: "It's over."
If these events don't warrant serious congressional action, then nothing does. Republicans like Lindsey Graham wasted no time in impeaching Bill Clinton for lying about sexual peccadilloes. We are now witnessing an administration that is systematically undermining our democratic institutions. Trump's personal lawyer is lobbying politicians in Ukraine to dig up dirt on the president's political enemies.
And all of that is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. I shudder to think what else might be going on covertly. These are truly "interesting times."
Your fellow columnist, Michelle Goldberg, has it right. You, Mr. Brooks, are dead wrong.
10
What is "tawdry" is Brooks trying to reduce this to a partisan dispute when Trump, not Congress' legitimate inquiries, has destroyed his own presidency by attempting to shred the Constitution.
9
Why shouldn't the committee get to see the entire report? Why is it guaranteed to leak? Intelligence committee's see classified information all the time. This is just an excuse and Mr Brooks is just allowing the republicans to get away with lawlessness. There is nothing the WH has or knows, that a Congressional committee can not be trusted with.
6
President Trump is STILL colluding with the Russians. Muller confirmed what the rest of the intelligence community told the president when he entered office; the Russians conducted an extensive attack on our 2016 elections. With no evidence to back his claim the president declared then and ever since that the FBI, CIA, DIA and other intelligence agencies were propagating a hoax, that Russia did not interfere. Trump stood shoulder to shoulder with the bloody handed Putin in Helsinki and accepted his "very strong denial" over the conclusion of our own intelligence services. This looks, walks, and quacks like collusion, the only other rational explanation is that Mr. Trump is too narcissisitic to admit that he had Russian help, bidden or otherwise in his "great" 2016 win.
6
Disappointing.
The Constitutional crisis is that Trump and his administration are ignoring lawful subpoenas for information Congress needs to conduct constitutionally authorized oversight.
Democrats have overstepped no boundary.
That is all on one side of the partisan divide - the lawless Republicans ..... by contrast Nixon RAN on law and order for POTUS .... Trump IS law and order - his whim IS the law book .... but Brooks finds fault with Democrats. We have a Republic, if we can keep it. That attitude doesn't help
Disappointing.
6
"If Robert Mueller isn’t blocked from testifying, hear what he has to say and then see where we are."
Mr. Brooks, do you listen to what Trump is saying? Our checks and balances are not being respected. Trump has contempt for our system. I want to know what he is hiding. Trump would be handing out copies of the Mueller investigation to every journalist if there truly was NO collusion or obstruction.
"After spending more than $35,000,000 over a two year period, interviewing 500 people, using 18 Trump Hating Angry Democrats & 49 FBI Agents - all culminating in a more than 400 page Report showing NO COLLUSION - why would the Democrats in Congress now need Robert Mueller to testify," Trump said in a pair of tweets.
"Are they looking for a redo because they hated seeing the strong NO COLLUSION conclusion? There was no crime, except on the other side (incredibly not covered in the Report), and NO OBSTRUCTION. Bob Mueller should not testify. No redos for the Dems!"
4
I am getting very tired of the theme and variations on "A Trump vs. Nadler media war is exactly what Trump wants."
Everything that requires the lawmakers who want to defend our norms of governance is a trap, in their imaginations, set by Trump.
Sure, Trump is great at creating diversions. He will say something to get the media chattering and looking in another direction. But this is not working so well anymore.
If the fight over Congress's authority also creates a media war, fine. Otherwise, it's just Trump on media, strutting and sneering. I'd rather see some of our lawmakers talking back.
3
Really? What do you expect Nadler to do? Say pretty please? Unfortunately, Trump will only respond to forceful opposition. Reason has not been shown to work with him.
7
Mr. Brooks, there is a constitutional crisis. The laws do not cover every eventuality, and the fine points are covered by "trust" and " convention" (eg stare decisis). Mr. Nadler is attempting to return to "convention", though perhaps some may view at the expense of "trust" which has never been exhibited by Trump. The breach has been consistent with Mr. Trump for more than 2 years, encouraging hyper-partisanship all the time, every day. Mr. Nadler does not have a bully pulpit, a robust tweet account or 2.5 years of leadership, so equating the two is asking the lamb to stop being unfair to the lion.
6
I have not read a single comment critical of this column that puts up a defense of Nadler pushing for contempt of Congress, because the Attorney General insists on redacting less than one percent of the report, based on what is required by the law. Apparently, they hate Trump, but cannot muster a defense of an attack on the sanctity of classified, grand jury, and investigative information. Barr has been extraordinarily transparent regarding the Mueller Report. He has used every mechanism possible to make 99.9 percent of the report available in record time. Yet, some information must remain protected if we are to remain a nation of laws. But the Democrats will never cease their attack on the rule of law.
1
@Charles If that was all Barr did wrong, it is still enough.
Congress has every right to the full Mueller Report. Period. EVERY MEMBER is presumed to hold secrets properly. Further, grand jury or other methods/sources info can be withheld to all but leadership on House committees, no problemo.
Barr is obstructing justice. He refused to show up. He refused to pass on the full Mueller Report. He lied about what Mueller's Report indicated and concluded. He is a fraud and traitor, seeking to cover up crimes by a corrupt president, rather than act properly as the AG for We, the People. Shame on Barr for his party over nation immorality and lawlessness. Shame on those who pretend "case closed".
3
The premise of this column seems to be a false-equivalency between Trump (or Barr) and Nadler. That does not exist.
I concede that the system is breaking down, but Democrats have for years gone with half measures. That does not work when Republicans are willing to put party first - which is what they are doing. Any fair reading of the Mueller report in a redacted form would call for, at the very least, condemnation of Trump. Instead we hear 'case closed'. It is clear that Republican leaders will not conduct oversight.
I can forgive Nadler some eagerness when compared to the utter disregard for checks and balances displayed by the president with complicity by Republicans.
10
@Paul
I've been reading quite a bit on fascism lately, There was a point when the idea would have been preposterous. Not now. Not at all. The worst conspiracy of our time is close to a reality.
Funny how when a writer takes an even handed approach to a current issue people on the left cannot help to question his motives or judgment. This is exactly what is wrong with our country today. The value one puts on another persons ideas is directly related to where they sit on the political spectrum. I for one find it refreshing to hear from someone who can look at both sides of an issue and fairly criticize the actions that he finds objectionable. I hope the Mr. Brooks continues to speak with an objective voice. There are already too many people who play to their base and sow discord.
1
Well it's not quite Trump's 'there are good people on both sides,' but there is a false equivalence here - Trump is engaged in an all out attack against oversight, Nadler rejected Barr's setting the terms for his testimony. Trump's bullying tactics have no doubt worked and they will continue to ... until they don't. And then - like a house of cards - he will fall down. Thud.
3
"If the House of Representatives wants to preserve its oversight power on the executive branch"
The only way to lose this oversight power is to repeal the Constitution. This President is more than a spoiled child. He is trying to render the Constitution meaningless and create a de-facto Dictatorship of the Donald. We cannot allow this to happen in any way shape or form. Unless there are a few Republican officeholders who want to stand up to the tyrant, we are indeed in a crisis.
5
As a former prosecutor and a current litigator, I can say that rarely is an entire document privileged, much less an entire stack of privilege. I would believe and honor the President's assertion much more if had been more selective. There may be Grand Jury documents, for example, but if the document was presented elsewhere, it is not covered by Grand Jury secrecy. Not everything utterance made by or to a President is privileged. The White House should have adopted a more nuanced approach, but Trump is incapable of nuance.
4
I'm surprised and disappointed Mr. Brooks has lost sight of the fact that Mr. Trump has brought his life-long disdain for any rules except his own to the presidency. His rules are there are no rules. He will do what he wants to do whenever it suits him. So this is not just about Nadler wanting, and with good reason, all of Mueller's work product. Trump and his subordinates' rejection of all Constitutionally mandated oversight, violation of statutory command, all folded under failure to faithfully execute the laws, must be opposed. It will get worse if opposition is not successful.
All of Mueller is required, and likely more, to most effectively and timely implement election protections to secure elections from foreign interference. We cannot afford missteps in legislating, including allocating resources.
9
I would not want to share a beer with Jerry Nadler. But puhleeze Mr Brooks don't even hint at an equivalence with Trump or Barr, whom I believe you congratulated for releasing the Report at all, even though it did not make Trump look very good. He is not Trump's lawyer.
I know you have a position to defend as the Gray Lady's House Republican, but surely such mental pretzel exercises bring no good to Republicans nor to conservatives.
8
There is a kernel of insight in this generally incorrect piece. (Incorrect because Trump's lawlessness and hence impeachable offenses go much beyond Nadler and Mueller).
It is the observation that Trump wants a full bore mud "wrassling" fight with the Democrats. He's a shallow showman, conman and non-reader (the latter "quality" on full view at his rallies in that adoring audience). He and his base don't "do" issues or analysis. They do combat and invective.
Let's hear from Mueller. On the tax returns it is likely we'll get his organization's and his personal state tax returns anyway which will tell us a lot if not the full picture. Let's also concentrate on 2020 and the hardening of our election infrastructure. Removal by electoral defeat.
What good is voting a bill of impeachment anyway when the GOP Senate will laugh at it and use it for fundraising? Analogies to Watergate are false primarily because there was then a sense of propriety and comity which hasn't existed in years. There are no Goldwaters left now that Flack and McCain are gone from the Senate. Who will tell Trump to resign or face conviction and removal? No one.
6
Tawdry: showy but cheap and of poor quality. I think we all know who's really tawdry here, don't we Mr. Brooks? The POTUS is tawdry. Republicans who voted for such a candidate are not only tawdry but irresponsible. Republican members of Congress who continue to remain silent in light of these obstructions of justice are tawdry. Wanting to find the truth is not tawdry.
11
This administration* has flatly refused to respond to any requests for information, whether written or in the form of direct testimony, on any component of its behavior and you want to declare that that's okay because there might be one tiny iota of information in the redacted Mueller report that is covered by executive privilege? That's really the hill you want to die on? This is no constitutional crisis for show. This is the real thing. And while you're so busy shilling for the current corrupt version of conservatism, you're going to miss the whole thing. The legislative branch has a legitimate, Constitutionally-authorized duty of oversight. The executive branch has a duty to comply with only very narrow exceptions. This executive branch operates in complete contempt of those Constitutional bounds. Congressman Nadler has it right. You don't. Can I hold you in contempt?
6
The constitutional crisis began the day an unqualified and unfit psychopath exploited a weakness in our electoral process to reach the highest office and begin an unchecked abuse of power.
8
May 10, 2019
How the Five estates function participatory in the matters of our constitutional applications has and always will be predicated on the Federalist papers that was as well a war - and internal war of how we approve the authority and power of executing our laws and for the well being of how we must never allow for the devastation of the balances in all - vertical and horizontal participatory actions for governing and leading our electorate with grace and virtue's vitality for all times. Thanks Mr. Brooks
1
I'd like to know what David Brooks would suggest doing after the Trump administration, inevitably blocks Robert Meuller from testifying before Congress? To often, Brooks, makes his case for bi-partisan civility on the false assumption that if the Democrats play nice - like with the Merrick Garland nomination - the Republican's will follow suit. It's a nice, but incredibly naive sentiment and hardly a realistic one.
7
I do not even know how to respond to you David. Our Democracy is being torn asunder and you take the time to find fault and try to frame Nadler as playing politics, etc. You should instead, find the courage to stand up to this President, your fellow Republicans and their egregious attack on our country. There is nothing that justifies his willful attacks on our Constitution and his total disregard for it. I do not agree with all of Nadlers decisions and wish that we would be more aggressive in our defense against this man and the Republicans who have joined forces with him. We shall see who lands with their integrity in tact. Yours is showing cracks, yet again.
I would rather you spend your time openly criticizing Trump and every Republican who are spitting in the face of our founders, those who died defending our way of life and the people they swore to serve. Shame..
11
It is clear that David Brooks objects to the current state of the GOP, but one wonders why he pens columns like this which go through such contortions to keep up the false equivalence game. We are not in normal times and he knows the GOP is deeply compromised by Trump. There are multiple rules and norms that Trump has blown through, and now we are getting to the law and the Constitution. To argue Nadler is the one uncorking something dangerous, is actually dangerous itself and aids Trumps grass roots supporters in thinking this is just Ds being partisan. When in fact we facing a constitutional emergency that we all knew was likely to come from Trump being Trump. Congressional Rs, some of them at least, must know what a cancer on the republic Trump is and that he will sacrifice them all to save himself. As Comey put it, he will eat their soul. To round on Nadler and claim he and partisan Ds just want to destroy Trump's presidency when Trump's presidency has been a kind of destructive performance art from the start is simply beyond gobsmacking.
Mr Brooks really should be putting pressure on the GOP partisans to find it within them to live up to their oath of office instead of using sophistry to fog the issues. Behold what the GOP are now doing to Sen Burr for honestly engaging in a piece of Congressional oversight. Lying to Congress is an offence no matter who does it, it is not a partisan issue. Pieces like this one from Brooks help normalise the idea that it is.
6
Mr. Brooks, you need to devote more of his considerable intelligence to making sure he gets things right. Neither logic or careful checking of facts has ever been your strength, but now this weakness is undermining your moral reasoning. Comparing Barr's protection of a lawless President to Eric Holder's response to a Congressional stunt driven by gun control opponents? "Sure, William Barr distorted the report in his initial summary . . . " People who use logic weren't fooled, but you were, Mr. Brooks, demanding apologies from Adam Schiff and Beto O'Rourke for saying what we always knew, and the Mueller report confirmed: there was plenty of collusion. Still waiting for you to admit, Mr. Brooks, that you got that wrong.
4
I agree.
Mueller should appear, in public hearing and for the information that had to be redacted for lawful reasons he should appear in a closed session. The Congress could then get on with their work and decide on whether or not to proceed with acting on what they have learned.
There are several legislative alternative paths that could be taken after the hearing: (1) establishment of a capability to prevent election tampering, (2) establishment of public disclosure requirements for all candidates seeking elected office, (3) establishment of better rules for campaign finance -- dark money, (4) establishment of rules of ethics by candidates and elected officials who use their public office for personal gain and (5) possible referral of what was learned in the hearing is of sufficient gravity and harm to the public interest to refer to the House for impeachment.
1
David,
Even if I agreed with everything you wrote in this column--which I do not--it would beg the question: where were you when Republicans launched dozens of investigations into the Obama administration over smaller and generally flimsier reasons?
Where were you when Republicans launched more investigations of Hillary Clinton's role as Secretary of State than they did of 9/11/2001, the misleading intelligence used to send us into Iraq and get many of our soldiers and their civilians killed, and the missing $8b in cash--combined? Then admitted they were doing it just to stomp down her polling numbers?
I am fine with you saying there should be a standard and that it should be a universal standard, but it's difficult for me to take right now in the wake of all the times you ignored or downplayed the hyperpartisan mess coming from the GOP.
Track records matter. So do apologies, when warranted, and apologies are something that only seem to come from one side of the aisle when it comes to ethics and policy, excepting the occasional GOP legislator caught in an affair or sexual assault.
5
It is utterly disingenuous to characterize any of the House Democrats' efforts to meet this particular President's wide-ranging malfeasance in office as Congress using "its power simply to destroy the president." If anything, recent events demonstrate not Congressional overreach but Congressional impotence for lack of effective and timely tools to deal with so brazen an assault on democratic norms and the rule of law.
Brooks is once again posturing as a centrist while effectively flacking for Trump, repeating and putting a pseudo-intellectual gloss on GOP talking points, while pretending the issue before us is one of the legislative versus the executive in the abstract, as if we were all college freshman arguing over distant realities we don't understand late into the night in our dorm rooms. This is real. The threat we face is a Constitutional crisis and it emanates from only one branch of government: the executive under this particular president. If there's anything simple here, it's that an imperative reaffirmation of American democracy demands this presidency be "destroyed."
8
Once again, it seems like Mr. Brooks is very eager to declare that "both sides are doing it."
Yup, the Democrats are overplaying things and may be blowing it. But as I used to tell my mother when she declared both sides in a sibling battle to be guilty: they started it!
And they, the Republicans, started it!
I think that Mr. Brooks continues to try to play the long game: avoid a spiraling battle between the evil Trump team and everyone else, for the good of the country and to bring back some unity. But if one side -- the Republicans -- is so much more guilty than the other, is this viable?
I don't know.
3
Noreen Marcus: I totally agree with your analysis. I am so disappointed that David Brooks, and others, do not acknowledge the danger of the stonewalling tactics being employed by Trump and his administration. I follow David Brooks and don’t always agree with his analyses. I do normally respect his sincerity but in this column something does not ring true.
8
David--
You have completely disregarded the principal of the straw that broke the camel's back. If it were just this one thing, no one, the Democratic members of Congress included, would react this way. But using your line of reasoning, no one would ever do anything, because any one transgression would not be enough. It is the totality and enormity of what our interim president and his enablers have done that causes this reaction. if anything, it is overdue, and the proximate cause is not meaningful.
As for securing a conviction in the Senate, that should not be the deciding factor in impeachment. The prosecutor who has never lost a case has not tried all the right cases. Sometimes principles must prevail over practical outcomes. I would have thought you would have learned the disastrous consequences of placing a win over a principle from this current administration.
You are usually more insightful than this. You seem to have lost your edge. Maybe a vacation is in order. I am disappointed in you.
6
As usual, the tiresome Mr. Brooks wants the Dems to make nice, while the Republicans are pouring boiling oil over the ramparts. Sometimes the best defense is offense, especially when the person in question is offensive in oh so many ways.
11
Mr. Brooks starts his column with several nasty references to President Trump, almost certainly because he wants to soothe the ruffled feelings of Times readers, who, if "Comments" is any indication, are overwhelmingly left of center, before proceeding. But the whole point of the article is that Rep. Nadler and the other Democrats pushing for the president's impeachment are going at this in such a hateful, whole-hog way as to destroy their own credibility, and that their actions are dictated almost exclusively by politics rather than by any longing for justice. The term "Constitutional Crisis" is laughable at this stage, but isn't it interesting that every newspaper, TV and/or radio commentator, blog host, etc. used that exact term yesterday to describe the situation, almost as if they'd gotten it right out of the Democratic 2020 Presidential Campaign Handbook? Mr. Brooks might want, at some time in the near future, to examine the incestuous relationship between the Democratic Party and the news media that dictates such unanimity of hyperbolic phrase-turning.
1
The House Republicans include about 100 attorneys. It would be really interesting to know whether their private, anonymous legal opinions about this match their public comments.
4
Mr. Brooks: Your final paragraph begins, "My advice to Democrats: If Robert Mueller isn't blocked from testifying, hear what he has to say and then see where we are." And if he IS blocked from testifying? What's your advice to Democrats then?
7
@Remy
I shouldn't have to point this out to you, but Mr. Brooks' advice to them would be to then do what they're already doing. His point is that they are jumping the gun so precipitously that they are injuring their own credibility in the process. Look at the example he gave in which the Republicans took 8 months to hold AG Holder in contempt after their subpoena had been issued, while Nadler has done the same in a mere three weeks. Interpretation?: No give and take, thank you, because we issued the subpoena hoping you would not respond to it so that we could issue a contempt citation. Why? Obviously, to keep the matter before the public so that our actions will look like impeachment proceedings (which they are not). What Brooks is unwilling to say in these hallowed pages is that it is all a waste of time, because even if they were successful in impeaching Trump, it would never be confirmed by the Senate, so the only possible reason to do this is to impede a possible Trump win in 2020, a victory made more likely with every ensuing action of this kind taken by the Democrats.
1
Ah, David displays the strain to come across as "fair and balanced" and the flaw to seize a few points to support the conclusion he wants, rather than a thorough consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Like many who refer to themselves as "conservatives," David wants to come across as the calm, reasonable, at least somewhat avuncular, person who will keep the "extremists" at bay.
Conservatives like David are suckers for "false equivalency" because they seem to need to seek it, even when it does not exist, so they can come across as the "grown up in the room" who will help those pesky extremists find common ground. But he is naïve.
What David is missing is that political parties have always had extremists and wing nuts and always will because they, too, help represent citizens (even the ignorant and misguided). The rough and tumble of politics has never lent itself to leading with one's reasonable, middle-ground, settling point, and believing all will come running to you.
The difference is the leadership. Now, for the first time in a long time, we have a leader who can allow her party members to be heard, yet keep the Republic focused on big things. It's ok for Nadler to say and do what he can because a grown up the room in Speaker Pelosi. Trump is not. McConnell is not. So they never show the gravitas or political skills to offset nonsense or worse.
If the Republic survives too-many-things-Trump, it will be because of Nancy Pelosi
6
Last paragraph says, Dems should wait for Mueller to testify. That is a poor recommendation, inadequate to the situation, unless you are banking on Mueller to soothe the troubled waters by stating outrageous facts in a restrained manner, which would contribute to normalization.
I am waiting not for more information from Mueller (I've read the report), but for new and greater offenses from Trump such that even Senate Republicans (looking at you, Lindsay Graham) will grow a spine and be willing to end this miserable administration.
5
As people complain about the polarization of the electorate and the non-affiliated feel superior, let's be real: There is only one reason why we are so polarized.
Because the GOP has gone off the deep end with it's errant ideology and bizarre notions of the meaning of freedom.
The Christians have corrupted their religion and shamed America with guns, wars, incarceration, inequality, and now with callus disregard for the environment.
Liberals have not moved. If any of our positions have been adopted it is because they were necessary.
Now, tell me how biased I am.
5
I think you can distinguish between the full Mueller report and all the evidence acquired. The latter may contain information that should be kept confidential. Brooks is a little too even handed here. There is an important principle that Nadler is defending. Trump is simply trying to remain unaccountable. Pelosi has it right. Trump is trying to goad Congress into impeaching him.
3
Mr. Brooks, you are ignoring the fact that the president has withheld from the appropriate committees ALL requested documents, not just the full, unredacted Mueller Report.
6
Sideshow. There is only a single issue which needs to be revealed, discussed, solved and implemented: to what degree did Russia interfere with our election(s).
This is not a morality play. It is a simple question of who is defending the USA?
2
There are many things are wrong with this column. Others have pointed out many of them. I want to add two more weaknesses or errors.
Why should the Democrats accept the letter from the Assistant Attorney General which was made "available to top Democrats" ?That smacks of the the limiting tactics Nixon tried to avoid his eventual downfall
Your quotation from former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger doesn't add much. All he said was that among the millions of pages sought by the Democrats there might be some that contain matters for which a genuine claim of executive privilege might be made. That is a matter usually referred to a judge to decide ,exactly as the Democrats want as noted in your prior paragraph.
Altogether, a poor column.
5
It is surprising (but not shocking) that David Brooks would offer a set of opinions that would so loudly invite systematic deconstruction. Impossible in 1500 characters but also difficult to resist. His first point states our political choices require decisions between right & wrong. Framing any political debate, on any issue in that fashion obviously excludes the possibility of compromise. If Mr. Brooks intends to push political discussion further in the direction irreconcilable hostility, he is on the right track. The numerous, complex issues & the solutions that need to be addressed by our democracy overwhelmingly exist on a continuum of better vs. worse. The premise that our two political parties or the liberal/conservative political philosophies can be sorted by anointing one side with moral superiority and condemning the other with the stench of evil is the strategy of authoritarians. Proceeding further in an unfortunate direction, Mr. Brooks asserts that confronting Mr. Trump for his conduct risks damage to our democracy. By any reasonable standard, Mueller's investigation found that Trump obstructing the investigation of Russia's manipulation of the 2016 election. It would be unconscionable not to proceed with further investigation. The conflict the author claims to fear is already raging and can only be resolved by a good faith attempt at impeachment. Apparently Mr. Brooks is compelled to defend the minority who voted for Trump, rather than the majority who did not!
4
What a splendid example of both sidism! The Trump administration tramples on every norm that ensures good and fair government. It is corrupt to the core, putting foxes in charge of every cabinet hen house. If anyone thinks there is no collaboration between Trump and Putin, please review the Helsinki press conference. It’s also very clear that Trump has been enabling money laudering for years. The Republicans show contempt for democracy, crudely suppressing votes and the power of Blue states at every turn. And Brooks is upset that the first “crisis” is over a smaller matter. The absurdity of this comparison is killing me.
10
Mr. Brooks, the reason the democrats went from zero to 60 so fast is we have had 2 and a half years of lies, illegal policy moves, threats, shameless vocal drivel, obstruction of justice, etc. from trump, and that is enough of this corrupt administration...Most of the US is sick of trump. Most of the US did not vote for him. He did not even win the popular vote. And of course he did not reach out to try to meet any democratic policy half way. So do not be surprised if we/they push back. The world will be a much better place when Don the Con is out of the White House.
10
Brooks is friendless as a former Republican trying to maintain principles of good governance. But he wants his old friends back so every article he writes has this premise: "Trump is really horrible but you know what? Both sides are doing horrible things. " His comparing Fast & Furious sequence to this is especially shaky. It was of minor concern to Americans as a whole; this has to do with the legitimacy of our leadership and the credibility of our elections. I really don't think Republicans are going to see him as fair-minded just because he's unfairly blasting Democrats.
7
If it’s only the illegality of sharing grand jury evidence, then Barr and Nadler should together seek court permission for the members of the relavent committees to see the unredacted report—with the promise that any leaker will face contempt.
Mr. Brooks--It is disingenuous, at best, to suggest that the demand for the unredacted Muller report is the reason for the declared constitutional crisis. Your reasoning reminds me of the most glib, surface-only thinking of Fox News. Shame on you--you're better than this.
7
Well it looks like Brooks has returned to the Republican fold. This piece is just one big, tawdry false equivalence.
9
While I'm aware that headline writers do their job separately from the writers of articles, this headline suggesting that Mr. Nadler is somehow as tawdry as Trump is infuriating--and deceptive.
Mr. Brooks' statement that Congress "has to be willing to use its power in positive ways to improve the governance of this country" willfully overlooks the fact that the House of Representatives must address AG Barr's lies and deceptions regarding the Mueller Report. This seems to be Mr. Brooks' reiteration of McConnell's comment that, re the Mueller Report, "it's over".
Mr. Brooks' calm and seemingly reasonable demeanor is in stark contrast to the bombastic Trump--but, sadly, his message is virtually the same.
9
"Trump is not the only villain": indeed, the spineless GOP senators and congressmen who refuse to defend our constitution and dishonor their oath of office by their derelict and shameless support of Dear Leader are villains as well. In contrast, Nadler is a towering patriot and a beacon of integrity. Shame on you David Brooks for seeking harmony, appeasement, where indignation against all that Trump stands for and has done is the only possible reaction of any true-blooded American.
7
David, Your argument is what 'is for show'. You've skipped over the corruption, lying, and obstruction of justice, reducing the destruction of political norms to a 'tawdry' war.
Trump has already been shown to obstruct justice, violate campaign finance laws, obstruct justice and undermined any efforts to protect the US against Russian influence on the electoral. Against this background, your argument is sophistry at best. ... and dangerous for our future.
8
The rules of the game have changed as the 2020 elections approach. We are no longer looking over the long term where the possibility of mutual benefit via a bit of give and take was still out there. Nope. Now it is time to position the party to grab the golden ring. The winner of this game will the the one who happens to be on top on election night.
2
Mr. Brooks is missing the point. Unless and until the American public reaches the point that they want Mr. Trump removed from office, impeachment will fail. But the only way for the American public to reach that point is for impeachment hearings to begin - so that Americans can hear and see for themselves what has happened. (The Mueller Report was never going to be an effective vehicle for that.)
Mr. Nadler and Ms Pelosi understand this; it's why they are pressing forward. If the are successful in bringing the public along, as happened in the Watergate hearings, it's highly likely Mr. Trump will resign, just as Mr. Nixon did when the public finally turned on him and he understood the Senate would convict him.
Press on Mr. Nadler - you and your fellow Democratic leaders are doing not only the right thing but also the politically practical thing.
6
Nobody on either side of the larger Trump v. Nadler fight is acting in good faith. We need a healing presence in the White House, and the only way to get there is for the Democrats to GOVERN and run smart campaigns that emphasize the peril of NOT unifying the party, and then de-Balkanizing the country. Mayor Pete, John Hickenlooper, or Tim Ryan could unify, but first the Democrats have to prove they are honest dealers and act in the best interests of all of us by legislating!
1
Brooks is wrong about why Rep. Nadler has declared a constitutional crisis. It’s because of Trump’s complete stonewalling of and utter contempt for the Democratic - controlled House. This cannot go unchecked. Brooks would have us believe Nadler is just having a hissyfit over .1 percent of the Mueller report. That’s intellectually dishonest and I'm surprised at this usually spot-on columnist.
373
@Noreen Marcus I am not surprised.
25
@Noreen Marcus Intellectually dishonest is a good way to put it.
David Brooks uses the term "appeasement" in an awfully odd way. He claims Democrats are appeasing their political base.
They might be indulging them, but it would be appeasement in the post-Munich sense if they gave their tacit approval to all Trump does, or refuses to do. David Brooks is asking the Democrats to acquiesce in Trump's corruption of the system -- pure appeasement.
Whatever hand-wringing he might do over Trump, he's normalizing the president's undemocratic behavior, plain and simple. I don't know if impeachment is a good idea or not, but now is the time to make a stand against an out-of-control president.
Trump's trying to con the whole country that he was exonerated on obstruction, when Mueller's report and his letter indicate differently. Maybe those millions of documents contain some material in which executive privilege applies. It also contains the information that led Mueller to his conclusions. A blanket attempt to squelch the whole bunch of it is an attempt to obstruct Congress's oversight of an obstruction of justice case. It heaps obstruction upon obstruction.
Yet David Brooks wants the House Democrats to wait for "some other day" when it would be better to stand up to the president. Some other day might never come. Brooks has accepted Trump's lies. He just wants the Democrats to take no action and get steamrolled.
72
@Noreen Marcus
You're so right . Brook's thrust here is baffling.
He had a chance to shine a bright and piercing light on the lawlessness for not just all of us but especially those Republicans in the House and Senate who may still be able to feel some shame and, instead, he chose to do a "Rosenstein".
41
why is Brooks allowed to publish? everything he writes misses the point
5
“This constitutional crisis is just for show. Partly the Democrats want the show because it just feels good to bash the administration.”
Eh, acknowledging that Mr Brooks is a well versed commentator in the area of philosophy of thought as manifested in social behavior trends, those two sentences quoted above from his commentary on the current political mayhem, reiterate clearly his generally narrowly formed and predictably shallow adherence to his position as Politically Conservative opinionater, and these words quoted from “Mike” below here,
“A nakedly autocratic president is destroying every norm that supports our democracy, and Mr. Brooks plays the game of false equivalence. “ state it as obviously as it often is with Mr Brooks. Exactly, Mike. Thanks for
submitting it so concisely. Mr Brooks needs an intervention addressing his failure to live up to his otherwise cognitively genuine analyses of
the philosophies driving both damaged and gifted social behaviors as he does . By the way Mr Brooks, AG Holder was held in contempt in connection to a singular law enforcment agency policy screw up, with a resulting death and coverup , that had been originated Before his time as AG, meanwhile, AG Barr has Across the Board! initiated His Own “ unitary executive power “ ideology-driven assault on Constitutional Article 1 Congressional oversight basis . Yes Mike , false equivalency as glaring as it can possibly be articulated !
4
Mr Brooks paints this as Democratic overreach because their request for the unredacted Mueller report was denied. The Democratic characterization of our current state of affairs is based on a much wider belligerence that includes the illegal withholding of tax returns, the prohibition of all members of the administration from testifying before Congress, the suit against Deutschebank to prevent them from complying with subpoenas for bank records, in fact a complete denial that Congress has any authority to investigate. Seen from that perspective, it is not congressional Democrats who are guilty of overreach; it is Trump and his administration.
6
David...really? You're gonna hurt yourself trying to twist this into an equivalency situation. It seems to me that you are a bit more dyed-in-the-wool Right Winger than I had previously thought. If you can't see the necessity for a response to the obfuscatory, mendacious behavior of Trump and, dishearteningly, Barr I just think you're out of touch with the grim reality of the present state of our country.
9
For a pundit to be good at his job, he has to be able to hold two ideas in his head simultaneously. The first is have a position; that's the easy part. The second is explain that position in terms of reality, so that others can understand and potentially agree with his logic.
Mr. Brooks has no problem with the first part.
But, he has had an increasing problem with the second.
To wit, Rep Nadler is acting within his rights, and is acting on behalf of the entire congress, and not because of a few missing sentences in a 400-page report.
Congress is a co-equal branch of government, and oversight of the executive branch is part of their job.
It is not for Mr. Brooks to claim that only when something is "positive" that it is legitimate, even though standing up for one's rights, for norms that have done this country well, and for one's government is generally positive.
It is not that Congress is trying use their power to "simply destroy the president," they are not.
And it shows Mr. Brooks lack of understanding to claim that anyone in Trump's position would "clam up and refuse to cooperate." That is not an option in terms of what the law explicitly states.
Our government is supposed to work by process, not personalities. Means are supposed to justify ends. If Trump broke the law & the Justice Department declines to prosecute, then it is up to Congress to act. No one is above the law. Not the Attorney General, not the President. Mr. Brooks should know that by now.
6
While I agree with you about grandstanding (for example, fighting the redaction of the Mueller report in the media is idiotic, if the administration is claiming that the redactions were necessary because of grand jury proceedings and ongoing investigations, take it to court and let a Judge decide if they are doing this because of ongoing investigations, or doing it to protect Trump. When the Nixon administration tried to block the publication of the Pentagon papers, they argued "national security", the judge ruled it was about political sensitivity, and let it be published). Likewise, if Trump claims executive privilege, take it to court and let a judge decide if they have the right to do this.
On the other hand, I agree with other posts, David is quick to blame the Democrats, but is amazingly silent with the notion that checks and balances requires a congress who understands the notion of that, who understands their role is as a congressman or senator, not as a member of a party. What the GOP by sucking up to Trump has forgotten is that a Democratic president is going to take the same liberties, if not more, than Trump did; the GOP was enraged at Obama's use of executive orders, Trump in 28 months has issue multiples of what Obama did in 8 years.
The real crisis is that many, especially the GOP, are putting party over the country, and it is pathetic.
4
Brook's argument boils down to this: Democrats are "undermining the way the system of oversight is supposed to work" by demanding access to the unredacted report. Not releasing to the public mind you, but just to accessing it.
Of course, this opinion is wrong for two reasons. First, Congress has oversight responsibilities. How are they supposed to exercise that responsibility if they can't see the full report? Make it classified or force legislators to view in secured facilities, but to categorically deny the request frustrates the exercise of these constitutionally delegated responsibilities.
Second, the White House was given access to the full unredacted report. Thus, Trump--the very subject of the investigation--knows about the unredacted portions, while Congress--the very people that are supposed to be overseeing the President--do not. Imagine a situation where the FBI gives a suspected criminal access to a full investigative report while providing the prosecutor with only a redacted version. That would obviously be absurd, but it's almost exactly what is happening here.
Brooks is being willfully ignorant by trying to play this dispute off as a "both sides" issue.
6
Both parties must turn away from any thoughts of “winning” for the American people by achieving a position of Empire through a ‘unitary Emperor’.
“We can’t be an Empire”
1
"Both Sides Do it" is the dying refuge of someone trying to defend the indefensible, and the fig leaf that a lot of never/non-trumpers use to defend the rest of the Republican party.
You're better than that, Mr. Brooks. As a pundit with a national audience, you have an obligation to be forthright in your role as 'referee'. Don't let yourself be bullied into casting aspersions at both parties when only one has gone completely foul.
5
This one is quite simple: Congress is doing its job. This isn’t a silly little example of gamesmanship. Rather, It’s an example of one branch of government doing exactly what it’s supposed to be doing while the other, the executive branch, is having a temper tantrum. I’m mystified, Mr. Brooks, as to why you continue to be an apologist for the President and his cohorts.
3
The whole thing is a charade and has little to do with releasing the report, redacted or unredacted.
What Nadler is doing is setting up the defense of Comey, Brennan, McCabe, Strzok et al. He is their de facto lawyer at this point. The seemingly senseless attacks on Barr are preparation for the certain contretemps on the horizon. The first thing a good defense lawyer does is attack the prosecution-- Barr in this case.
Democrats are setting the stage by demonizing the Attorney General as "Trump's lawyer." Of course, they don't mention that a newly elected president was accused by the departing administration of treason---the most serious charge you can level at an elected official--- based on specious evidence that was handsomely paid for by the losing candidate in the election.
Comey did an interview on CNN yesterday that confirmed they are going to push the obstruction of justice charges against Trump, as if Trump didn't have valid reasons to end an investigation that evidence now shows was based on scurrilous information provided by the Russians to his opponent in the election and then leaked to the media by the highest ranking members of the Obama Administration.
The real show will begin with the release of the IG's report. I suspect that will pull punches as it did in the last one. Then will come Barr's findings and possible indictments. As former AG Mukasey said the other day, "Barr is not a man easily deterred."
A
33
@Dougal E If Trump was exonerated by the Mueller report, why wouldn't he want to provide 100% cooperation with Congress instead of stonewalling EVERYTHING that has been requested of him.
From where I sit, Trump is the most recognized personality on the planet today, yet we know almost nothing about him thanks to his constant string of lying, unwillingness to reveal anything (!) about his business or anything about his taxes. The guy with the funny hair and strangled syntax throws up a smoke screen a hundred miles thick around him. Ever wonder why he does that? I do, and so do many of the American people whose representatives sit in the US Congress.
36
@Dougal E I have a lot of cognitive dissonance over your letter. The Russians were feeding the Clinton campaign dirt on Trump? Hard to explain why they spent a lot of time and money out of the IRA where the young Boris Botonov's and Natasha Faketell's churned out reams of anti-Clinton propaganda. People have looked and they haven't found any anti-Trump propaganda flowing out of the IRA. What scurrilous information by who in the Obama administration? Couldn't find any secret Trump campaign e-mails provided by Wikileaks -unlike the e mails from the Clinton Campaign and Democratic Party that were made public seemingly on command. The truth is that President Obama tried to organize a bi-partisan coalition to publicly denounce Russian meddling and McConnell turned him down. Even though Trump's prime Senate defender Lindsey Graham has held that the Russians interfered with the election Trump has never publicly concurred. A side question to you and all the Trump defenders. When a President of the United States says that he believes a foreign adversary more that he believe our own Intelligence services - doesn't give you in the words of Han Solo - a bad feeling about this?
41
@Dougal E
It's really disheartening that fellow citizens can look at everything that's happening and come to these conclusions.
Your conspiracy theories fall apart on a couple levels. First, there is no need to "defend" Comey, Brennan, McCabe, Strzok, etc. They were tasked with investigating the President and his campaign and they did so. The Mueller report makes it incredibly clear that there was a solid basis for the investigation on both issues, even if they did not ultimately rise to the level of indictable offenses as Barr concluded (and with which many legal experts, including former DOJ prosecutors, disagree). Wray--Trump's hand-picked FBI director--even rejected Barr and Trump's allegation that there was "spying." So what exactly do they need to defend? Doing their job?
Second, Obama did not ever accuse Trump of treason. It's not even worth explaining this because its so demonstrably untrue. The most they ever did was say, after the election, that Russia meddled in the election, which they did and which at that point was clear to anyone paying attention. They never once accused Trump of being involved in the meddling.
You also imply that Trump was justified in trying to shut down the investigation because it was based on "scurrilous information." So should all targets of investigation be able to obstruct justice as long as they believe they are innocent? The lengths you are going to justify clearly inappropriate behavior is very worrying.
41
I am currently reading Tony Judt's brilliant conversation with Timothy Snyder, "Thinking the Twentieth Century" (2012).
In it he includes some extensive remarks on David Brooks; how little he actually knows, how low is his awareness of that fact, his cavalier attitude toward the truth and what matters in defense of his position as de factor intellectual when in fact he's worst than a hack, he's destructive of good intellectual inquiry.
It's a great book (and reflects very seriously about how we get the mindset we currently own, how we think) by one of our premier independent thinkers and historians (Judt authored "Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945" (2005) ). The notion that Brooks is good enough to hold the position he does is a stunning misconception, hence his punditry is practically laughable.
4
@CK It doesn't occur to you that his weaknesses were precisely the reason the Times hired him as their "conservative" (I use the term loosely) counterweight?
You will never see a great conservative polemicist like Mark Steyn at the NYT. He would be too effective. He would have impact and give all you liberals the vapors.
2
@Dougal E - You do use terms loosely.
I don't think there is even a resemblance of equivalence here. I don't remember Obama ever flatly refusing to turn over ANY documents or refusing to allow anyone to testify.
<"It has to be willing to use its power in positive ways to improve the governance of this country.">
I can think of no more positive way to improve governance of this country than to remove Trump from the White House.
6
The difficulty with the Brooks definition of being a moderate, it seems, is that every situation, no matter how extreme, is approached with the same tactic. Looking at both sides can be a laudatory tactic in some cases, but when you have an extremist like Trump in office, the desperate attempt to continue to say both sides are partially at fault descends into self-parody. Barr welcomed the contempt citation, which he could have easily avoided by testifying to the House. Again and again, the Trump administration's tactic has been to stonewall any oversight. Nadler is doing his best in this difficult circumstance to force some accountability. It is a hard task. When you have an administration with no ethics or respect for the role of Congress, it is scary how easy it is to avoid oversight. To suggest that Nadler should have delayed months more when the Trump administration clearly has no interest in compromise, is to allow that sort of stonewalling to become the tactic of choice of any administration attempting to move us into an autocracy. It is indeed a constitutional crisis. I am not sure whether our system will survive, but it certainly won't without quick and definitive actions from Congress.
7
Hear! Hear!@Edward Einhorn Heaqr! Hear!
1
How about another option?
As much as I disdain the Penze-Dispenser, have the president resign and we can move on from this.
1
Very disappointed, David. That you could put the names Trump and Nadler in the same heading and label them tawdry is, well, tawdry. You and all of us have become numb to the thousands of outlandish things coming from Trump and his minions. Now your writing has become numb. You may have to stick to your philosophy columns.
7
Funny Mr Brooks - who has in the past identified as a moderate conservative.. ( I am not sure that label even applies to him anymore ?) Makes the rather neutral / vanilla observation that maybe the Democrats have gone a bit too far with all of this .. especially after the "collusion delusion" has been basically debunked and what was left of the mass media's credibly wreaked over this (even though they made $$ handsomely in the meantime).. ...
He is being viciously attached in this comment section..
Maybe the echo chamber of this paper and it's radical progressive readers .. could gain maybe just a little perspective..?
what is going on? A relatively balanced editorial in the nytimes - at least as balanced as it gets for the nytimes.
David Brooks: You are on the wrong side of history. If the people of the United States are to rule themselves rather than return to the status of mere subjects, then information and speech must come forth and be made available to us. The President and his party have sought to deny our rights to information essential to self-government. They must not be allowed to do so.
This business of blaming "both sides" must stop. One side wants self rule. The other wants a dictatorship of the Executive. If you see equivalence there, perhaps you need an eye examination.
The people can't rule themselves when information and speech are abridged. If you don't agree, I suggest you speak honestly about your secret desire for benevolent dictatorship and stop trying muddy the waters by falsely labeling the people's representatives as "villain".
3
Mr. Brooks being 'disappointed' in both Trump AND Nadler is like equating the arsonist and the fireman, the criminal and the cop, the sickness and the doctor. Nadler has to ask for documents because Trump won't provide them; how is that Nadler's fault? Nadler has to cite for Contempt because Barr won't do his job -- whose fault is that? Mr. Brooks may be feeling some strain on his blatant Pro-Republican and Anti-Trump sympathies and sensibilities, but the Republican Party's pack of enabling grifters -- and mealy--mouthed media equivocators like Brooks -- are what's really behind this, and Brooks is too partisan, privileged and paid to speak the actual truth. NYT: Why does Brooks have a column, again? I can find you a wrong, tedious 'conscientious conservative' for probably half of what you pay D.B.
6
Surprisingly, I tend to agree with David for the simple reason that when both money and power are involved — when aren’t they? — reason, flexibility, and democracy die (as the “Post” notes in its mast-head everyday “Democracy Dies In Darkness”).
The darkness of envisioning an Imperial advantage, at all costs, through only looking at the possibility of one triumphant win clouds judgement, blocks flexibility, and brings unexpected disaster both in the private and public sectors.
I can recall instances in the corporate world when the epithet “This ain’t no damn democracy” was employed to take a single path to envisioned total victory — when two paths could have been mutually, cooperatively, and easily afforded — and which led to mutually assured financial destruction.
Even more dangerously, in the geopolitical sphere, there has been at least one famous case in which an existential attempt for total Imperial domination nearly led to global disaster — only averted by two saner minds and souls.
Now, more than half a century later, and beyond the late 20th century hubris of some thinking that either a ‘unitary executive’ or unitary Empire could triumph, it should be eminently clear that reasoning, flexibility, balance, and democracy both within countries and among countries is essential and survivable over any Imperial pretensions in one country or in one single individual, to think in terms of Greatness being the single path to being either ‘right’ or Great.
17
@Alan MacDonald - Ironically that masthead at the WashPost is pure irony, and practically satire, the whole institution is a Neocon/Neoliberal tool where journalism has gone to die an interminably long, peaceful, un-criticised death.
4
I kinda like the new David Brooks who understands that it is far more than the politics of the USofA that is broken.
I have been visiting Washington for 65 years and this week's visit renewed my understanding that America's problems are not economic nor political but philosophical and sociological.
America is rich beyond any one's wildest imagination all it cost was its soul.
I am neither a Christian nor a believer but often consult my older and wiser brother Jesus. He tells me he still weeps the reason being is that those who most reject his teachings are those who most loudly invoke his name.
He cried when he told me that when he said seek and ye shall find those who most loudly profess their love are those who prohibit the search.
2
Just when I thought Mr Brooks "got it" he didn't.
4
never ceases to amaze me how Brooks misses the point with his false equivalency - o yea - Trump is the Dems fault - pathetic.
4
Mr Brooks, I’m a longtime fan of yours, but to call what congressional democrats are doing “appeasement,” is really disingenuous. They are simply fulfilling their congressional duty as they understand it. The Republican Party has thrust us into this mess, and let constitutional order badly decay, by their constant and sycophantic appeasement of their orange-haired mad king.
4
This tortured reasoning in this article degrades does you wonderful newpaper a great disservice.
3
David Brooks is accusing the democrats as being as bad as
the republicans. His analysis is skewered and he still feels
that he has to give equal time to both sides, even if the republicans in this administration have policies that have not
been seen before. This sort of "neutrality" masquerades as
being impartial but he is not. Just sort of mushy which has
been the problem with his columns before.
5
It only took Mr. Brooks 8 sentences to get to: "But Trump is far from the only villain". Impressive!
2
David Brooks wake up! Get out of your "conservative" republican shell. The country is being destroyed by the Republicans and the Democrats are doing everything they can to "play nice" while doing their constitutionally mandated oversight. You are really in the mindset of 50 years ago. We are in a constitutional crisis!! We are in danger of losing out country to guns, pollution, poisons, white supremacy and misogyny. Add to that voter suppression.
4
IF Robert Mueller isn't blocked from testifying....
That's all you've got? What if he is blocked. That's a bigger question, far more worthy of reflection and an answer, or at least a stab as one.
You left us hanging. Yours was supposed to be an opinion piece. How about an opinion on that?
1
Brooks has for years been rationalizing the GOP no matter what it does to increase it's power, and the wealth of its mega donors.
He is consistent and the Times op ed page keeps him on the op ed page, to show the range of opinion, to show the rw and FOX News that it really isn't a 'left wing liberal paper'.
But as the GOP got more extreme, so did Brooks, trying to justify them.
The Dems aren't getting 'whipped up into impeachment furor'.
They are trying to compile and evaluate evidence, as they say every day. That evidence so far looks bad.
Of course, Dems will hear Mueller's testimony and 'see where they are'.
It's not the Dems but Trump/GOP who have been 'out of control.'
Checks and balances washed away? No, the opposite ---the Dems are trying to assert them, while Trump/GOP are abandoning them.
Brooks columns are so useful--if we bother reading them---to demonstrate GOP rationalizations.
3
Brooks is so full of feel-good, spiritual palliatives these days that he has completely lost sight that our country is being run by a criminal madman. All attempts to thwart or remove this madman are necessary for the good of the country and its (disintegrating) democracy.
3
David Brooks once again promotes a false equivalency. Republicans can't change their spots. Nor can a skunk change his odiferous self. Happy Mother's Day DB. Actually Happy Mother's Day to all.
2
Mr . Brooks does not explicitly say it , but the strongest argument against Rep. Nadler's decision to hold Mr. Barr in contempt is the aphorism " pick your battles carefully". As Mr. Brooks points out this is one of the least egregious examples of Trump's blatant trampling of the Constitutionally established system of checks and balances. Many existing, and undoubtedly many future, actions would provide stronger challenges on more consequential issues to for use in combating Trump's disdain for the Constitution .
You have it all wrong, Mr. Brooks. Thank God for Rep. Nadler. I can understand Barr's release of a redacted document for the general public, but Congress has the right, and I would go further, the responsibility to review every single word. Congress has the right to review any tax return, including that of the President. These rights are in the Constitution and this is what oversight means. For too long, probably beginning with the Nixon pardon, we have let the rich and powerful do what they want. It is high time that this President, who seems so determined to use the United States as his ATM, be held accountable for his actions before he, and the rest of your party, bring down our democracy.
4
I’m not sure I agree with all of your analysis, David. But I do agree with keeping calm. The only thing that’s going to fix what’s wrong in the White House is an election.
We should be biden our time, so to speak. Then we’ll see whose harris on fire. And you can beto your bottom dollar that America’s cory principles will once again be honored. As for Trump’s corrupt and weird behavior, let this be a warrening: History wil butteigieg of that.
1
To me the greatest blame lies with Mitch McConnell and the GOP leaders. McConnell is the person who started the scorched earth policy with his policy of blocking all progress, 1st, last, and only, for the Obama period. Many Democrats in my mind have tried to moderate the political warfare but the GOP almost unanimously have put party ahead of the general welfare.
2
"...Democrats are declaring a constitutional crisis over — the redaction levels of the Mueller report.."
No, there's a constitutional crisis because the president has said "we’re fighting all the subpoenas,” and because he and his administration have defied congressional inquiries about security clearances, the President’s bank records, his tax returns, and the continuing investigation of his campaign’s ties to Russia.
2
Mr. Brooks, no matter the topic your republican stripes always seem too win out. The reason that the term "constitutional crisis"rose to the surface this week is trump's unilateral stonewalling on everything requested by congress.And that to my mind paints a frightening picture of an executive branch[our faux president,his administration,his family and your entire party]unwilling to even recognize that they have to answer to anybody.That is a constitutional crisis,david,you know it and I know it.
1
Brooks still seems to be under the impression that you can somehow seek compromise with Trump. Well, I guess you can, in a way, but the compromise will be all one-way. Have we not had enough of that? Has America not had enough of that? The man is a boil on humanity and Brooks wants to cave-in to more of the same. The only reason Trump gets away with everything, and stuff that no one else would, is because people enable the man, and people like Brooks consistently give him the benefit of the doubt. After 2 1/2 years there surely can be no more doubt! You either stand up for the Constitution or you do not. There is no middle ground; no cherry-picking which bits you like. Unless, of course, Brooks thinks that no one else has ever behaved this way so that Trump can, unreservedly. For all Brooks' reading, he's clearly read the wrong books to have an educated opinion on this subject. William L. Shirer, for a start, might help in that regard. Because Trump is a man no different to any other would-be dictator who would take the country to ruin in order to protect himself. Wake up! Mr. Brooks.
2
I'm reminded of the line from Monty Python and the Holy Grail after John Cleese's character stormed the wedding party ...
"Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who"
Tawdry - ADJECTIVE: A showy but cheap and of poor quality.
If anything describes the Trump Presidency it's this word.
If anything describes Rep. Nadler's pursuit of the truth, it would be this word: determined
Nothing in David Brooks opinion piece accurately describes how dangerous to our democracy the current standoff between the White House and the House of Representatives, two co-equal branches of the Federal Government.
Trump and his sycophantic cabinet members have taken an autocrats approach to hide and cover up the details of what Mueller's report clearly describes. Therein lies the Devil for the Trump presidency. A blanket denial of any and all subpoenas vs. the Congress's right to oversee the Executive branch's misdeeds.
A.G. Barr needs to stop barring this legitimate investigation from its rightful process. Ken Starr, if you recall, turned over EVERYTHING to Congress, including the underlying evidentiary documents. Mr. Brooks, you want to make a true equivalency case based on "tawdry" behavior? Try this one.
5
Isn't it a bit disingenuous to boil this down to Democrats being snitty about those "millions of pages" of unreleased evidence?
The investigation found that this Administration willfully engaged in obstruction - so, why should Congress now let the Administration unilaterally decide what evidence they will and won't release from the same investigation? Barr's intentional white-washing in summaries and statements has further undermined trust. And the WH continues to lie about the Report's conclusions, while attacking both the legal process and federal investigators as "treasonous".
And, let's remember who's supported releasing the Mueller Report in its entirety: the President said, "it wouldn't both me at all." Until it did.
What, under these very specific conditions, should the Democrats do? Wait a few more months to see whether the Administration voluntarily shares the Report?
What's amazing is that the Democrats waited three weeks after the six previous weeks of delay, redaction, evasion and spin to find Barr in contempt. If his behavior is not a seamless extension of the Administration's documented efforts to obstruct justice, the difference is merely a technicality.
4
I was hoping, perhaps beyond hope, that media outlets like the NYT would cease the "equivalence" arguments, you know, "Well Trump may be bad, but Congressman X is . . . ." I guess not, Mr. Brooks. Ironically, however, one of your concluding sentences tends to undercut your equivalence and speed arguments: "My advice to Democrats: If Robert Mueller isn’t blocked from testifying, hear what he has to say and then see where we are." What is happening now is a complete and utter stonewalling of Congress's right and duty to investigate. That is, indeed, a "constitutional crisis," one that cannot be slow-walked.
6
David,
Nadler has acted in good faith. Trump and Barr have not. The Mueller Report that Congress paid for should be shared with the top leaders in Congress word for word with no redactions. These leaders have the highest security clearances, and certainly are more careful with classified info than Trump who spills secrets in the Oval Office to Sergey Kislyak like people say hello. The report has key info that Congress needs to address multiple problems that Trump created including ways to prevent future presidents from so easily obstructing justice and getting away with it, and drafting legislation regarding outside influences on presidential campaigns. Trump thinks SCOTUS will side with him with his two loyal appointees. Nixon has appointed 3 justices and yet all 9 rules against him in the Watergate tapes case. Maybe this time, justice and the Constitution will let Trump know that he is not King George.
6
Mr. Brooks writes: "If Robert Mueller isn’t blocked from testifying,...." and also excoriates the dems for taking exception to trump's continued obstruction.
That Brooks can write these words as a possible outcome destroys his entire argument.
If Mueller isn't blocked, if the White House answers subpoenas, if Barr works for the people and not the president......
We know these things won't happen. trump obstruction is complete and absolute.
And we don't have years to settle this either.
5
This whole business has gone on long enough. We have to get to the point. Trump is trying to take over the joint and America needs to prevent that. It is all pretty simple. This constant 'looking' for legalities is getting tiresome...almost as tiresome as the mistake we made by giving Trump the Voice in the first place.
8
False equivalence; for shame.
6
The word 'tawdry' is most apt---but it's Trump and the GOP who are 'tawdry', David. You've long defended the tawdry GOP, using your best sophistry to transform the party into one of high morality.
Tawdry means cheap, low quality, shoddy, tasteless. and showing low moral standards. That describes the warped Trump/GOP ---who are trying to turn the USA into a grotesque democracy.
We see the 'tawdrification' of America under the GOP who say and do anything to increase their power, and nullify the opposition.
You say the House Dem committee is simply trying to destroy the president? Is that what you will say on your weekly TV PBS Newshour gig?
No. The committee is trying to restore duty to the public, standing up for decency, and constitutional principles---THE OPPOSITE OF TAWDRY!
6
"My advice to Democrats...." is to scratch Brooks from the list of thoughtful persons who can helped us out of this mess.
11
The real trouble already started, when Trump was elected POTUS. His far-reaching amoral obstructionism, his dictatorship agenda, and his white nationalist push must be halted. The warrior House Democrats need to continue to counter the Villain-in-Chief in every legal and moral way possible. The rest of us must vote him out of office.
4
@ALR: As you said, the trouble started with the election of Donald Trump as President. The conflict stems from the segment of the country that refuses to accept the election, who continually invent supposed evils as demonstrated by your post after the phrase, "Trump was elected POTUS." Funny, In a recent conversation about this conflict a friend commented to me about "the loss of civility," just before he referred to the President "as that clown."
I haven't read all the comments but I'll lend my voice to the, seemingly, unanimous point of view that Mr. Brooks' point of view has been skewered to the point of blindness. Being cautious is what has brought us to this abyss. Pardon us for being the last avenue left to stand up to this naked Emperor. Comey says Trump eats your soul in little bites. You might not see it or feel it but this column represents one of those morsels.
8
David Brooks’ blatantly false equivalence of Trump’s defiance of the law and Democrats insisting on it destroys any semblance that he is anything other than a partisan hack who tries to pretend he has some sort of superior wisdom and morality.
6
shame on you David brooks.....you seem to have misplaced your recent columns on morality, or you think it does not apply to Rebulican politicians. Was it only yesterday Mitch mconnel said "case closed" ? come on...enough with lame moral equivalency ...democracy itself is at stake...step up to you own moral codes and speak truth.
5
Brook's latest opinion piece must have been written for some Fox News commentator but got mailed to the wrong address.
4
Mr. Brooks, no matter how erudite your analyses appear, no matter how you try to lend a semblance of “fair-mindedness” to your written words, your bias shines through.
4
Brooks wrote: "Sure, William Barr distorted the report in his initial summary, but he also released a report that was extremely damning about his own president.".
But, Mr. Brooks, Barr purposefully , with intent, published a report that whitewashed-- no, actually contradicted --- the Mueller report that Barr eventually released. Barr purposefully misled he American public with an inaccurate summary, and he only released the redacted report after weeks of public and Congressional pressure.
Well, as I expected, Brooks' transformation into a Kumbaya spiritual entity, one who honors truth over obfuscation, certainly didn't last very long.
4
One more Never-Trumper who blamed GOP scorched-earth policy during the Obama years now on the Democrats now says that the Dems are equally at fault for current Republican obstructionism.
Tax cuts for the rich and rights-slashing for women really inspire the most amazing intellectual acrobatics, don't they?
2
The GOP is banking on the Democratic leadership waffling and acting like wimps. It's usually been a safe bet.
Brooks is 100% wrong here.
Dems need to quit calculating and prognosticating. Follow the rules, play tough, don't just stand there hand-wringing.
5
Mr. Brooks, you are making another false equivalency in an effort to appear balanced, and it's disappointing. Equating Trumps contempt for democracy in general, with Nadler's attempts to hold him to account is embarrassing.
3
I believe Nadler has been elected twenty times and somehow has completely opposite opinions given the exact same circumstances simply depending apon party affiliations. That is the problem. Little man syndrome.
1
Just when it seems like there's hope for you, David, you get all weak in the knees when Democrats play hardball. The time for polite requests is long over. Republicans, and specifically, this administration, are flouting the law, the Constitution, and legitimacy of an equal branch of government. If it doesn't stop here it will NEVER stop. We will have a dictatorship with a rubber-stamp duma, just like Russia. I'm all in for the sight of Bill Barr in cuffs, heading off to a jail cell. Time for the Democrats to show they mean business.
4
OK, Brooks; another equally to blame meme. I'm counting. You don't think that holding Trump to account is appropriate? This voter and lots of others are just plain tired of Trump's devastation to our constitutional system. Get out of you Republican-controlled Ivory Tower once in a while.
3
Mr. Brooks' specialty may be philosophy, politics and what he considers ethics, but it certainly is not constitutional law.
Mr. Trump is attempting to render Congress powerless. This is not the time to advocate just getting along with those who would stomp all over the constitution.
4
Let me start by saying I’m a progressive Democrat who continues to be appalled by our president’s behavior.
That said, the decision of whether or not to start impeachment proceedings against President Trump should NOT hinge on whether or not there will be sufficient votes in the Senate to convict.
I agree with Mr. Brooks comment about waiting until after Mr. Mueller testifies before Congress to decide whether impeachment proceedings may be necessary.
The decision about impeachment has much more to do with presenting the evidence and facts in a coherent manner before the American public, but only If President Trump’s misdeeds are serious enough to warrant such a drastic move.
It seems to me that President Trump’s statement to the two Russian diplomats that he fired Mr. Coney in an effort to nip the Russian Collusion investigation in the bud is a clear case of obstruction of justice. But is that one incident enough to justify impeachment? I don’t know. If the testimony of Mr. Mueller indicated a pattern of systemic abuses of presidential powers and numerous indications of obstruction of justice? Then yes, impeachment proceedings are probably appropriate. Let us not rush to judgement without more evidence.
1
How to preserve checks and balances carved into our Constitution is the right question to ask. There's nothing tawdry about Democratic efforts to preserve balance of power against the malicious efforts of trump and the malefactors supporting him and perverting our country's system of government.
5
The tawdry and the war is all on one side: Trump. Any analysis that suggests otherwise can be dismissed as not analysis, but part of the problem.
2
Chairman Nadler said that Barr insisted that only three members of the committee would be allowed to review the unredacted Mueller report and that they would not be allowed to share what they read to other committee members, Mr. Brooks does not address the ludicrousness of such demanded limits. To portray the Dems behavior as equally reprehensible to the administration's doesn't wash. And let's not forget that Trump has publicly said that his crew will not honor ANY congressional subpoenas and Trump Jr. is also planning to give the figure to z GOP-controlled (!) Senate committee.
3
Republicans are the masters of sophistry and false equivalency, and here we see Brooks elevating it to a fine art. This essay is the epitome of chutzpah. It falsely claims that the fight is not about accountability, but rather, about redaction. Mueller found multiple instances of obstruction, and Trump is afraid of what those revelations portend. If the administration refuses to comply with subpoenas how is the administration to be held accountable?
Barr doesn't want to testify, and has seized on the form of the hearing. Barr, along with the entire Trump coterie is stonewalling to cover-up Trump's culpability.
3
So what Brooks is saying here folks is that when the President attacks democracy, Congress should not attack the President!
6
Mr. Brooks is being unfair. The disputes between Messrs Nadler and Barr occur because Democrats and others deeply and sincerely doubt the honesty of Mr. Barr and the Trump Administration. And with good reason (a litany of their misdeeds isn’t necessary by now).
Even if Barr had disclosed 99 and 44-one hundredths percent of the Mueller Report, many of us (not only Rep. Nadler) would wonder why the remainder was not disclosed. After Mr. Barr’s tawdry summary of the Report, his subsequent distortions of its conclusions, and his evident refusal to ask courts to rule on the admissability of disclosing grand jury testimony, his views are virtually worthless.
3
So, David, what do you think the chances are that Robert Mueller will be allowed to testify fully and honestly?
2
Poor poor David , so many years trying to appear ' reasonable ' while bending over backwards to justify the appalling behaviour of the GOP , and here he is , despite the bleeding obvious slapping him in the face , still trying to make his shabby efforts to apportion blame to ' both sides ' ... David , your party is a bunch of crooks and cowards , your silly books and your craven defence of the evaporation of any shred of decency in the ' conservative ' Republican movement is beyond reprehensible . Just . Stop. Now. Please .
4
this is the equivalence of "there are good people on both sides"
3
"... and Democrats crossed it this week, undermining the way the system of oversight is supposed to work. How do we know this? Because of what Democrats are declaring a constitutional crisis over — the redaction levels of the Mueller report."
Looks like the NY Times is starting to go all in with fake news and false equivalencies in an attempt to help tip the scales to the local boy.
Brooks knows full well the term constitutional crisis is not being used merely because the House cannot get the unredacted Mueller report.
Brooks knows full well Trump is stonewalling on everything from House requests for his tax returns to information on family separations at the border.
Looks like we are in for Hillary 2.0 at the Gray Lady.
1
This President was trained by Roy Cohen to only understand one thing, you take advantage no matter what. Therefore, you create a Constitutional crisis to gain the advantage. Of course this is dependent on the other side to act meekly and turn the other cheek. Who will win?
Can't anyone say something nice about Mr. Brooks analysis ?
I can't.
David, you are once again being a shrill for the extremist right wing of the Republican party.
I suggest you reread your columns written over the last 2 years.
You have tried to pass yourself off as a traditional conservative that is appalled over the behavior of what used to be your party. Now it looks like you will write anything that will provide a paycheck.
I hope this works out for you, because you have sold your soul to get it. Shame!
1
"America will always do the right thing,after they have tried everything else "said Winston Churchill.
I hope he is right.
Incredible. Just incredible. Yet again, it's all the Democrats' fault. Mr. Brooks, have you no shame? This is the most intellectually dishonest thing I've read since ... well, how many Brooks columns shall I cite?
1
You're surely joking, right?
1
David, you're a smart man, but this is one of the stupidest columns you've ever written. You've gone way too far down the rabbit-hole of both-side-ism and false equivalncy. Claiming that "Democrats rushed into this" is simply ridiculous. The House leadership has played by the rules and taken things slowly, too slowly perhaps, and now find themselves in a constitutional crisis entirely of GOP manufacture; it is not "just for show." It is "for dear life," the life of the republic. It is not "tawdry"; it is terrifying. As your colleague Michelle Goldberg says, it is time to act.
3
Is this a response to the Review of your new book, and especially the Comments to that Review ??? Trying to confirm your place within the conservative Boys Club???
Sad.
2
Mr. Brooks,
You are one of the people who brought us Donald Trump, so please stay in the sidelines and contemplate your shame, if you have any.
4
Mr Brooks... Really?
In your righteous dictation to Democrats, I didn't hear a peep from you about the lack, abysmal lack of insight or morality from Republicans... especially in light of as of now +700 prosecutors saying: Mueller (even a redacted)report is enough to prosecute this executive.
And mind you, you gave AG Barr such a long leash.
Now, I know how all other republicans justify their thinking, their excuses for Trump but are too happy to read the decency and do-the-right-thing memorandum to Democrats.
You disappoint me so.
2
I'd rather the Dems 'appease' the activist wing of their own party than appease the darkness in the executive branch. Checks and balances indeed - so just what is the House supposed to do? I guess according to David Brooks, nothing. This is a column written by a partisan hack, I am sorry to say.
The claim that 99.9% has been unredacted means that less than 4/10 of a page was redacted. Really? Very suspect 'fact.'
Very sloppy opinion piece.
Surely HRC had far more courage than any one of the snakes in this admin. David, you seem like a decent guy but you are so far off on this one. I look forward to mark shields response tonight.
Any hope of redemption I entertained for David Brooks has been utterly destroyed by this column.
1
I was ready to respond to Mr. Brooks’ column....but I decided to wait.
2
Spot on, Mr Brooks!
1
Hey, you making comments here, give David Brooks a break. The New York Times needs a conservative columnist, and he promotes the party of greed and racial hatred knowledgeably and articulately. What more do you want from him?
2
Seriously??? People like you who continue to try to make Democrats equally responsible for Trump's constitutional crisis, are a huge part of the problem. Hi get a job at Fox.
1
Brooks is lost. He is stuck between 2 mountains
Oh, poor David Brooks, best you've got is pox upon both your houses. Limp wristed laments make no profile in courage when every norm of governance is being trampled in plain sight. Speak, courage, or slink back to boneless chicken lunch.
1
Perhaps Mr. Brooks also believes that the bull and the bullfighter are in a similar debate.
2
„Because of what Democrats are declaring a constitutional crisis over — the redaction levels of the Mueller report. Of all the contemptible things the Trump administration has done“
This is literally not! the reason Democrat declaring a constitutional crisis, this is instead what the Republicans claimed again and again during the hearing.
Just more spin in service of your Republican Party, David. Quite the stunning false equivalence of one among dozens oa political ploys by Republicans to Blame Obama for Bush’s arms dealing to criminals policy with conspiring with a foreign enemy to subvert a presidential election. Shamelessness in service to Republican Party goals? No problem.
I rarely read Brooks, and for the very reason that is obvious in this column. He loves to delve into all sorts of fine distinctions while ignoring the big picture. So yes, while no reasonable person would claim that Democrats aren't political animals, the big picture is a despotic president who is dismantling our democracy, Republican Senator by Republican Senator (Looking at you Mitch McConnell). All fine distinctions aside, if we don't get rid of Trump ASAP, it may be too late, if it isn't already. As much as I loathed GWB, considering him a war criminal along with his evil VP, I never dreamed that he would not accept the verdict of the American People come election time. Now we have been warned that our current president may very well refuse to leave. Hey, he has hinted at that himself. So, Brooks should stop spinning his fancy analyses. Wake up and smell the coffee, mr Brooks.
2
David should read Maureen Dowd's column this past week on Fair and Foul Play and stop making this "both sides are at fault" nonsense argument. I guess he forgot about Merrill Garland, Kavanaugh, and all of the other abuses of power from the Republicans. Talk about political correctness - stop attacking the democrats for insisting on accountability and the premise that no person is above the law.
1
It’s funny how Republicans are always clamoring for the Democrats to “do the right thing” while giving their fellow travelers a pass. It’s almost as if Republicans count on Democrats following the rules and the law so they don’t have to.
But what no Republican will do right now is actually defend Donald Trump. Republicans have to weave endless straw men, like Brooks’ latest here, to avoid talking about the person they elected president. But no one disputes the facts Mueller found.
Come on, Republicans, defend your guy directly. Don’t talk about executive privilege or the stock market. Tell us why Donald Trump should be able to do what he’s done. Go line by line through Mueller’s report and explain why Trump and his enablers should have gotten support from the Russians and why Trump should have tried to obstruct the investigation. Tell us why it’s okay for Trump to pay off his mistresses so those stories won’t get out right before his election. Tell us why “grab ‘em” is acceptable.
Democrats are trying to get the truth out about Donald Trump. That’s the last thing Republicans want.
Honestly Republicans, do you support Donald Trump or not? Because right now you’re not supporting Trump so much as you’re fighting Democrats.
1
What's tawdry is the Republican Party - your party Mr. Brooks. Instead of trying to blame both parties, it's time you aimed your pen directly at the GOP.
Our current crisis is the result of decades of Republican policies. It’s Republican hegemony that has weaponized our system of checks and balances. The head of the Republican Party – the Dictator-in-Chief – has declared that there are no checks and balances to his power. By placing blame on both sides you are aiding and abetting the soulless Republicans and Donald Trump.
If you want to defend the actions of Trump Republicans, just come right out and say so. But don't stand in your elevated pulpit claiming some kind of Constitutional expertise and moral superiority, and preach down to us lowly mortals. You have no claim to the moral high ground when you wrap yourself in the flag to defend the Republicans. There is NO defense of their behavior.
To defend them is to relinquish all credibility.
3
AG Barr has released everything that the law allows. Nadler and his cronies still don't even bother to read the nearly unredacted Mueller report available to them. This is political theater because the Democrats are desperate.
2
@MCH Has Barr requested that a court allow the release of the remaining material so Congress can perform it's oversight function?
" checks and balances," is a dynamic catchy phrase-mantra.It describes, but does not itself adequately explain complex, multidimensional processes. Which can and do result in ranges of known, currently unknown ( due to lack of needed relevant information and technologies) and unknowable outcomes. These existing in reality's ever-present interacting dimensions of uncertainty, unpredictabilities, randomness and lack of total control, whatever our timely, or not, actions. Amongst many, many consideration there is the need for conditions such as mutual trust between...Mutual respect between...Mutual caring between...Mutual help, when needed, between...Civility between... These critical conditions are not operating. Your article's focus "dances" between "responsible" and "blame" but does not offer viable, necessary pathways and bridges to "risk" making a difference which will make a needed sustainable difference for trust. Respect. Sharing. Wellbeing. To change our toxic, WE-THEY culture! Which enables daily violating. By all too many. IOf ALL too many. By words and deeds. Creating, selecting, and targeting "the other(s)!" People. Values, norms and ethics which underpin menschlich interactions; levels, types, and qualities of wellbeing. In safe havens. At home. In our neighborhoods. On our streets. Communities. Schools. Places of work. Leisure. Places to pray; not prey. What can, does "chacks and balances" mean when limited human and nonhuman resources are not shared equitably?
The contempt of Congress citation against William Barr is as much about his refusal to participate in a routine congressional hearing as it is about his redactions of the Mueller Report. It also has to do with his egregiously misleading 4-page summary of the Report on the day that it was produced.
So, let's call this little constitutional contretemps for what it is, Mr. Brooks, and not for what it isn't.
So David Brooks is referring to Nadler as "tawdry" for being a Member of the House of Representatives, a member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, and the Chairperson of the Committee on the Judiciary, for staunchly defending our Constitution against a corrupt, venal, self-involved lunatic.
And when it comes to strategy and foresight, just when did you ever get it right, David.
1
Mr. Brooks, words matter. With your words, you are enabling a corrupt president who has blatantly violated his oath of office and continues to do so. Trump, you say, is far from the only villain in this. I agree on just that much, because equally villainous are his Republican enablers in Congress, as well as his Attorney General, and the crew that works for him and Fox News, his propaganda weapon. Whatever you think of Nadler's political timing, and whatever you think of him in terms of strategy, comparing his ethics to Trump's is deeply, deeply unethical.
1
"My advice to Democrats: If Robert Mueller isn’t blocked from testifying, hear what he has to say and then see where we are. But advice is rarely heeded..."
Lovely generalization! What's a pundit to do?
"Sure, William Barr distorted the report in his initial summary...." But, according to his op-ed at the time, Brooks was convinced by the summary, and he criticized everyone who had thought that the Trump campaign did something wrong. Now he's criticizing Nadler for his tactics. It seems that Brooks always finds a way to appease Trump.
Maybe it is a “show” on the part of Dems. Maybe. But then there’s the old saying, “the straw that breaks the camel’s back.” If only there could be nice, it would be lovely. That’s not the way it is; and talk’s not going to get us there ... to loveliness. If there’s anything that should be learned by now it is that talk is not only not helpful, it often leads to the opposite through more talk and self-justifying defensive response ... spiraling into darkness that gets darker.
I was considering a very negative comment on the usually rational Brooks this morning but then I skimmed the comments, Times Picks, reader picks and all. The vast majority were very critical of Brooks’ political myopia. Brooks main point reminds me of Trump’s Post-Charlottesville malarkey about good people on both sides. I suspect Brooks is getting a lot more heat from the more literate of Trump base folks and the Fox News types about his bona fides as a Trump era Republican.
Brooks has usually caused me to believe that there still normal republican thinkers. Wrong again!
1
I think that the main problem with Mr. Brooks’ piece, which is otherwise very well argued, is that he does not address the central cause of all of this, which is, very simply, that our current president is a criminal.
1
Brooks, a self-proclaimed expert on "character", believes there are very fine people on both sides of this conflict, which tells us all we need to know about his judgment.
"The problem with any policy of appeasement is that it rarely appeases; it only emboldens." David Brooks certainly knows the truth of this. He and other "conservatives" have been appeasing racists and religious bigots for years. And now we have Trump. Good work, Mr. Brooks.
Dear Mr. Brooks, not even a nice try to create moral equivalency between Eric Holder and Bill Barr. The factor of evil intent demonstrated by Bill Barr far surpasses any legitimate differences of opinion held by Eric Holder. Sure you can see the cracks in the foundation of everything you hold dear, but this subtle attempt to pretend like your some objective, neutral party while clawing to keep an finger hold on relevancy will not fly. This attempt to act like some honest broker for someone who's a crook will succeed in accomplishing Trump's real goal; dirtying everybody.
After reading Lord Brooks for years he's so easy to predict. I looked at the title of the column before I read it and said to myself, aha, prepare for another dose of "both sides are equally to blame" i.e. false equivalency. Sure enough.
1
Republicans in Congress - they who were so frenzied by Benghazi and email servers and Obama that they spent millions upon millions of our dollars searching every crevice for SOMETHING indictable - have abandoned any pretense at checking the appalling rampages of this stunningly corrupt, lying, bigoted and incompetent president.
Party before country, donors before people, money and power before all else. Republicans do not have any ethical or legal standing at all, and it is not going to be recoverable for at least a generation.
Now they howl, with Mr. Brooks as a mouthpiece, because the Democrats are performing the oversight and the checks that Republicans should have been doing?
It may devolve into a partisan frenzy, but that is not the Democrats' fault. The Republicans simply demand that everyone in the country - voters, politicians, everyone - bend over as far as they have.
It's not going to happen.
Mr. Brooks you continually equate the Democratic Party's defense of constitutional norms with the Republican Party's determination to make this a one-party state by any means necessary. Please stop your quibbling and meaningless pinpointing of 'bad actors on both sides.' In times of oppression, not having an opinion always helps the oppressor.
I tend to like David Brooks. I don't always agree with him, but he tends to present his case clearly and in a way that is intellectually tenable. That is not the case here, and I'm deeply disappointed.
This is about as disingenuous column I've seen in a long time. Looking for hidden evidence is the opposite of obstruction of justice. It's an attempt to seek justice.
Brooks has let his Republican leanings to cloud his judgment. This is as a disappointing column as I've read. Nothingburger.
"If Congress uses its power simply to destroy the president, ..."
Good heavens, David. I had some bridges, but the Trumpies bought all of them. In what universe is it not Ok for Congress to hold this president and his deplorables accountable via their Constitutional oversight duty and prerogative? Barr lied. Trump obstructed justice. Mueller assigned the job to Congress. Oversight is fine but keep it positive? Holy cow. The best thing the Democrats can do for the country is protect it from Trump and his servile enablers and his unhinged and untethered cult. Protect it from the "both-sides-are-the-same" lie, which feeds the cynicism that only Trump benefits from. Touching, your empathy for Trump. Now have a care for our democracy and our Constitution and our children and grandchildren.
2
This is nonsense. The dispute over the unredacted Mueller report doesn't happen in a vacuum. Along with the unwillingness of the President to hand over the unredacted Mueller report is Attorney General Barr's refusal to face the House Judiciary Committee, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin's refusal to hand over Trump's tax returns, and a host of other stonewalling by the Trump administration now that it faces REAL potential oversight by a House controlled by Democrats.
Brooks is essentially ordering us to NOT see the forest for the tree. This column is partisan intellectual dishonesty in its purest form.
2
No amount of hand waving can justify the actions of Trump and today's Republican Party.
What has happened to the Republican Party? Yes, they were always right of center and conservative but how could this party put in office a lying fraud and known con artist like Trump? How could they have so little respect for the United States. Trump is the bigoted egomaniac and financial fraud he has always been- but what has brought the Republican Party to such a state that they allow an incompetent hateful tax evader to represent them and destroy our democracy?
The only answer must be that the ultra-wealthy who finance the Republican Party do indeed want to do away with our Constitutional form of government and replace it with a right wing dictatorship. Ergo Trump!
Trump is attempting to ignore our Constitution by claiming executive privilege across the board without cause. He has much hide. The Democrats are obliged to pull out all the stops on behalf of the American people. Force is the only response Trump is capable of understanding.
Thia is not only about Democrats vs. Republicans. It is about saving our democracy from a wannabe dictator. In these truly perilous times, the media cannot ignore the danger by pretending to be fair and balanced.
There is no legitimate defense of Trump and the anti-American behavior of a Republican Party that has truly lost its way.
1
David, the fact that you are equating "Fast and Furious' with Trump's complete disregard for Congress' Constitutional obligation to oversee truly gross misbehavior by the executive betrays either a significant bias or a willful misunderstanding of what is happening here. This IS a Constitutional crisis, and although NYT frequently wallows in false equivalence, failure to recognize this disaster for what it is demonstrates continuing media complicity in this sad and bizarre governmental collapse. You are welcome to step into the light at any time...
Boy, have you gotten this wrong. Never has an administration behaved they way DT and co. are behaving. We have laws, and they need to be respected. DT et al. have not respect. That is the real issue. Nadler and Democrats have every Constitutional obligation to rein in a corrupt, lying POTUS, who has not respect for the law. Without respect for the law, there is no U.S.
1
Who destroyed the system ?
From the NY Times, 2012, June 28
"House of Representatives on Thursday voted to hold Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. in contempt for failing to disclose internal Justice Department documents in response to a subpoena. It was the first time in American history that Congress has imposed the sanction on a sitting member of a president’s cabinet."
So the Republicans started it.
In June of 2012, Obama invoked executive privilege to deny the committee access .
So a Democratic President started denying Congressional oversight of the Executive
How long did President Obama resist ?
In January of 2016—a full three and a half years later—a federal judge rejected Obama's assertion of executive privilege
On April 8, 2016 , the documents were handed over
Politics is about winning elections, not finding the truth
1
Trump may not understand checks & balances, but his staff does.
And if you go through the history of Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, Facebook, Google, etc...you'll find the same passionate unchecked zeal for drive & innovation that Trump brings to the table.
I don't care for Trump personally, but he is a necessary evil at at a time in our history that the Establishment was getting far too powerful and far too content to do whatever they needed to do to retain their power.
This is Our Nation...not the Establishment..not the Democrats..not the Republicans.
Unless and until the Establishment agrees to a reduction in their powers..and a return to normalcy...Trump is the only guy who appears to be fighting for the working men & women in America.
Democrats need to reflect on how they lost 2016.
They need to acknowledge their complicity in allowing their political leaders to get this nation to a place where they felt a corrupt swamp creature should be their nominee...which enabled a rat creature to become President.
A pox on everyone's houses.
Unless and until their is a reconciliation and full accounting for Democrats role that matches the Republicans confession they too were complicit....we won't move forward.
The crazies on the Left (OWS and Antifa) will continue to wreak havoc...and the crazies on the right will do the same.
Please..please..please...walk away from the GND, Sanders, Socialism, Marxism..and toward the middle of the bell curve.
Howard Schultz.
Embrace him.
Reductionist claptrap . . . pretending that The Issue is solely "the redaction levels of the Mueller report"willfully ignores the other reasons discussed in public by Nadler and others.
In ignoring those facts and statements Brooks has made himself a collaborationist in the erosion of public values.
1
The words "of Volume II" are doing a lot of heavy lifting in this sentence:
"In addition, Barr has made 99.9 percent of Volume II of the Mueller report, which is focused on obstruction, available to top Democrats, as noted in a letter from Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd."
Great points.
The democrats go to the matt for show.
Trump is all about and nothing else BUT show.
And the republicans are appallingly complicit to and have mindlessly ceded all their voice to imbecile with an iPhone.
The result?
Passion for political war whilst Russia obstructs and hacks, China disregards and steals, NKorea test fires, potholes grow in size and numbers, education remains in need of a fix almost as large as healthcare.
The worlds greatest nation and her people are without leadership.
It’s a confederacy of clowns.
Time for the people to take the country back.
We have to unite.
Throw them all out.
Re rack.
Brooks has been writing the same OP-ED piece for, it seems, forever. It is the old "on the one hand, on the other hand shell game. He is a moderate con artist trying to convince the reader that it is possible to compromise with an autocratic con artist and his epigones. His next book should be entitled "How to bake a "moderately" good pie with rotten fruit or the art of creating false equivalence.
4
Well said. Amen!
Brooks championed the right for his entire life, but now wants to blame others for reacting to it. Sorry, but YOU helped put those nasty folk in power, Brooks, and now you have to face it.
1
This column demonstrates it is time to put the tired old columnist Mr. Brooks out to pasture. The only "war" declared is the one by Trump against the Constitution. 800 former federal lawyers side with Nadler. And Trump's lawyer? "Rudy Giuliani Plans Ukraine Trip to Push for Inquiries That Could Help"
1
Mr. "Both Sides" just can't help himself.
1
Sound advice and conclusion from Mr. Brooks, despite all the faux sagacity and rage demonstrated by each and every one of the comments (first 10 anyway) I read below...It's as if we all have a political flu bug.
This is deeply dishonest, Mr. Brooks. No the issue is not merely over "redaction levels" and you know it. Trump has declared a refusal to cooperate across the board, and he has made the Attorney General into his personal body guard. If his stance is allowed to stand there simply is no role of oversight by the congress. Your attempt to excuse this outrage with your phony both-sider-ism is shameful.
1
As usual, sensible.
“the disagreement is just a pretext for the media battle many democrats and Trump want to have.”
Ya think? It makes a lot more sense when you come to the realization that you’re watching reality TV.
False Equivalence, Exhibit #1 “... Trump is far from the only villain in this showdown. If the House of Representatives wants to preserve its oversight power on the executive branch, then it has to be willing to oversee. It has to be willing to use its power in positive ways to improve the governance of this country....”Because of what Democrats are declaring a constitutional crisis over — the redaction levels of the Mueller report. Of all the contemptible things the Trump administration has done, this is probably the least contemptible.” Is both false and a false equivalence.
Republicans are precipitating a Constitutional Crisis? No, they are conspiring with Trump to end “checks and balances” and Congressional Oversight and make Trump a “king”. Brooks and Stephens and Douthat are aiding the destruction of Constitutional rule by providing rationales and narratives that “sprain” or justify or creat false equivalences to quiet the public and disarm opponents. In fact, their efforts are rewarded on “news talk shows” where the same measures used in this column are given voice as if they were more than spin. Soon, Democrats and Trump opponents and those loyal to the Constitution will condemn this propaganda and deliberate misdirection. Even FOX news is retching over the lies coming from Pompeo, Bolton, Giuliani, Sanders, and Conway. Soon Democrats will be forced to say “Yes, we hate Trump and his fascists because they are traitors who I are destroying our government.”
2
Mr. "False Equivalence" is at it again. Spare us. This president and this administration has been smashing the furniture and doing their best to make donnie into a boy-king since inauguration day. Now "is when the real trouble starts"? Now?
1
Will someone explain to me why this is solely a conflict between Trump and "the Democrats"? The Mueller report laid out in devastating detail not only that in multiple instances Trump engaged in conduct that met every element of the federal statutes governing obstruction of justice, but that the Trump campaign and Russian governmental actors engaged in parallel conduct each with the understanding and expectation that those actions would assist in getting Donald Trump elected president. Mueller's clear expectation was that, to the extent that those matters were not indictable either because of internal justice department policy or because of the narrow perspective by which he was assessing them, that the ultimate arbiter of the consequences of those actions would be Congress. But Brooks find Congress' efforts to fulfill their Constitutional duty "tawdry". Imagine what the response of a Republican Congress would be if the shoe was on the other foot--oh, wait, here's Marco Rubio in 2012: “I think that it is outrageous that any attorney general — Republican or Democrat — refuses to comply with Congress’s constitutional right to hold them accountable and the Justice Department accountable. I would say that if that if this was a Republican just like I do now because it’s a Democrat. Not only that, I think this has gone on so long and the stonewalling by the attorney general has been so egregious, that I think he has to resign.”
1
Great column, Mr. Brooks. But the Dems won't heed your advice. This is all political theater for them. They foolishly believe that yelling "Constitutional crisis" will gain them votes and reduced Trump's popularity. But people aren't stupid. They know political posturing when they see it. And they will vote the Dems down in 2020 -- the true "checks and balances."
@Uysses
"But people aren't stupid."
Surely you jest. Lots of in-your-face, day-by-day factual evidence, not the least of which was the election of Donald Trump, indicates quite the opposite.
@Tim One could say that your comment demonstrates the correctness of your argument. But that would be mean.
Wow. It's hard to believe that David Brooks wrote this column. This is incredibly disappointing.
"Tawdry?" It is the responsibility of Nadler and the Congress to oversee the actions of the president. That is not tawdry behavior on the part of the Democrats.
And "Donald Trump has never understood checks and balances?" Trump perfectly understands checks and balances. He just doesn't agree with them because he is a fascist at heart. Or is that a despot? Tyrant?
"Trump is not the only villain in this showdown?"
No one is trying to "simply destroy the president." And Trump is clamming up because he obviously has much to hide.
To suggest as Brooks does that it is the Democrats' fault in creating a constitutional crisis is a new low in false equivalence.
The bottom line is that the president is a dishonest man who has self appointed himself king. And Brooks knows this, so his defense of this man betrays his own blind partisanship. I though he was better than this. I guess not.
1
Perhaps that's good advice for Nadler.
It isn't good advice for me. Every time Trump ignores a subpoena and every time his kids act as a conduit to the mob with no "oversight," I'm reminded that I want a Congress, not a dictator.
We (the people) paid for that report. Each one of us who wants to read it deserves to have it. Unredacted. You have to be as naive as a tree to believe that anyone is going to be "indicted" from that report. At least not until 2021, and I lived through Gerald Ford's administration, so I'm not even that stupid.
If anyone exemplifying the Imperial Presidency needs to be punched in the nose, then it is Donald J. Trump. Why are we avoiding that subject?
2
The line was crossed a long time ago when the Senate Majority leader declared his intent to block everything the president tried to do and ensure he had only one term. This was reiterated recently when it was declared that no progressive legislation of any sort would be considered. And the investigations into the 2016 campaign -- topic closed, regardless. Blockage of legitimate oversight requests is in the grand scheme a small point in this depressing landscape.
It is a pity the system depends on the willing cooperation of the parties with the rule of law and traditions. Because when these break down there is literally no means to push things back into balance without letting it fall into outright civil war. That point seems to be getting closer every day.
2
Yup, different day, but same old David Brooks, chief apologist for his corrupt party. There is no reason to deny the full report to congress unless you don't want oversight. The executive is declaring the investigation over and annoyed that congress isn't going along. I've never understood how Mr. Brooks can claim any moral ground when he is so blinded by his party loyalty. What a hack!
2
Respectfully, David, I believe that you are looking at this myopically. We have been in a constitutional crisis for many years now courtesy of, first, Newt Gingrich, who broke the House, followed up by his acolytes, the Orwellian-named Freedom Caucus; then Mitch McConnell, who broke the Senate; and now, finally, Trump, who subverted the Executive Branch. Trump is simply implementing the McConnell/Freedom Caucus strategy of denying the Democrats any effective role in governance whatsoever, despite the Democrats continually winning majorities that took them to the White House under Obama and, more recently, the House. It is the strategy of a permanent minority party to regain full control (and it worked like a charm in 2016).
On its own, the refusal to produce the redacted portions of an already damning report may look like small potatoes, although there is a strong argument that the House has legitimate reasons should have this information. But the Democrats must fight back -- they cannot be constantly rolled by McConnell and Trump if they are ever to fulfill their Constitutional duties. And maybe what Nadler is doing here is weak, rather than citing Barr for contempt for his dishonesty to Congress, or going full out and impeaching the most corrupt and contemptible President this nation has ever suffered, but the imperative to assert power and fight the McConnell/Freedom Caucus/Trump disaster in democratic governance is the only path to normalcy.
1
This is the most ridiculous example of “both side-ism” yet. Comparing the Democrat Nader to the autocratic outlaw Trump is absurd. I enjoy Mr. Brooks occasionally, because reasonable people can disagree. There is no coherent logic in this column though.
3
Contemplate for a moment, Mr Brooks, what a republican House and Senate would do if a democrat occupied the WH and that persons behavior came close to the perverse nature of the man presently sitting in the Oval office. Please, use your imagination, then give us your thoughts on how the Congress would act in response to an authoritarian, lying, narcissist of a Democrat repugnantly voicing contemptuously another persons character to a cheering mob of supporters. Would love to sit down over a beer and listen to your thoughts.
Spot on, David. And your point about leaks is the gospel truth, your inglorious paper would be the first to publish, with a nice nonpartisan "take aways" section appended.
1
"If Congress uses its power simply to destroy the president, then of course any president is going to clam up and refuse to cooperate."
That's exactly what the Democratic-majority House of Representatives, the FBI, the DOJ, the CIA, the Obama/Hillary conspiracy, and the MSM have been doing to President Trump. That's exactly what Jerrold Nadler is attempting to do. "...[B]ecause it just feels good to bash the administration," in your own words.
But you still call President Trump a "villain" for refusing to cooperate with the dissipated likes of Jerrold Nadler? Your partisanly poisoned illogic astounds, Mr. Brooks.
Please. The White House is lawless and power mad. If the party affiliations were reversed? Brooks has spent twenty years losing credibility running cover for the GOP and now, when the House is then only part of the government functioning, we get this. Get out of here
What next, Mr. Brooks? Or have you turned into just another Guiliani, somebody who used to be somebody else? Who used to be capable of critical thinking?
Spinning a little tale about your president being harassed to death by democrats? What a martyr he is? That his illegal conduct shouldn't be subject to investigation? That he should be allowed to continue unchecked to degrade our country's values, norms and LAW?.
That the democrats have overreached? How quickly you have forgotten Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi...
Will you take Trump's line and tell us that, even though he has not cooperated with either democratic AND republican committees, turned over no documents and is now gagging former federal employees, he us still pure as the driven snow and congressional scrutiny should cease?
An aberrational column for Mr. Brooks: there are no experts, no obscure writers, philosophers, thinkers quoted here. Here it's Brooks alone fuming that the democrats dare to exercise their constitutional duties: TO REPRESENT AND SERVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
Something that the republicans, including Mr. Brooks know little or nothing about.
2
False equivalence David strikes again.
Trump is tawdry.
Nadler is not tawdry.
Supporting the cowardly and Russia-agnostic Republican Party that abets Trump is Tawdry, David. This Tawdry by association is the dynamic Cohen named and Comey seconded.
Brooks supports the Republican side by writing a column saying Nadler is on the same (Tawdry) level as Trump.
1
This story sums up the stupidity of this. Are we really worried about a constitutional crisis, or taking a grandstanding opportunity. The only thing members of congress" Rep or Dem" are good at is raising money for their campaigns. They do little or no legislation. They continue to beat a dead horse. Have they seen the economy ? Do they understand anything about how human beings have been effected by a vibrant economy ? You hate Donald Trump, got it. Now you have the ever charming Jerry Nadler sneering at everyone in the Trump Administration, very effective for raising money for the party of "some people". The House has become a place for stupid partisanship. Yes the Republicans are also guilty, as CNN and MSNBC will surely point out. Why are there all the attacks on FOX and not MSNBC ?
Once again, this faux-philosophical, voice-of-sweet-reason, both- sides-now Party Man hacks up yet another hairball of justification of shredding the Constitution for an authoritarian take-over of the Republic. There are the 800 former federal prosecutors banding together to stand up for American democracy based on the law on the one side, and then....Mr. Brooks' opinion. The Times can do better than to give this guy a huge megaphone to murmur his obfuscating sweet nothings.
1
“...and there were very fine people on both sides...” in Charlottesville
1
Wrong Mr. Brooks. Simply wrong......
Hey Dave wake up.
A percentage of the truth is not 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth'.
I think Trump is starting to eat your soul.
It's painful to see David Brooks twist and turn logic and common sense, to suit his false narrative.
Nadler's a villain? Come on.
I haven't read Brooks for some time now. I suppose columns like this are why.
Oh,David, I am so ashamed of you. Finding an equivalence between what Mr. Nadler is doing and what D.T. has been doing all along is no different than the President declaring there were good people on both sides of a neo-Nazi rally. Inexcusable.
1
Since you admit you don’t know about the legalities, David then maybe you shouldn’t be publishing an opinion.
So you really believe Mueller will be allowed to appear? With trump, as with republicans under Obama, it's obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. There is no end to this until everyone in Washington, elected & appointed, is removed, kicking & screaming.
Funny how David absolves his boy Mitch and the Senate Republicans.
1
Its always the Democrats fault right?
1
Oh my God, David. Really?
Two persons may have different views on an issue, different methods to solve the issue, and have different philosophies of how to finance the solution...but David, that does not mean either person thinks the other is wrong.
Just a different approach.
It is your "newt gingrich" approach to politics that creates your pious stubbornness.
This is not about Bone Spur, David. This is about your political party, that has embraces character assassination as its primary political tool.
When you publicly accept the terrible damage to "open debate", that your party has caused, then your "ideas" may start to have value.
Otherwise, David, it is just false equivalence, resentment, and slander.
We've had enough of the slander David.
Start by stopping the lying. David, that means you have to stop lying to yourself.
The party of Nixon, is the repeat-acon party of disinformation and propaganda. That's your side David.
You must be proud. Why aren't you ashamed?
2
Just another column from Brooks singing the tune “Trump may be bad but equally so are the Democrats.” Here’s my tune, Brooks: “You’re an ordinary Vichy Republican.”
1
Stop pontificating, Mr. Brooks. This president IS a constitutional crisis because of his daily refusal to adhere to ANY norms or laws, including those dictated by the US Constitution!
When you compare the outrageous usurpation of power by Trump and his newly installed hand of the king, aka William Barr, to Eric Holder you look like a fool.
Mr. Brooks, this writing lacks any moral center and also makes no sense. The "logic" is so twisted it made my eyes cross.
Tawdry -- adjective
1.
showy but cheap and of poor quality.
I think not.
1
Please Please go back to writing columns about joy and happiness.
You have a huge blind spot when it comes to politics. A blind spot the size of an elephant.
3
Sorry, David, not your best work.
1
Brooks has finally 'jumped the shark'.
1
At this point Brooks needs to be shown the door. He has the gall to pretend Trump and the Democrats are equal "villains" here. Brooks pretending the GOP may "have crossed" some lines in the past is outrageous when they just crossed the biggest line his history. They simply handed Trump Congress's power of the purse in voting for his specious "Emergency Declaration". It was a vote for authoritarianism and autocracy, the destruction of our tripartite government, and the separation of powers.
"Sure, William Barr distorted the report in his initial summary, but he also released a report that was extremely damning about his own president". Barr didn't distort, he blatantly lied, misrepresented the facts, deliberately lied about the law of obstruction of justice, and lied under oath to Congress, all to defend, as Brooks states without a bit of irony "his own president".
"His own president" means Barr's "own client", as opposed Barr upholding the law and defending the rights of the people.
Contrast William Barr with U.S. Attorney General Elliot Richardson, who resigned rather than being complicit in Richard Nixon's obstruction of justice, followed by Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus, who resigned for the same reasons, and see what a real Attorney General is, and what an abomination Barr is.
I'm sick to death of what's happening to our country. If Brooks intends to peddle authoritarian disinformation as our republic burns he has no business writing for the Times.
1
"Tawdry?" Tawdry=Trump. Nadler? I think not. Now, there is another in Congress with a name that ends with *N*; Nunes whose midnight-cloak-in-dagger escapades ( and million-dollar law suit against a Cyber-Cow) would sure fit the Tawdry. David, where is your article on Mitch McConnell's stock-in-trade belligerence,contempt, obstruction, obfuscation...?
Because David doesn't roar his hypocrisy, it comes off as plausible to those who haven't followed his methodology for years. Those who have recognize the fraud- all-too-well:
The copy & paste formula is getting quite stale.
Does the NYT have a quota for conservative/GOP supportive material that must be published each week no matter how much contortion of thought and principle is involved?
Asking for a friend.
1
This passes for a thinkpiece? An ode to Trumpian dismantlement of democracy, drip by drip, hour by hour.
The only thing Tawdry in your headline and your shallow ill thought out opine is Trump, and he is dead set on defying the limits of his authority and our system of checks and balances.
David Brooks ...your logic is grossly in error...
No...Brooks a precedent WILL NOT be set if Trump is brought
to justice by his defiance of our US laws....and
Our system of checks and balances...must be kept untarnished
by those who take seriously their oaths of office...which
are more sacred than any partisanship...
Brooks...if you believe that those in Congress are to every single representative or Senator...are totally partisan and
put their politics above their oath to defend our Constitution
..well Brooks you are in error..
We will overcome those rotten apples who put partisanship
over their oath of office ...yes the DC rotten apples will
be tossed out...and that is why Trump MUST be exposed for
his deception and those other crooks will be swept out right
along with him.....we are on that journey...now...and Nadler
has his head on straight...so...get it in gear Brooks...the law
of our land is what we are fighting for...Nadler ..Mueller..
and those like them...are continuing this fight...and will win !!!
Oooh. David Brooks wrote a column blaming bothsides. It must be Friday. Or Tuesday.
1
1. The president (individual 1) committed a campaign finance felony in order to gain the office. He lied about it and attempted to obstruct the investigation by lying.
2. The president cooperated with the Russians to gain the election, lied about it, and has obstructed the investigation about it.
3. The president has not provided a single white house document in response to any congressional subpoenas.
And Brookes natters on about "both sides"? Impeach now and get it over with fast. Expose it all publicly : the Russians, the taxes, the corruption, the embarrassment. Obviously it will fail in the Senate, but that is not the point. Let every future president know this is not OK and that Congress is watching them. Let every Senate Republican be forced to clutch the Vile One in a loathsome embrace---that just has to be good politics for winning the senate.
1
Refusing to share the complete report, especially after Mueller and staff have said the Barr conclusions were wrong and misleading is the issue. There is no excuse for this. And yes the congress must establish their position and do the duty they are supposed to do. This is not politics, its the basis of our democratic system.
1
David Brooks goes into "Second Mountain" mode for several columns and many of us think, "He's turned over a new leaf and he's **finally** going to apologize for years (decades?) of (indirect) support for the increasingly authoritarian Right Wing.
And then this.
David, David, at long last... at long, long last....
have you no shame?
1
Brooks like so many conservative pundits resorts to the same fallback position specifically the Democrats need to change their tune, their approach or their posture to accommodate trump and his Republicans. Trump is evil. The Republican Party is evil. We're mad as hell and we are not going to take it anymore. Brace yourself Mr Brooks it is going to be a bumpy ride.
2
A typical Republican take defending their own. The Mueller investigation was going on for two years. Indictments were issued, trials were held, men working for Trump were jailed, immunities were granted to those who knew what he did and what he lies about, lies by the numbers every day, defies Congress, and on and on and on. And poor David needs more time to think about impeachment. Sob. Sob. Read some of your old columns after he declared himself a candidate. Read again what his opponents in the primary said about him and after his election and his unfitness for office! You knew what he was and you abandoned all your morals and values and now excuse, condone, and defend him. I wretch at the hypocrisy and silence of every republican in Congress for their not being the first to rid this cancer on the presidency.
1
In my humble option, the Democratic response to the Mueller report was poorly thought out.
They should have first asked Mueller to appear. He led the team which created the report. He could have answered a lot of their questions about redacted parts. He could have led them to reasons for or against asking others to appear. With his weight behind their requests, it would have looked less like naked partisanship.
I despise Trump but this time he's right. No president should be subjected to endless investigations, certainly not wit the 2020 election approaching. After 2 years, 15 million documents, 30 full time FBI agents, and close to $50 million and counting, is there really something else Nadler or Cummings are going to find?
The counsel was created to investigate collusion. There was none. Now the Democrats are concerned about obstruction of justice. That's rich! HRC destroyed 30,000 emails after she was subpoenaed. That's the definition of obstruction of justice. Democrats were silent.
They're holding Barr in contempt. He did his job and then was subject to abuse and name calling by Democratic Senators. Is this co-equallness on display? His opinion happens to also be held by Christopher Wray the head of the FBI (remember we trusted Comey and Mueller, also former heads of intelligence agencies to investigate) and liberal icon and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. Why don't you call them names too! Besides, former AG Eric Holder was held in contempt by Congress, no one seemed to care then or now.
Congress can reject Barr's conclusion. They can proceed with impeachment proceedings. But Trump and the executive branch has every right to stop cooperating. The Democratic congress has not been professional, in particular Adam Schiff who has done nothing but shriek nonsense and leak intelligence, should be ignored.
Win the election based on ideas. No more hearings.
@jkemp Ah, the old "I despise Trump" ploy. Clearly you do not despise Trump.
For this column David Brooks turned on Fox and Friends to get his pro-Trump talking points.
"This constitutional crisis is just for show. Partly the Democrats want the show because it just feels good to bash the administration."
Are you serious with this "both sides" garbage? Another day, another tainted Brooks column.
David Brooks is deliberately choosing to ignore reality. The US House has reached its tipping point; this is not some trivial media battle, Democrats did not *rush into this.* Brooks and his inability to analyze perpetuate yet again a false equivalency. Wishy-washy and flip-flop define Brooks and his opinion pieces. As someone earlier noted, he might live to regret this and other of his petulant op-eds. Fickle he is, astute he is not.
It looks like Brooks doesn't really care about American democracy. Once again he uses false equivalence as entertainment.
Mr Brooks, your bias is showing. No matter what the Republicans do, you remain one of them. And how dare you compare President Obama to trump (non-cap by intent!). These two are about as different as can be and denigrating Obama by comparing him in any way to the impostor in the Oval is not only ridiculous but offensive. Perhaps you should join some other news source, perhaps Fox?
2
I know you must be fed up reporting the horrendous things that Trump does but I have not seen in your paper the report of him laughing when one of his supporters shouted "Shoot migrants" at a recent rally, could this monster's ratings really have gone up?
1
Finally in the NYT, a balanced analysis of this issue.
The Constitutional crisis is not just the denial of the Mueller report. It's the denial of anything and everything to be reviewed or investigated. A total stonewall of preventing it of doing it's requirement under the Constitution to perform a check on presidential ineptitude, malfeasance and abuse.
1
But if Congress uses its power simply to destroy the president, surely it WILL improve the governance of this country?
2
Mr. Brooks apparently was asleep when the Republicans controlled the House and essentially became co-conspirators with Trump. It takes a whole lot of twisting to get the facts to support this level of false equivalence.
So the "real trouble" is not autocracy and censorship, but the inelegance of those who uphold the law. When the battle's lost and won, there will be those who ask 'which side were you on?" Brooks has already given his answer.
Once again the Democrats pick the wrong fight and frame the issue miserably. And, once again, the warriors on the left (as evidenced by the comments to this column) assert with high dudgeon that it's a battle between good and evil, right and wrong. So, of course, an all-out attack is not only justified, it's morally demanded.
I'd just ask all those righteous warriors to remember that the other, evil, side also has millions of warriors who are equally certain of their righteousness and who are equally prepared to go nuclear. And, as Mr. Brooks says, that's when the real trouble starts.
Stunning.
At this point, it seems clear what Brooks has in common with Trump: He just.cant.help himself.
The veneer of being the reasonable, thoughtful, pragmatic republican who just loves meritocracy, faith, & community, gosh darn it, has finally been worn off entirely.
To go after Nadler, in this context and in this manner - could only be driven by a desperation brought on by waking up one morning to find that your core set of sensibilities that have been lashed tight to a nightmare.
The real disappointment here is that this is a "teachable moment", in Brooksian parlance, and he is failing to see not only that the student skipping class, but that he is the student.
4
A remarkable exercise in not acknowledging the bigger picture. I can't say that I'm shocked, but Mr. Brooks has really fallen for the Republican propaganda and is now echoing it. The refusal of this administration to comply with lawful congressional subpoenas and other requests is so blatantly unlawful and more importantly a danger to our democracy, it's almost unimaginable all but the most desperate hangeroners would not support the democrats insistence on forcing the administration to comply and cooperate with congressional investigations.
I am ashamed that Mr. Brooks, who on occasion is a thoughtful columnist, would take such a ludicrous position. All-in-all the Republican party (not just the Trump administration) is conspiring to destroy our system of checks and balances by participating in voter suppression, packing of the courts, failure to protect 2020 elections, and of course not holding the administration accountable for all of the crimes committed in broad daylight, emoluments violations, publicly seeking Russian help in damaging his opponent. In this context for Mr. Brooks to nitpick the details of the subpoena for the full Mueller report is simply mind boggling. I think he's reached his low point as a critical thinker and frankly it's terrifying that he take such a position.
4
The Republican Party has been assaulting democracy and dismantling all levels of government for decades, lowering taxes to the breaking point, then pointing to the failings of the smoking wreckage and disclaiming "See, government doesn't work." Brooks largely stood on the sidelines cheering while his party played smash mouth politics. And now here he is with more false equivalency. The Democrats begin, finally, to stand up to the GOP's death cult, and Brooks is aghast. In his new book he claims to have found his soul. He says he now knows what joy is. How long do we have to wait before he figures out what hypocrisy is?
3
"Of all the contemptible things the Trump administration has done, this is probably the least contemptible." I guess Mr. Brooks only believes in the high crimes vs the misdemeanors part of impeachment. Mr. Brooks is trying to seek balance where there is none. He wants to be fair to an administration that does not play fair. He wants pillars of democracy to hold up a crumbling roof.
1
It must be nice to wake up every day and forget what has transpired over the last two years.
It makes it a lot easier to blame the democratic party and its leaders for wasting time investigating administration wrong doing which seems to occur on every possible level of this administration.
DEMS have not rushed into this.
And reaction cannot be the blame when the action is as extreme as the tRump's have been. This article struggles to support any argument for the REPtilians who are killing the system of our country.
Mr. Brooks, remind us when you said anything close to this during the Benghazi and pseudo IRS scandal investigations; not years later, but when they were happening. You know, that politically motivated investigations were destructive to our democracy.
1
No David .... the House destroying this president IS using its power in positive ways to improve the governance of this country. Not only must Trump and his swamp-dwellers be taken down, they and the GOP must be shamed in every way possible. No-one forced these people, kicking and screaming, against their will ... to unleash the pestilence we've been suffering through. Plagues are terrible things, and must be eradicated.
That said, the Dems, regrettably, have chosen the wrong issue here, and are playing a weak hand .. both legally and politically. But, this is far from the only line of attack. A House Ways and Means Committee lawsuit to obtain Trump's tax records has far more potential to succeed, and comports more readily with the sound oversight prerogatives you mentioned.
The Dems didn't ask for this fight, but must confront the evil that has us in its grip.
2
David, David, please! You wrote regarding the non total release of the Meuller report, "Of all the contemptible things the Trump administration has done, this is probably the least contemptible." So rather than blame the Democrats for over-reach, how about listing those "contemptible things?" Why, I tell you why. Why, because we sit and let Trump, in his ignorance way--not having any understanding about the rule of law and our constitution, get away with all his contemptible things--an anti-democratic way never before seen in any President before him. Trump may have changed our society forever, and the fact that there seems to be forty percent of Americans that go along with his contempt for our history is even more contemptible. David, please lend your voice to attack not the Democrats who are trying to deal with cruel oddities never before seen in American politics.
1
Given the headline on this piece, I had a sense of where David Brooks would be going: in the wrong direction. After struggling through his tortured and flawed arguments, implicitly touting their/his equanimity, I guess I don't inhabit the same reality that he does. Low-key, principled Jerry Nadler equivalent to unctuous Bill Barr and his reprehensible, dissembling patron? There is absolutely no equivalence. I think it's obvious where right and wrong lie and that Trump and his minions are goading the Democrats into a no-win impeachment fight, end of story. "Tawdry" is right, but it applies to one side only.
1
David, I hope you appear on the PBS Newshour tonight and attempt to support your ideas with Mark. Judy W. cannot help but cover this topic as moderator. I await your struggle to justify your position. With McConnell leading the cheering for Trump in the Senate there is no way Trump would be convicted if impeached. Trump's blatant defiance and refusal to cooperate with the House on subpoenas is decidedly acting above the law of the land. As Nixon succinctly put it, "The public has a right to know if their president is a crook".
That statement still stands.
Brooks like to claim the noble high ground of anti-Trumpism, but when it comes down to it his antipathy toward Democrats always trumps, as it were, his dislike of Trump. Whenever Democrats take Trump on, he sides with Trump.
It's past time for Brooks to decide how he wants to be remembered: as just another amoral, unprincipled, subservient Trump enabler who sacrificed everything he ever believed in to further the personal power and glory of The Donald, or as the principled thinker he claims to be.
1
You can't keep pushing this "both sides" bromide, Mr. Brooks.
If you think the hundreds of actions taken by Mr. Trump to dismantle American government is equally horrifying to Congress administering aggressive oversight of a lawless President, I don't know what hope there is for you to wake up to reality.
There is no Center for you to hide in anymore. If someone is breaking the law, it needs to be met with opposition. Your position breaks down to attacking both the aggressor and the victim for fighting back.
I don't mean to be glib, or obnoxious even, but I suggest Mr. Brooks climb to the very peak of that "second mountain" and take a good, hard look at the future. If Trump and company are allowed to get away with this what will an actually competent grifter and demagogue be able to accomplish?
Sounds a lot like "they're are very fine people on both sides".
"If Robert Mueller isn't blocked from testifying" is the key. What on earth would lead you to believe Trump won't try to block Mueller testifying? Which just prolongs this circus. The Dems have misguidedly expected moral, normal, civil behavior from Trump and his minions for too long now. It is time to do whatever it takes to get as much information about Donald Trump and his manipulation of our laws and legal system, out in the open. Dems have to take control of the narrative, and that involves more than just declaring that he is trashing our constitution. They have to use every method at their disposal to try to stop Trump. The 2020 election is a long way off and Trump can continue to do a lot of damage to our democracy between now and then. It is time to act now.
Oxford defines crisis as a time of intense difficulty or danger.
When the President and our top justice official display such blatant disregard for laws that are clearly defined in our Constitution, I think it's a bit of a reach for Mr. Brooks to say that Democrats are "undermining the way the system of oversight is supposed to work" simply because a few have used the term "constitutional crisis".
I have become increasingly disappointed, Mr. Brooks, with your analyses. It seems to me that you are doing what many conservative Republicans have done for a long time: try to blame both sides when the blame so obviously falls on today's Republicans in Congress who have proved themselves to be unworthy of their positions by allowing this unfit president to continue in office and by supporting him with their silence while he continues to ignore any branch of government, including the fourth estate. He is destroying our democracy. Your quibble is not a point that bears any weight during the immense transgressions that are taking place today.
489
@Victoria Cooper
I agree entirely. Brooks criticizes House Democrats for carrying out oversight on the "wrong" thing, while ignoring the fact that the Republican-controlled Senate refuses to do any oversight at all (just as the House did before turning Blue).
Brooks is and has always been a Republican before being an American, even now when he pretends to dislike the President he helped create with his fawning praise of the worst mindless acts of the Bush II administration and the "do-nothing" Congresses Obama faced. This is just this week's obvious example.
55
@Victoria Cooper;Very well said.
24
@Victoria Cooper
"He is destroying our democracy"
When it is destroyed, blame will not get us anywhere. Destroyed it still will be.
10
Sorry to see yet one more false equivalency give Trump permission to trample on the Constitution and any reasonable standard of responsible behavior. Trump's irrefutable pattern of behavior not only justifies rapid response, but demands it. The basic question is Congressional oversight and who determines the boundaries. The Executive branch does not get to do that. It's exactly what the founding fathers were trying to prevent. It's ridiculous to treat each new Trump blast at the Constitution as a new issue; all are part of a determined effort at autocracy. I believe the US was founded on the notion that we cannot exist as a democracy, if we allow kings. As Trump doesn't read -- and apparently never did -- he missed that concept. The House of Representatives was not dealing with existential issues when Clinton was hoist on his own petard of bad, adolescent behavior. That was, indeed, completely political. At this time the House should be concerned about neglecting its constitutional duty, not of using its oversight mandate inappropriately. I'd prefer for the NYT to describe Nadler in terms other than "losing patience". The reality is, it's about time. And I, too, would prefer change to occur at the ballot box. But that does not excuse Congress from failing to curtail a tyrant.
1
"Because of what Democrats are declaring a constitutional crisis over — the redaction levels of the Mueller report. Of all the contemptible things the Trump administration has done, this is probably the least contemptible."
Interesting observation. I don't see a crisis over what is more or less contemptible. I saw it as a crisis over his abject refusal to cooperate with regard to the information in the report - prepared by law enforcement for the purpose of law enforcement - and mandating others refuse to cooperate. That may be less contemptible, but it may also be more illegal.
The report (I read it - all of it) is an exceptionally detailed summary of events supported by evidence and sworn testimony. What I couldn't see - the redacted portions - point to much more that is known. That seems to accord with the 803 legal experts who signed the Statement by Former Federal Prosecutors and who know way more than me.
It's sometimes reasonable to keep certain materials from the public. But not from Congress. Congress should be able to see it, all of it, and be able to talk about it. Same for those tax returns he doesn't want anyone to see.
Wouldn't it be interesting if Congress voted to de-fund the use of AF1 for trips to any of his properties and issue charge-backs to him for all the golf cart rentals? That might get his attention.
1
"The problem with any policy of appeasement is that it rarely appeases; it only emboldens."
I don't understand how Mr Brooks can write this sentence but see it only as it applies to Democrats appeasing the Impeach Him Now wing of their party. Somehow he does not see the House blandly accepting the refusal to comply with subpoenas and Barr's dereliction of office and near-perjury as appeasement, appeasement that would only embolden the executive branch to even more egregious behavior. The topper is his oblique defense of the executive branch's behavior as somehow perfectly understandable. After all, they offered to give the House ALMOST everything they are entirely entitled to; what's the problem?
The problem is that this administration has never acted in good faith as a co-equal branch, and has never shown the respect due and expected for Congress and the constitution. It has always, without exception, used any sign of compromise or accommodation as an opportunity to further exploit it's position. So, yes, Mr Brooks gets it right when he says the system of checks and balances has deteriorated, but he gets it dead wrong when he projects that it is the House that is furthering this demise.
Since we all agree Trump must be treated like the toddler he is, at some point the people in charge need to carry the tantrum-throwing, ill behaved child out of the room and enforce the rules. This not appeasement; it's responsibility.
2
@Jim great comment. now the house needs to realize that they have no perfect options and that what they do could affect some voters in a negative way,..... but that does not matter. we are losing our democracy and those on the fence about trump are not really paying attention. the 40% of voters that are brainwashed will never get it.
@Jim great comment. now the house needs to realize that they have no perfect options and that what they do could affect some voters in a negative way,..... but that does not matter. we are losing our democracy and those on the fence about trump are not really paying attention. the 40% of voters that are brainwashed will never get it.
How unfortunate, that Brooks has reduced the Constitutional crisis Congress is in to one tiny part of the conflict, the Trump refusal to release to the House Judiciary Committee the entire Mueller report.
It's all the other committees, too, who are facing that Trump stonewall of No Documents to Congress, No Testimony to Congress, By Anyone. It's the Intelligence Committees (of the Senate, now, too!). It's the Ways and Means committee. It's the Oversight Committee. It's the Finance Committee. It's not checks and balances between one congressional committee chair and an Attorney General or President. It's Article I rights and duties (of Congress) to check and balance actions by Article II authority (the Administration) with enforcement of law by the Article III branch (the courts).
This goes way beyond Nadler, to a Trump administration refusal to recognize that Congress has a Constitutional role. Congress has a duty here, and to shirk it would be disastrous for America.
2
I believe that the latest iteration of the dispute between the House and the Administration is over Trump's pronouncement that he will ignore all subpoenas from the Congress.
As a result, the gravamen of the dispute is no longer the Mueller Report, but Congress' oversight duties and impeachment powers and how these duties and powers cannot be reasonably exercised without the executive branch responding to subpoenas. In other words, Mr. Brooks opinion piece is out of date. Given the current state of affairs, it seems to me that he should write about the consequences to, and the future of, our Republic if the executive branch stonewalls the Congress. I know that I find the prospect dire.
4
the constitutional crisis is that the trump administration is blocking all requests for documents and all attempts to have relevant parties testify before Congress.
great idea to have mueller testify. please tell us how to make that happen.
same thing on trump's taxes. clearly he has multiple conflicts of interest and emolument issues. the law is equally clear that the returns shall be produced. please tell us how to make that happen.
1
The constitution and laws that followed are supposed to be robust and resilient: One would be autocrat in office is not supposed to destroy or weaken the system. Indeed, defects of a system when stressed are supposed to lead to reform. Rather than scolding the evildoers which in this case feels good but directly accomplishes little, it would be good to attempt to strengthen the system by making checks and balances not good will of the executive but rather a robust defend-able part of the system. Ideas along such lines would be most welcome.
David Brooks is not being honest when he says that Democrats are trying to gin up a Constitutional crisis over the Mueller Report. This threat is much more grave. The Republicans have been trying to destroy the Democratic Party for at least the past decade and Trump could deliver the coup de grace if he is allowed to bypass/sideline the House. He already has the Senate in his pocket. Who will check the President then? How will there be any balance of power. We will be left with an executive branch that basically controls everything. There is a name for that and that name is not "republic" or "democracy". We will begin to be that new thing, that euphemism for a dictatorship, an "illiberal democracy."
How cynical to call the Dems out for not concentrating on legislation when we know any legislation they create has nowhere to go. But as I understand it they are still working on issues like shoring up the ACA.
6
"If Congress uses its power simply to destroy the president..."
"If Congress picks fights merely to gin up the political passions of the donor base..."
a) Congress hasn't picked this fight. This administration has not turned over a single document requested by any committee since the election, about anything. It denies the Intelligence Committee's oversight role IN TOTO.
b) the fight is to uphold the Constitutional system of checks and balances
c) some presidencies need to be destroyed
d) Mr. Brooks has officially lost his "reasonable Republican" tag. anything for a tax cut and an end to Roe, eh David?
7
I would suggest an olive branch that might help to defuse the tension. Chairman Nadler should ask to personally read every word of the Muller report. As another gesture he might ask that the ranking member also be given access. This should greatly reduce the disclosure concern. No promises would be made that this is the last request for access but it would allow Nadler to understand the full scope of this situation.
Calling this situation, a “constitutional crisis” may be a bit premature but not by much. A bi-partisan group of over 800 highly respected legal authorities has said that indictment for obstruction is clear. This is not the time for calling this “case closed”. In addition, the legal reference Brooks supplies for possible “executive privilege” is laughable. “Somewhere buried in the millions of words in the Muller report there might be some link to exec. priv.”
This is a very serious situation but it never hurts to pull up short and make an appeal to civility even with a looming “crisis”.
Perhaps it is the use of "tawdry" that I object to the most in your essay, Mr. Brooks. I appreciate and often agree with your opinions. But I could not disagree more here. Patience would be a virtue if our checks and balances weren't already sliding into an abyss. But patience isn't going to stop this dangerous slide into acceptance of what I believe is Trump's clear obstruction of justice. I believe Mr. Nadler and his committee are trying to do their jobs for us. Do you really believe that we should do nothing while Trump and his supporters in Congress take us down their own tawdry path of obstruction and dismissive behavior: ignoring the constitution and our right to oversight? Trust and balance must be restored. If Mr. Nadler and his committee's diligent efforts appear tawdry to you ...well I guess that's one slide I can accept.
6
Our system of checks and balances is not dependent on one side's beliefs about the "motivations" for the other side's invoking of its power. And of all the people who have no right to question the motives of Democrats it is Donald Trump who vigorously argued to the Courts that his express statements as to why he had ordered restrictions on the issuance of visas to citizens of certain countries, i.e. to keep Muslims out, should be disregarded by the courts in determining whether his visa policy was lawful. Republicans questioning the motives of Democrats for seeking the full Mueller report or Trump's tax returns or any other information is hypocrisy at its finest.
4
Seems to me, as a good liberal democrat, that most of the comments go too far in condemning Brooks column. I think he makes good points about the need for democrats to be a bit more cautious in going to constitutional war over the little of the report they can't see. The Trump republicans, in my opinion, are happy to go to a very public war with the democrats over this. At the least it pumps up their base and overshadows all the other Trump problems that need attention terribly.
So what questions the committee is supposed to ask Mueller if they don't know what is in the report?
I appreciate Mr. Brooks' suggestion that the rhetoric be toned down. But I don't disagree with moving at the speed the Judiciary Committee has chosen. This 'battle' will be had in the court of public opinion. Our 'democracy' no longer has the patience for the posturing and procedural nuances once respected. Each side has identified sound bites and visual memes that are being bandied about like a shuttlecock in a badminton tournament. I, among many others, am tired of Trump's blatant disregard for process and just want him shut down. I fear this emotional need will outweigh the procedural due process approach. I only hope we think through the consequences.
We have a "president" who is abusing the constitutional limits of the executive branch and trying to irrevocably destroy the checks and balance of our democracy. Democrats are grappling with the need to confront this and to sway an electorate that put someone so unfit into power. The president's party controls the senate and will not dare to stand up to the base that elected the president. So an impeachment that is so obviously required won't end in a conviction.
In the midst of this national emergency, and yes, constitutional crisis, Mr. Brooks wants us all to get along and portrays a false equivalence. There is no equivalence between the president's attempts to wreck our democracy for personal gain and the Democrats' navigating the best of many worst choices to save our country from autocracy.
4
Brooks is the author of the new book "The Road to Character". That's especially rich from one of the leading thinkers of the conservative movement.
Trump may not have been Brooks' preferred candidate but Trump is the culmination of his beliefs and writings. You reap what you sow.
And once again a conservative "thinker" invokes a false equivalent to justify and whitewash the nightmare of Trump.
15
As a life-long Democrat, I agree with most of this David Brooks' assessment of how the Democrats should proceed. However, he still reveals his typical double-standard by simply encouraging the Democratic Congress to "oversee" but not equally condemning the Trump White House for its unprecedented refusal to "comply". With this uneven dereliction of duty it can only be resolved in the courts. Thank you Founding Fathers!
3
The voting booth was hacked and maybe just maybe some votes were changed ? Isn't it the responsible thing to do to find out? 100 or more contacts with a foreign power that is responsible for hacking the election make one suspicious?
Mr. Brooks knows better, but he’s playing with the facts. If the single issue at stake here was the release of the redacted material, Brooks could make his argument about grandstanding. But that’s just the end of a continuum of actions by this administration to emasculate Congress in general and Democratic oversight in particular.
Most people understand that Trump has utter contempt for the rule of law unless he can use it to his advantage. How many times could, and should, Congress have said stood up to Trump? But they haven’t because they’ve trashed the equal powers concept to support politics.
Brooks’ “both sides do it” approach is so tiresome. Tell us, Mr. Brooks—who is supporting the constitution? Jerry Nadler? Lindsey Graham? Mitch McConnell? William Barr?
15
In the past our society was based on trust. If someone did something wrong, someone would point out the wrong, there was acknowledgment of the wrong, the press gave perspective and weight and context to the transgression, the system would take appropriate action, and we could move on knowing that the system was working as intended and our trust was affirmed. We have moved into a time when all manner of transgressions are ignored or denied or ill-weighted or mischaracterized. Just yesterday on NPR after a clip of Trump talking about tariffs and who pays for them, the hosts laughed as they said "no that's not accurate". The President lied openly about a fact and it was shrugged off like it was nothing. The Kavanaugh hearing showed incontrovertibly that Brett was unqualified and yet he is in a lifetime appointment, one of nine great arbiters of our justice.
Trump is violating the very basis of our government and you are arguing Nadler is equally culpable? I think we have reached a point in time where we question what the role of the NYT and other news sources are. Are they to air various sides of an issue or report facts to the best of their ability? It should be obvious to all after 10,000 documented lies that Trump is violating trust and to date there are no consequences. A lot of people have lost their trust in this country because it seems equal energy is spent to say both sides are wrong than to call a lie a lie.
Trust demands facts, faith requires nothing.
11
Another masterpiece of bothsidesism from Mr. Brooks. The House of Representatives has the constitutional responsibility to investigate actions of the President that could lead to impeachment. How are they supposed to do this without being able to see all the evidence? If the Justice Department says a sitting president can't be indicted, and if it can then withhold evidence that might lead to impreachment from the House, the president becomes effectively above the law.
10
While watching Nadler being interviewed by Rachael Maddow I asked my wife, and avowed Trump Hater and lover of MSNBC, if she could tell me in a few words what the big fuss is all about. She couldn't. And that's the story here. There's no crime. There's no obstruction. It's nothing more than gutter politics undertaken to appeal to the extreme progressive base.
@johnlo
So your wife couldn't tell you in a few words what the big fuss is all about, and therefore, it's all a big nothingburger. How sweet that you consider her loss for words as the final word on the matter. However, millions of us feel otherwise.
Mueller Report: "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, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
Mueller's team has passed the baton to Congress, and of course they should run with it. The story is about transparency and checks and balances on a highly secretive and dishonest administration. It's not that complicated.
2
There certainly was obstruction. Have you read the report?
1
Again with the both sides are to blame! Enough. Trump and Barr are solely to blame through their absurd refusal to provide the unredacted report and supporting documents to Congress. Nadler offered to work with courts on obtaining protected grand jury material. Barr slammed the door, and then stayed home in a snit when called to testify. He and the rest of Trump's personal lawyers want to push the House into impeachment, knowing the servile Senate won't convict. The Constitution isn't a game, but will become a farce if the Dems don't act in its defense.
7
Curiously absent from this column is any mention of what responsibility Senate Republicans have to contribute to the honest, thoughtful governance of the country. There are no longer any Republicans of conviction like Howard Baker and or Lowell Weicker who want the truth and to find a path to accountability for a reckless demagogue if that demagogue is a Republican.
Representative Nadler has been isolated as much by Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham as he has by the pro-impeachment Democrats. These silent accomplices and sycophants do not, but should merit Mr. Brooks' consideration.
6
The Trump administration including the faux impartiality of AG Barr is a train wreck. You can't stop a train wreck with checks and balances. David is posturing as referee in a game where one side is breaking all the rules as if blind to this reality. Affecting neutrality in a situation where power has been appropriated disproportionally supports the wrong side. As far as I'm concerned any action Nadler takes short of gunfire and military intervention, is justified.
5
Once again, David Brooks shows his true colors. So, according to him we should just CONTINUE to sit back and do nothing again ? Isn't this how we ended up where we are?
Did not these same people tell us to be patient and we would see Trump learn to assume the role of president ?! Have we not sat back through his campaign and allowed him to incite anger and hatred, to mock POWs and disabled persons, to comment on a woman's worth through her facial features or private parts ?!
I say NO.... no more patience, no more waiting for Republicans to finally stand up for this country, no more playing "nice" .
This administration is flouting the very principles of the foundation of this country. Enough is enough.
6
Mr. Brooks writes: ..Democrats (are) undermining the way the system of oversight is supposed to work. How do we know this? Because of what Democrats are declaring a constitutional crisis over — the redaction levels of the Mueller report. Of all the contemptible things the Trump administration has done, this is probably the least contemptible.
REALLY Mr. Brooks....this is a fight over redaction levels of the Muller report? If this is your argument, you should look for another line of work.
Congress is seeking the full Report as part of its oversight responsibility. Mr. Mueller's summary of his report (HIS version and not Barr's) indicates HE was not the one to issue indictments. Instead it was up to Congress to decide whether further action, up to and including impeachment was needed.
Republicans argie that turning over the full Report would result in leaks to damage the President (They should know because over the past 2 years the GOP has continually demanded classified info and then leaked it to try and protect the President.)
But Congress regularly handles sensitive information in private hearings and clearly has the right to see, consider and act on the Mueller report. This isn't a matter of redaction. It is pitting Congress' right to know against a President bent on keeping them from doing so by any means possible, even as he claims it completely exonerates him.
4
Mr.Brooks,
Let's put aside the current question of a crisis. The President just had a phone conversation with Vladimir Putin. No record of this conversation will be forthcoming. We only learned about it because it was announced on Russia Today! No translator on our side and no notes. We have no idea what was really discussed.
Volume I of the Mueller report was all about this behavior.
And you don't think there should be a thorough investigation by Congress?
We should all want to know what's in the .1% and I for one don't care who's toes we step on to find out.
7
I agree with your conclusion that, assuming Mueller is allowed to testify, the Dems should wait until after Mueller's testimony before taking further action. I do not agree with your creating an equivalence between Republican and Democratic actions as damaging a checks and balances approach to governing. Barr's and Trump's actions on both refusal to allow testimony and access to the full report with supporting material is an egregious violation of a checks and balances constitutional democracy and should be confronted - whether for political or governing principles. It is ok to criticize the politicization of this episode of obstructionist actions by Trump, but to claim that both parties are at equal fault is ludicrous.
2
David the red issue is not the redactions but the stone wall. Trump is blocking access to witnesses and materials needed for the oversight you seek.
3
There probably is information in the unredacted Mueller report subject to objective privilege. However, executive privilege has a very clear legal guide lines about what is and what is not subject to executive privilege.
Moreover, the burden of proof rests with the President. The administration needs to specifically why executive privilege applies to the redacted information and why that privilege outweighs Congress need to see the information.
You can't just say "It's all protected!" That's not how our legal system works. However, that's exactly what Trump and Barr are trying to do.
You might have more of an argument if Barr had spent the last several weeks reviewing the evidence for what he could justify under executive privilege. Perhaps prioritizing which documents could be cleared quickly and which documents required more time. However, that's not what he did.
Barr refused to release anything. Meanwhile, the administration, and even Trump and his family as private citizens, are actively trying to interfere with all congressional oversight. Not some. All of it.
Sorry. No. Democrats did not jump the gun here. We are in a constitutional crisis. A crisis which Brooks helped create in his decades of conservative advocacy. A crisis which Brooks is complicit in supporting now.
3
The comments mostly prove the point of the pressure Democratic members of Congress are feeling to engage in “political war” with Trump. Though the commenters may be correct, their view is not likely shared by the voters Democrats need to oust Trump in 2020.
1
David Brooks shines a very bright spotlight on Trump, Nadler and the Mueller report, while completely ignoring the rest of the stonewalling by the Trump administration. If Trump has his way, his tax returns and financials would remain private, nobody would testify about security clearances, and further investigation of Russian involvement in the 2016 election would halt. All of these are within the purview of Congress, baked into the laws of this country. There remain substantial real issues for Congress to investigate. In his emphasis on Trump-Nadler, Mr Brooks promotes yet another false equivalence.
6
The contempt charge against William Barr, over the Mueller Report redactions, is not central to the greatest Constitutional crisis since Watergate. Donald Trump has declared that he will fight every attempt by the House of Representatives, to investigate anything concerning him. He will order that all subpoenas be ignored. He, and his family have sued banks and tax accountants, to prevent them cooperating with Congress. Barr has refused to testify or allow House council to question him. Mnuchin has refused a lawful request for Trump's taxes. The President is trying to prevent McGann or Mueller testifying. All of this, and more, adds up to a Presidential attempt to neuter Congress. This is all headed to the courts and the outcome will determine the structure and function of our Government and Constitution, into the future. There is really no way to go back. This type of attack on our Constitution is inevitable, from time to time. We have endured the Civil War, Nixon, the seemingly endless battle over Civil Rights, plus other, less notable but equally dangerous, attacks on the Law of the Land.
7
We are not in a constitutional crisis because of redactions. We are in a constitutional crisis because we have a president who has obstructed justice and the constitutional oversight work of Congress. He may have committed other impeachable high misdemeanors and crimes while in office. The House should move with all deliberate speed to determine whether articles of impeachment related to obstruction (of justice and of the work of Congress) should be passed to the Senate for trial. It is time for members of the House and Senate to uphold their oaths of office and do their constitutional duty.
7
Once again the Democrats are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Going after impeachment or starting a media war with Trump is a losing proposition. It is the best way to get Trump re-elected. The way for Democratic victory in 2020 is to keep highlighting all of his current and past obstruction and criminality of his cabinet. Then let the voters kick him out in 2020.
They should be able to do both.
Barr has ignored a subpoena to testify.
If I ignored a subpoena, I would be arrested.
Barr knows the law a lot better than I ever will.
So, is the AG above the law?
I think it is reasonable for (1) Barr to be warned he will be arrested by the House sergeant-at-arms if he fails to show, (2) if he doesn't show, be arrested and brought to the House.
Arresting Barr with cameras running might be remembered in history as the day the legislative branch of government finally said,
"Enough."
11
William Barr didn't "distort" the Mueller report, the US Attorney General, entrusted to uphold the law and protect American democracy, lied about the law of obstruction and blatantly misrepresented the facts before they could be reviewed to deceive the public.
The GOP was a de facto authoritarian party before Trump ran. Brooks proves it true in pretending Trump and the Democrats are equal "villains" because Democrats are doing exactly what the Mueller report and our Constitution require.
Mueller explicitly stated that Congress, not the Special Counsel, must hold Trump accountable as a sitting president could not be indicted under current DOJ guidelines. Republicans try to prevent Democrats from fulfilling that Constitutional obligation, yet Brooks vilifies Democrats.
Congress is the institution created by the Founding Fathers to exert vigorous oversight of the Executive Branch in order to prevent the rise of an authoritarian despot. In Federalist 51, James Madison extolled checks and balances so as to protect our republic. However, even the Founding Fathers never envisioned a corrupt autocratic GOP.
The GOP advanced authoritarianism, and the destruction of that tripartite government and separation of powers, in voting for Trump's specious "Emergency Declaration". It handed Trump Congress's power of the purse. They're doing it again in lying about the contents of the Mueller report, and in interfering as Congressional Democrats fulfill their constitutional obligations.
7
It is my humble opinion that this column is a clear example of the idealogical bankruptcy of the Republican party. Here we have a "moderate" claiming that a co-equal branch of government should proceed slowly in the face of potential criminality by another co-equal branch of government.
I'm from a third world country and immigrated to the states legally. I'm scared by what I'm seeing in the US political system. This is how civil wars begin.
8
This is one of the most blatant examples of false equivalency that I have ever seen. And, believe me, I've seen quite a few in recent years.
No, this is NOT the fault of Democrats in Congress. The administration does not have a right to conceal its wrongdoing by stonewalling all efforts at legitimate oversight.
15
I don't even know what to say. False equivalence and partisan hackery now even from you. I had hoped that you would not be co-opted, that you might be one of the few public conservatives to hold the line. It seems that I was wrong to hold such hope. I have long admired the thoughtfulness of your work even though I rarely share your point of view and have been a consistent reader of your column as part of an effort to balance my thinking and to try to avoid over-partisanship or blind spots. I really do not know why I bother any more. My growing inclination is that I should simply abandon the center, which I have come to understand over the last few years basically no longer exists in any meaningful sense, and just chose a side. Perhaps that is what you have decided to do as well. As you settle in with the right and become one of their partisan mouthpieces, I will be heading further left, likely much further left, and doubt I will any longer have reason to read what you have to say.
15
Mr. Brooks, if you are trying to mimic Bill Barr's 'nothing to see here' 4-page summary of the Mueller report, you've done a pretty good job.
8
More false equivalence from the master moralist. Silly old liberals like me would be constantly lost in the wilderness without David Brooks showing us the way forward!
7
"Sure, William Barr distorted the report in his initial summary, but he also released a report that was extremely damning about his own president."
Then why, Mr.Brooks, did Barr fully exonerate the President?
8
David Brooks automatic reflex: always find a way to apologize for and explain Republicans, no matter what they do.
10
I predicted that when you went whole hog for Barr's self serving sophistry regarding his "summation" of the Mueller Report it would not age well and it hasn't. To this you have in fact concurred. If Mr. Nadler and his colleague's are going to make the maximum use of a Mueller's appearence they need to see the full report and supporting documents in advance. In previous hearings the judges overseeing grand juries related to the report have given waivers regarding grand jury testimony, but it seems that Mr. Barr refuses to lift a little pinky in getting these waivers that are more than likely available. Other information can surely be provided for this crucial legiislative purpose. I guess its fool me once shame on Barr, fool me twice regarding the duplicity of this Administration - then it is shame on you.
5
David Brooks was a consistent Hillary-basher. In his own way, he helped elect Trump. Why does it not surprise me that he ‘ feels sorry’ for this poor defenseless President who has to put up with the nattering nabob of negativism, Representative Nadler?
6
Always the equivalence, with Democrats as guilty as Republicans. Such poppycock. David, can you come down from the "Second Mountain" and face reality. The Republicans have destroyed the House, the Senate, the SCOTUS, and now the presidency and executive branch.
11
David?
Comparing the collapse of the Republican Party versus the Democratic Party's demand that Constitutional laws be obeyed is called a "false equivalency".
Republicans have stunk like a dead fish-head for - as you said - "decades", displaying lunacy since 2012 when they proudly proclaimed that they were the "Party of NO!"
Bobby Jindal said, no - you are the "Party of Stupid".
And so they are.
[However, I did enjoy where you wrote: "Sure, William Barr distorted the report ....." Well...... sure........]
Once upon a time this country was like Swiss Cheese. It had huge, gaping holes in it's fabric of society.
But, those days are long gone.
We are now a nation suffering from osteoporosis.Instead of a hundred big holes we now have thousands of small ones to go with the biggies.
This nation is one small slip away from shattered hips, and when we fall and are wailing, "Help me! I've fallen and I can't get up!" the rest of the decent world is going to shrug and let us lay there.
You are shameless, David.
You have lost the right to be a spokesperson for this country.
Don't fall, David.
I'm not sure I would pick you up.
6
Very, very sad to see Mr. Brooks write a column like this. He has evolved over time into the avuncular philosopher for the remnants of the old-time respectable Republican Party (anyone remember that far back?). Yet here he is descending into the mode of unabashed party hackdom. Which he only occasionally did even early in his career. Why David? Are you trying to prove your bona fides? Give it up - no one left in the Party cares. Or is even listening.
8
Mr. Brooks, please advise as to where the “checks and balances” you mentioned in your piece are? They have gone missing.
3
Have we lost America?
1
Would someone send this man back to the Wall Street Journal where he belongs.
6
That’s the answer! Dismiss and disregard any view you disagree with. Bravo to the NYT for having Brooks’ column, and bravo to Brooks for writing for the NYT.
Seriously? The levels of redaction is the crisis? Where has David been? With all that has happened, this is what David understands the problem to be? Seriously?
Sorry David but all I can say is you should be embarrassed!
8
Wouldn’t it be nice to think David Brooks even glances at these comments?
No, he’s above that.
1
I always enjoy when Mr. Brooks — who spent his career building and rooting for today’s Republican Party — gives advice to Democrats.
8
David, as usual you beg the question to avoid the difficult reality that you need to stop supporting republicans. WHAT IF MUELLER DECLIE STO TESTIFY because barr/trump order him too, successfully can executive privilege in the courts , orBob mueller believes so much in process that he puts ? After all he punted on recommendation to indict Trump. What. Load of nonsense, implying trump shouldn’t be indicted but he can’t say that because its unfair due to OC policy ? So how is trump harmed by being accused but not “getting. A trial ? Who in their right ind would prefe to face felony charges rather than have their reputation impugned ?! Seriously....boo hooo....
2
“Did you all hear the latest breaking news from the Kavanaugh hearings?” Mr. Norman told the crowd at a Thursday meeting of the Kiwanis in Rock Hill, S.C. “Ruth Bader Ginsburg came out that she was groped by Abraham Lincoln” (NYT Sept. 21, 2108).
Ralph Norman's idea of levity exemplifies the problem.
I notice speaker Pelosi now says trump is "self impeachable" and that CNN and MSNBC are using that to say she supports impeachment. Just like when she said Barr "committed a crime" and CNN/MSNBC kept asking "does this mean you support jailing Barr? Impeachment will mean a 3rd term for Trump but means nothing to TV and print media whose bread and butter is "Trump, Trump, Trump" and put 6 heads on the screen. I did not vote for trump nor did most I know but we all are sick of the news ignoring important business, technological and international business/political issues and instead have a steady diet of trump. Enough
One word best describes this latest editorial by Mr. Brooks in defense of the indefensible. "Servile".
8
PATHETIC. David Brooks continues to struggle to keep his credentials as conservative pundit. He reaches again with false equivalencies.
After spending the past year writing quasi spiritual essays - the kind for which he'd made his name mocking as a liberal fetish- he now concludes that it's time for him to come up with at least a "hard charging" political one.
Releasing the unredacted Mueller report to the entire Congress guarantees that it will be leaked? What about the novel idea that the complete report should be released to the entire country? No leaks, no sieves. High security of the sort that threatens our national security? What a laugh when you have one chomping on big Macs and Coke in bed in the White House!
Pathetic AND contemptible.
8
David is too young, too inexperienced to keep trying to sound like a wise Village elder.
4
What am I missing? Holder withheld one set of documents as I understand. Barr lied to the American people and likely lied to Congress in addition to withholding documents. What gives, Mr. Brooks? You’re smarter than that!
3
And we’re back.....Brooks again lecturing Dems all the while wholly ignoring his party’s head in the sand, blind to the facts, weak kneed antics.
5
Okay, why is it considered wrong to call for impeachment when that is the only constitutional way to remove a lawless President? Are we to pretend we haven't seen and heard the things we read in the Mueller Report? Are we supposed to take the law into our own hands? The Holder situation was completely different, and he did cooperate for months, supplying over 70,000 pages of documents. We want to use the Constitutional rules to protect our country from this lying, stealing, and cheating President and his family. We have evidence of far worse things than Nixon did. There has been no rush. We waited for the Report, even though we had all seen the facts coming out in front of us. Brooks, you are way off kilter on this. We have a renegade in charge of DOJ. We deserve to see all the evidence, paid for with our taxes, and hidden by a guy also paid by our taxes. It's our country, too. And we want to live here without fearing our fellow Americans will murder us in our beds if we use the Constitution to protect our sovereignty and Law. The longer we wait to impeach, the more power he will draw to himself. We have a dictator in the making. He controls the Courts, DOJ, the Senate, and some in the House, and apparently many at the NYT in addition to having his own propaganda machine at Fox. He and his family believe they need not obey laws they don't like, for which all of us would be imprisoned. Defying the subpoena is the last straw. We demand justice.
5
So you are not supposed to employ checks and balances because doing so will destroy checks and balances.
What a novel concept.
22:50 EDT, 5/09
8
Hey David. Over the years you have been very impressive. Since Trump, you have lost it going straight downhill.
Hopefully today's missive embarrasses you.
1
A good deal of what David Brooks writes in his columns makes sense. It's his head-masteresque tone that keeps him and brilliance apart. He knows, we dont', he's going to tell us what's what.
Please, Mr. Brooks, lighten up!
Anne Bernay
1
So you are not supposed to do checks and balances because doing s will destroy checks and balances.
What a novel concept.
08:00 EDT, 5/10
1
I do not care for your opinion Brooks. It is not well thought out. If it was, you would realize that Trump is sidelining our Constitution by not allowing Congress to investigate Mueller’s report thoroughly, without redaction.
5
Where is Mr Brook's outrage at Republicans who are avoiding any criticism of Trump and support for investigation, despite his obvious obstructive conduct detailed in the Mueller Report?
His criticism of Democratic strategy is well taken, but it cannot stand alone.
2
The investigation examined actions that might be criminal and found real crimes. No decision regarding the President's involvement in those crimes was made despite evidence suggesting that he might have participated in the crime. Now the President wants to limit access to the report by declaring it to be off limits due to executive privilege. Like Trump’s claims of economic success and independence of foreign influence, the proof is in the facts not in options whether seeking those facts is politics or Congressional oversight. It is obviously both.
3
So, let me get this straight. Republicans can act like screaming yahoos when they're in control, but Democrats are supposed to be the adults in the room when it's their turn to run the show. Please!
The Democrats need to stand firm against the Republican Party's assault on our constitutional system. The House must impeach Trump in defense of the governmental arrangements set out in the Constitution, regardless of the fact that the supine and craven Republican Senate majority will not convict under any circumstances and regardless of impeachment's effect on the 2020 election.
When people in the future look back on this malign administration, it must be clear that "the people's House" stood up clearly and firmly in opposition to the Republican Party's attempted evisceration of the constitutional norms that have served our country so well for so long.
7
I am reading all of these comments with interest, and realizing that many of these commentators seem to be missing what I think is M. Brooks' point, so eager are they to make known their contempt for the Occupier of the White House, his enablers and perhaps M. Brooks. In essence, many seem to be pursuing the same line of action -- the confrontational pile-on with out full grasp of the issue at hand -- that Republicans and Democrats are taking, as portrayed in M. Brooks' piece. This op-ed is not praising anybody's or any party's actions in this endless debate. Certainly, M. Brooks finds the OWH and friends as reprehensible as many of us do. This commentary is, rather, an argument that we who oppose what is going on in our democracy get all of our facts irrefutably straight, accurate and coherent and proceed in a measured manner before entering into any legitimate discussion of impeachment. If We the People want to get rid of the Abomination currently residing in the White House, we need to take the right actions at the right time, rather than rushing into a spectacle that will only play into OWH's campaign strategy, further fragment our society and government and feed OWH's Base. I want OWH gone and this national nightmare to come to an end as much as anyone, but let's do it in an organized manner rather than the current fragmented, reflexive and unmindful manner being preached by some in the Democratic faction.
Mr Brooks, please tell me how congress preserves their constitutional right to oversight in the future if they do not act now to compel testimony??
7
Democrats in Congress must priorize securing the Mueller investigation evidence. The redactions can be easily be reconstructed with that material. But no justice, or record will be exist if DOJ permanently quarantines or destroys the original documents and interviews.
Custodial care is probably still in the hands of Mueller. What happens to that material if he no longer is a DOJ official?
1
The obstruction continues...where does it end? Don't Democrats have an obligation to reign this man with dictatorial tendencies in? If they let him disregard checks and balances now, after the special counsel actually suggested that congress take action in regards to ten accounts of obstruction, what happens in the future? This president's flagrant disregard for the rule of law is not normal, it is not safe for a democracy, and comparing it to anything that happened in previous administrations does not apply.
5
Well, we see how Mr. Brooks has lost his ability to be balanced as well. McConnell thanks you and be assured, they are holding a well paying place for you at a Republican think tank. Thank you for your service.
There is a huge difference between Holder, who was in the wrong but over something of an incredibly smaller concern, and a president who is recklessly stonewalling an investigation in to his potential obstruction of justice and potential financial ties to foreign or domestic entities that compromise his capacity (whatever that is ) to serve the country. Yes, he loves a fight that doesn't involve direct confrontation for him.
A person from the Republican party getting into high dudgeon over a "passionate.... whipped up" group of voters - that don't happen to be the Tea Party - is pretty rich considering those supporters carried weapons to demonstrations.
Your sense of perspective is on vacation. Call us when the fever subsides.
5
Thank you for this thoughtful, sober analysis Mr. Brooks. I learned of Barr’s offer to disclose the redacted portions of the Mueller report to key Democratic members from the WSJ editorial page earlier this week. My reaction was, why wouldn’t the Dems accept this offer, and more important, why isn’t this information more broadly known? I’m sure it was in the Times too, but I try to read and watch a lot of news, and your mention of it was the first I’d seen it outside of the Journal.
I read the Mueller report the weekend it was released, and corrected many of friends who hadn’t read it and believed some spurious early accounts that “30 to 40 percent of it was redacted.” I’m not studied in the law, but the commission of high crimes and misdemeanors by Mr. Trump are patently obvious. The Dems have a ton to work with; and having critical eyes trained in the rest of the report should provide more than enough that any competent prosecutor would need to try and convict. But instead, Nadler’s bald faced political grandstanding is only going to serve to slow the process and inflame the increasingly combative sides, making any hope for a dispassionate legal remedy nearly impossible.
It’s time to meet Barr half-way: view the additional documentation he’s offering, and proceed with the constitutional mechanism available to force this corrupt regime to begin respecting the rule of law.
3
@Sle - Where do you get the idea that congressional oversight should meet the administration half way? And how do they “proceed with the constitutional mechanism” when it’s a given that the Republican Senate WILL NOT CONVICT? It doesn’t matter whether Barr is hiding something in 40% of the report or 5% or 1% or .000001%. What is he hiding.
1
@gVOR08
My point is that Barr is offering to show what he’s hiding and the Dems are refusing to take yes for an answer. Nadler et al shows a preference for political theater rather than gleaning everything they can from what is available to them and releasing it to the public.
The more info that’s out, the more criticism will be brought to bare against Trump’s cabal and the greater the chance the Dems can mount a successful challenge against Individual 1 at the ballot box (e.g constitutional remedy) the only place this can realistically be resolved.
Stunning Mr. Brooks thinks that by allowing most of the Mueller report out Barr should be congratulated. The 10 percent of the report Barr is keep from Congress is clearly the most damaging to the president. Does Mr. Brooks not understand that the administration has blocked Congress on every attempt to get information, about the administrations attempts to destroy the ACA, Trumps taxes, the caging of children, and that this is the beginning of a long carefully thought out process?..
6
"If Congress uses its power simply to destroy the president, then of course any president is going to clam up and refuse to cooperate."
It's been clear for some time now that Trump is willing to destroy the nation's democratic institutions to achieve his goals, which includes enriching his family and corporations, but Republicans, who controlled both the House and Senate refused to provide any oversight for fear of losing their seats. Thankfully, Democrats control the House and are doing their job which is to investigate Trump's immoral, unethical, and illegal activities. I hope they arrest every White House employee who refuses to honor the subpoenas. As for Trump, if he isn't eventually impeached he will likely be indicted when he leaves office in 2020. One way or another, he will suffer the consequences of his actions.
8
@EGreen
"One way or another, he will suffer the consequences of his actions."
That, unfortunately, is by no means a certainty. If he can get away with all the crimes and corruption that he has even in only the last two years (not to mention the decades of crime and corruption before that), and given his awareness that he MUST remain in office to avoid prosecution (due to a misguided OLC memo written for another purpose 40 years ago) on federal charges (and state charges may not be forthcoming if they fear the political war such action would ignite), Trump may very well escape justice in this life. He seems to be the most miserable of humans, incapable of the higher joys and simple pleasures -- it may be that his evil goes unpunished before his body itself ends his -- and our -- misery. Praying people should petition that it is sooner than later, for all our sakes.
Mr. Brooks, there are no sensible reasons to oppose an impeachment inquiry.
Mueller presented a compelling case for obstruction and failure to address it undermines any remaining sense of law and order we have left.
It does send a message that some are indeed above the law.
That being said, I do find myself agreeing with you in terms of how you are defining "motive".
This is just more inane posturing and rhetorical acrobatics from Democratic leadership in terms of trying to make Trump and his administration look worse, as if such a thing was possible.
It is the usual dog and pony show to keep your voter base at bay. See, we issued a contempt citation...happy now?
The problem is that they are not succeeding and if this election did not involve Trump, then I would no longer want to be a part of this kind of weakness and cynicism.
I would leave the Democratic Party not because I disagree with policy, but because I am completely disgusted with the lack of meaningful leadership.
The reflex of some towards knee-jerk equivalence between two antagonists aside from being intellectually lazy is really fatiguing to watch. I respect Mr. Brooks a great deal. But I know he is smarter than this. The logic he presents is sloppy: "If Congress uses its power simply to destroy the president, then of course any president is going to clam up and refuse to cooperate." Lost in the fog of this illogical nonsense is the fact that Congress cannot simply use its power to "destroy" a president. If that were possible, the Republican Congresses during the Clinton and Obama administrations surely would've succeeded. They spent years trying. They failed. Because the power to destroy at-will does not exist for Congress without a factual predicate meriting destruction. The instinct to presume Congress *can* destroy this president is an unwitting admission that Mr. Brooks is aware on some level that this president is vulnerable, that there is factual predicate meriting destruction by Congress. Mr. Brooks may not want to recognize it, but for all his claims not to be a fan of the president's behavior he is acting as a active protector of the administration, and an opponents of the facts that demand accountability for this administration, at least in a just republic. Today was a disappointing read for me. I know he's smarter than this piece. And much more moral.
6
Dear David,
The real trouble has already started. It began in 2016 and the democrats are finally catching up to that fact, and addressing it.
It is not a failure of political manners. Trump is giving the finger to our whole system of government and its necessary checks and balances.
Usual assumptions of good faith and loyalty to the system as a whole cannot be applied to Trump and his enablers. We need to treat this situation as the existential threat that it is.
5
Brooks is incorrect saying this 'Constitutional crisis' is about redactions. It is about the executive proclaiming he will disobey the law and not comply with any House subpoena. It is about a president who has flagrantly gamed the tax system, banks and investors, stiffed contractors, bought the silence of hookers. It's about a president who has obstructed justice, then proclaimed 'total exoneration!' despite an exhaustive report that states the opposite. And its about talking heads prevaricating about a Constitutional crisis when the country is in the middle of one.
4
Mr Brooks: Why should the Special Prosecutor ever take the time to look into obstruction of justice if the DOJ could do nothing about it and if Congress could not see all the material gathered in the investigation and could not follow up on what was found in it?
How much worse could Trump and his people have done than to invite Russia to interfere in our election, ignore Russian interference, deny Russian interference, attack American intelligence agencies, and lie to the American public. You have seen too many Hollywood movies where the president is actually a "Manchurian candidate." Short of actually being a Russian agent, how much would Trump have to have done to be guilty of seriously bad things?
Nadler has no choice but to do his job fully or to resign. Are you suggesting he resign and the rest of Congress to stick to fund raising?
1
I agree that appeasement rarely works.
The Senate has appeased Trump for over two years. Obama appeased Mitch by not going public and viral about Russian hacking.
Time for some serious standing up!
5
Yet again Brooks missing the forest for the trees by spinning a tale of false equivalence. The redacted bits of the report are not the only issue, and this piece ignores the whole context, executive overreach and the disinformation op Barr pulled. Now that upwards of 1000 DOJ alumni (the very sort bipartisan group of jobbing 'people who actually do the work of government' types Brooks routinely and rightly praises) are themselves testifying to Barr's impaired or corrupted judgment. Nadler clearly correct to have Barr questioned by counsel.
The really disappointing thing about this piece is that it gives continued succour to the pox on both their houses nonsense that helps fuel extremism. The deeper context, of which Brooks is well aware, of is the hyperpolarization that has happened to the GOP has now metastasized under the lawless, truthless Trump. If he cares about the fate of his party it's not Nadler or Democrats who need lecturing, it's McConnell and Congressional GOP who are giving the President cover in undermining oversight and the rule of law. Brooks risibly seems to think Trump would respond if Democrats just asked nicely. We are indeed in constitutional crisis, and Brooks would have us think Nadler is just as much to blame. It is not Nadler who is overreaching. Brook's analysis seems more the result of the operation of his own vestigial partisan ticks, and the necessity of having something to say as a 'conservative' voice when Trump has eaten the party.
6
"But advice is rarely heeded when war fever is rising and the logic of events starts spinning out of control."
War fever is intoxicating. Boring and staid ogic is not. War feels like you're doing something noble, something powerful, something real. It's all consuming and everything must be sacrificed. The enemy must be defeated and the fabric of normal and everyday life must be sacrificed to the righteous cause.
Mark (Editor pick) "The executive has chosen to refuse oversight. The fact that there is 00.1% still hidden is not the point."
Seriously? Where's the logic in declaring a constitutional crises over a tiny portion of a document when the biggest challenge America is its fractured and divided state?
Declaring war over this issue is a feel good panacea devoid of agency and a total waste of time given how much there is to do if you are to win in 2020. Champion your new champions and the policies you want to enact now. Stop throwing the people you purport to work for under the bus for a 00.1% principle.
1
Agree. Democrats are playing right into Trump's hands by playing his game of tit for tat. Do your governance and your job like passing budgets and send it to McConnell. If he obstructs, that is his problem. You can point to having done your job. Compile a report of all the malfeasance of Trump and publish it for the public to see with all the footnotes and citations. A bright light is the best disinfectant. Let them defend their positions, not define yours.
Yes, it took a longer time for Holder to be found in contempt of Congress, yet I do not recall President Obama saying that he would refuse all subpoenas from the Republicans. I do not recall President Obama waiving Executive Privilege and the exercising it when it was the Republicans asking for something. If you are going to compare two things as equivalent, make sure they really are close (compare a Pippin to a Granny Smith, not a Pippin to a Navel Orange, for making an apple pie.
The wonderful thing about the American system of government is that these kinds of battles are possible and open to public view. In all other democratic systems this happens behind closed doors. In America the voters will decide who is more reprehensible. If the decision is a pox on both your houses, Trump wins. He is the ultimate example of the George Benard Shaw's adage, "never wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty but the pig likes it".
Pelosi showed the only strategy that has a chance. Ignore him and you can draw but not win. Attack him and you lose. Trump was elected to tear down the corrupt political system and he's doing a great job of it. His election was a middle finger insult to Obama, Bush and Clinton by over 60 million Americans. In 2020 there will be more, middle fingers.
My problem with this is that we, the taxpayers, have paid for a two year, multi-million dollar investigation and aside from any security and confidentiality redactions, we should be allowed to see the entire report. The bigger question here is why in the world anyone who claims to be "totally exonerated" by an investigation would work so hard to prevent it's release. I'm afraid that Mr. Trump has dragged you, along with the entire GOP down in the gutter with him.
1
As usual Mr. Brooks misdirects and whitewashes the gravity of what is happening and blames it on...surprise...the Democrats. The fact is Barr is being held in contempt because he lied to Congress and refused to testify before Congress because he didn't want to be questioned by an actual practicing attorney; he didn't "like" the format. He presented a grossly misleading summary of the Mueller report with the intent to mislead both Congress and the public. On top of that he sent a threatening letter Congress. Threatening what? Complete obstruction. Mnuchin refused to release Trump's tax information for no good reason. The entire GOP in the Trump administration is trying to bury the Mueller report. Because Barr wasn't caught for his dishonesty 30 years ago, does not mean he should be allowed to repeat it. This president and his attorney general are the ones over reaching their authority and interfering with Congress's duty to provide oversight on this administration. Finally, Trump is no "spoiled child". He is a corrupt, geriatric grifter, Fully rotten to the core.
5
In what alternate universe is the Attorney General contemptious? He has made the entire report available to all leading members of Congress. None of the Democrats have taken the time to read it. The 1% of the report that is prohibited for release without a court order, remains redacted. Listening to the hearing I was struck by the reliance of fantasy by the Democrats and fact by the Republicans. One Dem. Congressman referred to facts as "sweet talk", the type he uses with his wife while another Dem. Congressman sat and ate a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken while Nadler smiled at the activity. Reminds me of the former USSR, politically arrogant and deeply corrupt.
Donald Trump holds all the cards, and Rep. Nadler can't win. With an impeachment proof Senate and a racist public. Trump knows that he can do, not do, and get by with anything he wants. There is no stopping him.
While praising the intelligence of the American electorate, he secretly knows that they can be led around like a bulls with nose rings - only instead of bull rings, he uses their beliefs and prejudices to lead them wherever he wants.
If DJT doesn't destroy our fragile democracy, he has published the blueprint and playbook for some other demagogue to do it later. If a democracy like America's is going to exist, there will have to be a paradigm shift in human thought throughout the world.
In the near future, we will program the human mind in the computer based on a "survival" algorithm, which will provide irrefutable proof as to how we trick the mind with our ridiculous beliefs about what is supposed to survive - producing minds programmed de facto for destruction. These minds see the survival of a particular belief as more important than the survival of us all. When we understand all this, we will begin the long trek back to reason and sanity.
See RevolutionOfReason.com
AG Barr is being held in Contempt of Congress because he lied to the American people in an attempt to twist the Mueller report to protect his boss. And then his issued the report redacted to do what? - we won’t know until we see all of it. And then he refused to testify to explain his actions. And who knows what he is doing to prevent Robert Mueller from directly explaining his own report and specifically addressing why he didn’t - or couldn’t - recommend indicting Trump for obstruction of justice.
Barr got hired by Trump to do exactly what he is doing. He told us all that he had found Trump innocent long before he ever saw the Mueller report, based on his belief that Trump cannot ever be guilty so long as he is taking actions that could, if exercised by an honest president, be within his constitutional authority. But Trump is not an honest president. Barr knows it and knew it when he wrote his job interview memo. So Barr’s eagerness to be on the Trump team can only be interpreted as it has been by the Democrats. He joined the Trump team to protect a lying president by being one himself.
If Barr was in Rudy Giuliani’s role, his behavior would be dismissed as Giuliani’s is - that of a once-respectable man being corrupted by Trump, his client. But Barr is America’s attorney and he is doing a disservice to us - his real clients. Thank God that America’s elected representatives are holding him to account.
3
The usual Brooks phony equivalence. Trump is destroying the whole system of constitutional checks and balances ably assisted by the Republican party (see the phony declaration of emergency and the current furore over the Senate Intelligence Committee subpoena of Trump Jr); has a AG who acts like his personal lawyer ("Sure William Barr distorted the report"); and Brooks dismisses this effort by Democrats to rein in Trump as tawdry. What scale of value judgments does Brooks apply one wonders?
5
Trump is not just a "spoiled boy" he is a power mad spoiled boy. He only understands force. Fail to take action against him and like any other criminal he will gain in power until the country is destroyed.
Trump is not an American. He is a Trumpian trying to create the empire of Trump. He has many followers who believe they will do better in such an empire. Democrats taking swift action are the only hope we have.
2
Another false equivalence by Mr. Brooks. He neglects to mention the principal roadblock to preserving checks and balances in our system of government, namely a Republican Party that has ceded its constitutional duty of oversight to an unfit president who wants to be emperor.
4
As I read Brooks and Douthat, so many times I think that Republicans have no real understanding of what Democrats think about the nation's needs or women's needs.
3
David, perhaps you should read an article by one of your contemporaries on how to actually write about this.
See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-war-in-washington-isnt-between-trump-and-democrats-its-between-trump-and-congress/2019/05/09/20760ab2-7286-11e9-9f06-5fc2ee80027a_story.html?utm_term=.81fd404afbce
3
We should have learned by now that Trump is very skillful at manipulating public opinion among the low-information voters who see him as their messiah. He is skillfully manipulating the Democrats into taking the impeachment bait in order to continue to control the narrative and divert them from methodically building a campaign to unseat him in the next election. Unless he is found in bed with a little boy during the trial, this collection of Republican Senators will not convict convict him and the entire process will not only be a waste of time, but a successful diversion from the paramount task at hand which is to defeat Trump in the next election before he destroys our country.
I know of no precedent in modern U.S. history for the surreal and ominous situation that’s been daily undermining the foundations of our constitutional republic under Donald Trump’s presidency. Fervent progressive partisans may be leading the call for impeachment simply to destroy Donald Trump the person, but many of us are deeply concerned — no, afraid — that some of the damage that’s already been selfishly, recklessly done to our democracy may be permanent. We’re feeling a creeping sense of inevitability that we too will soon be calling for impeachment, albeit with no pleasure at all.
1
Oh, right.
Barr misrepresented the Mueller report. Brooks thinks this is just fine.
Going to hostile foreign powers to win an election. Obstructing justice in plain sight.
Brooks yawns. Why would anyone bother to follow up on this? So "tawdry" to pursue democracy and protect our country from foreign influence.
7
Thank God that Pelosi, and not Nadler, is speaker of the house. Pelosi has hardly put a foot wrong since regaling the gavel. Nadler has backed himself into a strategic corner. Maybe Pelosi can help him find a way out.
While Brooks is named David the real David is our wonderful congressman Jerry Nadler, and Donald Trump is Goliath.
We need Jerry now to stop a dictatorship which is only a few steps away from happening. Our David is Jerry Nadler and I hope he can save us.
2
David,
As you said yourself, the Attorney General “distorted” the findings of an investigation about whether the President of the United States or his proxy colluded with the Russians to subvert our election. He did it in public, on the record, in a document and in testimony to Congress. This is what America heard from its highest law enforcement official. As Mitch Mcconnell put it, Barr said “Case Closed.” Except it is not, because he “distorted” the findings.
Politics is a big part of this, but don’t American’s and its representatives deserve a presentation of the actual findings in full, so we can really know if the case is closed? Let’s hear directly from Mueller.
4
OK, if RM is blocked from testifying? Then what?
It would have been good to complete that final paragraph.
2
Brooks is hiding the fact that Barr has only made the unredacted version of the Muller report available to representative Nadler. And this upon condition that he does not make any notes while he sees it in the Justice Dept. Brooks is on of those who play both sides of the street. He's been frozen out of the Republican party for his never-Trumpy stance. How he's trying to crawl his way back into the inner circles.
1
" … This constitutional crisis is just for show …"
Really?
I think not.
There comes a time when taking a stand on principle is required. If not now, when? If not the House, then who?
The lesser evils:
Individual-1 is blatantly in violation of emoluments, is an unindicted co-conspirator in election fraud (hush money), a number of people who worked directly for him are in jail.
I could probably live with this knowledge if trump was following the most basic tenet of his oath: protect and defend.
The by far greater evil:
Mueller's report, and his release of the very detailed indictment of Russian intelligence a few days before the Helsinki meeting where trump went to grovel before Putin and the world proves beyond question that trump is NOT defending the US from the still unanswered cyber war Russia launched on the US. In short, trump is a traitor.
If this does not justify the call for impeachment, then I don't what qualifies.
The democrats should be going to mattresses over Mueller, not his redacted report or AWOL Barr. What Congress needs on the record is the Special Prosecutors accurate representation of what his investigation found---which, if you read the report, does add up to high crimes and misdemeanors.
At some point maybe people, like Brooks and most journalists, will stop saying "The President doesn't understand ... (fill in the blanks: 'checks & balances', 'the Constitution', 'the need for an independent Judiciary [or Federal Reserve, etc]' ... )." It's like saying Attila the Hun just 'didn't understand the finer subtleties of diplomacy' - as if a bit of education would bring 'enlightenment.' No. DJT (& his role model Attila) understands. He just has a Louis XIV complex and doesn't care. Period.
1
Again with the "both sides" argument. What will it take to get Brooks to admit the truth that is staring him in the face: Republicans, and republicans alone, are destroying our democracy before our eyes.
4
Come on Mr. Brooks. Pretending Donald Trump and Chairman Nadler present equal threats to democracy will never make it so. Bad people on both sides? This may be the falsest of your many false equivalencies.
4
It's a question of principle, i.e. the reestablishment of checks and balances on the executive branch, and taking a stand on it in addition to fact-finding. David, you are just plain wrong.
Always very pleased to hear from the annals of America white patriarchy. "Tawdry" is a solicitation of elitism and privilege, not to mention one-percent dystopian rationale. Honored to know that all Americans will benefit from the egalitarian-based laws and appointments delivered by the non-partisan Mitch McConnell and the "former" Republican House of Representatives and current Republican Senate. Pollyanna was "positive" was she not? May I please have a white napkin and another cup of tone-deafness?
"Sure, William Barr distorted the report in his initial summary, but he also released a report that was extremely damning about his own president."
Mr. Brooks, if William Barr distorted the report in his summary he did so in a blatant attempt to shield the president from the findings of the Mueller investigation. That calls into question any report that he releases over which he has editorial discretion, the more so if it is damning despite his efforts.
2
The tawdry punditry of David Brooks.
Where have you been for the last two years Mr. Brooks? In an alternate-fact universe?
The constitutional crises has been building since Trump's inauguration. And for very sound reasons.
Trump's malfeasance began with his lies, it fermented with his distortion of reality, it grew with his attacks on our institutions, it boiled over with his demonizing of any opposition to his will and an arrogant disrespect of a co-equal branch of government.
Meanwhile Mr. Brooks your party has abandoned America and sworn its absolute loyalty to Trump.
Our country is on the verge of political collapse. Not because of Democrats but because of Republicans and their mouthpieces. Trump is a disease sickening our body politic. Republicans far from carrying out their responsibilities of office, are feeding the disease.
Republicans are not interested in governing, preserving our democratic republic or defending the Constitution. They are devoted to defending Trump's abuse of the office of president.
The constitutional crises has been building for a long time, but perhaps you, Mr. Brooks, have been asleep. You may blame Representative Nadler but that only shows you, like Trump, live in a universe of alternate facts.
The crises is real. Democrats have wanted to conduct oversight hearings to lay it out to the American people. But Trump and Republicans decided on a cover-up strategy to prevent the hearings.
So now the Democrats' gloves are coming off.
1
Brooks can't have it both ways by playing, "he did, she did." This is a struggle for our democracy against a corrupt sociopath, Donald Trump who is President. The comparison of Barr to Holder is false: Obama was not Trump by a long, long shot and Holder is not Barr. As for miniscule part of Mueller's Report not published, Mueller is the one who has complained and in writing that Barr distorts his conclusions. I've read and listed to Brooks for years and so often he tries to steer a middle road with port wine smooth 'reasoning' which simply doesn't cut and even misses the larger issues.
1
David Brooks starts out well in noting how the two parties need each other, which is the point of checks and balances. He winds up his column by advising the Democrats to cool down their rhetoric and demands. Apparently, he hasn’t read the excellent column by his colleague, Michelle Goldberg, who writes: In their best-selling 2018 book “How Democracies Die,” the Harvard professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt wrote about the concept of “constitutional hardball,” in which politicians “deploy their institutional powers as broadly as they can get away with.” Mr. Trump is playing that game, and to back away from the fight would be to let him win it. Better to lose with blood on your sleeve than to make nice just to avoid a “tawdry” war.
1
"Roll over and play dead" - thanks for the input David.
2
Nadler was outraged when Holder was held in contempt. Now his faux outrage is to "preserve the Constitution". Fortunately we have all of his soundbites.
Oh, please, Mr. Brooks, give us a break. It’s obvious who the real enemy of checks and balances is in all this. From the erosion of the rule of law to the installation of gangsters and (now) convicted felons into positions of public trust, Donald Trump wins that one hands down. The Democrats and the American people have every right to see the unedited Mueller report. As John Stuart Mill once said, true democracies operate under the principle of “open covenants, openly arrived at.” How do you expect the American people to make informed choices as voters without seeing the full report? Your usual “both sides are guilty” approach is just out of phase at this critical juncture of American history. You pride yourself on your knowledge of ancient philosophy. Try this quote from Aristotle: “no man should be a judge in his own case.” That is precisely what the President is trying to do by declaring himself fully exonerated without any public scrutiny of the evidence. It’s all a sham and you sadly are complicit in that sham. You should be ashamed.
5
Another piece where Brooks' compulsive dualism rears it's sophistic head. He conceives of what is indeed a true "Constitutional crisis" (and has been for many, many months if not years) as a spat between two camps, lens on Democrats to be the adults in Blondie's playroom, and hints that if only Democrats were reasonable and not so partisan that everything would work out fine.
Brooks is dead wrong. Existentially wrong. He should stick to psychological finger-wagging and apply his "two-kinds-of-people" trope there, where it does little harm to be so wrong.
2
False equivalency mixed with willful blindness. The struggle to maintain conservative cred in the age of Unindicted Co-conspirator.
1
Hey, I'm no Trump fan, but you folks are losing it. There is nothing that would help Trump's reelection efforts more than for you Dems to push forward with a doomed-to-fail impeachment spectacle. After the findings of no direct Russia connection, your obstruction hysteria is simply grasping at straws -- especially considering the Fast and Furious obstruction of Obama and Holder, which Dems yawned about at time. I get it, you all hate Trump, and there are plenty of reasons to do so. But if you want him out, the only way you will do it is at the ballot box. I'd suggest you start working on that. Nominate someone that doesn't scare the bejesus out of the "regular people" of the country. Nominate someone who is not perceived as being as crooked as Trump -- like Hillary was. Forget this theater that Nadler and Pelosi are scamming you with. They are not going to impeach Trump.
Now we see how far up the Second Mountain Mr Brooks has climbed. He's still at the bottom. Spinning the President's obvious obstruction back on to the Democrats.
3
The Democratic Party brand has comes to be those who play it nice and safe, fecklessly complaining in the face of political opposition.
Their political opposition is a Republican Party that has the shameless nerve to suppress voting, lie about most everything, solicit and abet foreign attacks on our democracy, hide evidence of their malfeasances, attack data and facts, attack fact gatherers, attack the weak, suborn perjury, attack every right except gun ownership, explode the budget deficit, wreck the environment, win the approval of racists/sexists/homophobes/gun nuts and religious extremists.
Mr. Brooks is irate when the Dems deviate from their brand and have the nerve to have some nerve?
2
Congress use its power to destroy the President? Hasn't the POTUS already destroyed himself?
I grew up and later spent many years in a developing country like India. Vast majority of people there, particularly those who decide electoral fate in elections, never understood what is this Democracy thing that so-called political leaders and socioeconomic elites (who also control media and build public opinion the way they wanted) are so happy about since the British left that part of the world. Gradually, all checks and balances were destroyed. Now I can see the same trend here too.
Many reputed economists believe that US already showing signs of a typical 3rd world developing country. For last 2 years, USA is behaving like most other 3rd world countries in terms of rule of law and respect for constitution. Most Republican Congressmen do not care about ethics, law, and constitution while the Democrats (mostly from privileged background or who became 'elites' as they were enjoying power in Congress for long) have no clue how to handle bullies. It's becoming more like a street fight with Trump leading the bully group and those "good boys" Democrats do not know whom to complain or what to do with such bunch of rowdies.
I'll not be much surprised if Trump refuses to leave office even if he is defeated in 2020 election, or even in 2024. World's most powerful army is under him and he thinks his right and "executive privilege" covers all his whims and dreams and there are far too many gullible GOP Congressmen who are more than happy to support him.
4
"If Robert isn't blocked from testifying, see what he has to say and then see where we are."
Er, Mr. Brooks, Trump has already stated that Mueller mustn't testify. He will block him and everyone else, as he has already said he will.
4
I tend to agree with Brooks' premise here. There are three options for Democrats: (1) ignore the issue, (2) impeach, or (3) operate in this purely rhetorical space.
Option 1 is a non-starter, of course. I think Option 2 is dangerous, but it may be the only way to ultimately save face. Option 3 is a fine choice, but it can and will get out of hand. The noise will be lost in a cacophony of complaints and allegations of "unconstitutional" acts and criminality.
Both parties will be happy to operate in this space. It allows everyone running for office in 2020, particularly Trump, an opportunity to expound upon the hideousness of opponents. I imagine the majority of voters will tire of this, if they haven't already.
There's enough information contained in the redacted report to impeach if Democrats so desired. Not enough do, and I've been in this camp as well. However, sometimes you have to use the tools at your disposal or you waste your most effective authority. Use it or lose it. Democrats run the risk of ceding credibility if they're seen to be grasping for straws to keep this conversation elevated for another 18- to 54-months. Ceding credibility is something Democrats and us Democratic voters cannot afford.
Whichever option(s) is pursued, I hope it is handled with incredible tact and poise. Right now, I don't think it is.
2
Mr. Brooks
Ordinarily I find your columns to be incisive and thoughtful. Not today. Today, your facts are simply wrong. The Democrats in Congress are not shouting that we have a constitutional crisis because of the levels of redactions in the Mueller report. They are asserting the we are in the middle of this crisis because Trump has bluntly stated that neither he nor any one he thinks he can control intends to honor ANY subpoena issued by Congress. He is intentionally and willfully ignoring the legitimate powers of the legislative branch of our government t. If that is not a constitutional crisis, then I don’t know what is!
15
Where were you Mr. Brooks while the Republicans in control of both houses perverted every norm of decent behavior. Prevented a Democratic president from exercising his right to appoint a justice, openly declared that the major function of the Republican party was to block everything that a Democratic president would try to achieve. Your sense of fair play seems to have been augmented considerably since the Democrats have taken control of the house and are calling for full exposure of the misdeeds of both the president and his cohorts. After eight years of bullying by Republicans, and two years of a president attempting to corrupt and destroy every aspect of government , I don't think it's time to say, hey, lets be nice. But meanwhile, please tell us all what you think a constitutional crisis would consist of.
11
Mr. Brooks: your analysis assumes a comity of values between and among the parties. The republicans don’t share these values with the majorities located in the most economically productive and well-educated sections of the country which voted for Hillary. Allowing the persistence of un-American resentments to rule from rural redoubts should cease. Egalitarian trends in modern times for minorities and women should be applied to political structures as well to enhance the political rights of individuals. Thus, those regions where the more productive and educated live should enjoy equal political clout with residents of small rural regions in both governance and elections. Therefore, since the Senate’s 18th century restraint role has backfired, it should be modified and the electoral college’s checks on majority rule is more than merely antiquated, and needs abolishment. The GOP served many great purposes in history but has now retreated into backward dead ends and produced a leader who lies about everything—to enthusiastic applause. Time to bring these many millions of Americans into mainstream governance. More majoritarian rule isn’t easy but we’ve evolved a regionalist system whose results mimic the fractured aspects of parliamentary rule in promoting extremism.
3
The Executive branch refusing to turn over even one PostIt note is unacceptable. These are co-equal branches of our government.
9
Mr. Brooks wrote: "I don’t know who’s right on the legalities", yet that doesn't stop him from speculating about important issues that demand more research on his part.
The fact that Brooks compares the Barr/Trump v. Nadler and Congress situation (contempt and executive privilege) to the Republican's handling of the Obama/Holder situation is superficial at best. While one took eight months to arrive at contempt charges, this one has been actively contemptuous more or less since Trump announced his candidacy.
Trump has no right to declare blanket executive privilege over everything and everyone connected to his Administration.
Trump is a walking talking Constitutional crisis, whether David Brooks accepts that or not.
7
And what are Democrats supposed to do, Mr. Brooks, if as now seems likely Trump asserts executive privilege over Mueller testifying?
3
"If Congress uses its power simply to destroy the president, then of course any president is going to clam up and refuse to cooperate."
What is Congress to do if the president is well aware that the facts themselves will "simply destroy" him and stops at nothing to prevent those facts from begin discovered?
4
First of all, the system of checks and balances really began to decay in Obama's presidency when Republicans blocked almost everything he sent to Congress. So, wrong. It's been more than a year. Republicans in Congress also checked Obama's appointment of a Supreme Court nominee. How do I know this and I'm not a NYTimes columnist?
This is not just about Donald Trump, Mr. Brooks. It's about our nation's security. Why doesn't it bother you greatly that Russia interfered with the 2016 presidential election and plan to do the same in 2020? Doesn't Congress, not to mention the American public, deserve to see the whole Mueller report? Is it ok with you that Trump's campaign had many contacts with Russian operatives who sought to sway the election in Trump's favor and ruin Hillary Clinton? I hate to say this, but Wow.
5
Wrong, Mr. Brooks.
The time to start the process is now. This will result in a court battle that will take months.
The Administration’s proposal to let a few Congressmen see the unredacted portions but then promise not to share the information with colleagues was a joke and showed bad faith.
Barr’s failure to show because he didn’t like the rules of engagement is also a non-starter. What is next? Barr telling Congress what questions they can ask?
5
The reason congress has failed in its oversight authority is that the businesses and industries that we need oversight on are the same ones filling up the coffers of the political PAC's.
In other words, it's the money. Whether coal companies or pharmaceuticals, cable companies or agribusiness, appearing before congress after some egregious exposé has simply been a dog and pony show.
Corporate execs suffer a little embarrassment but then the back room lobbyists take over and congress does nothing.
Now, faced with this constitutional challenge congress is being asked to use muscles it hasn't exercised in years.
That's why we have so many new voices from the midterm elections and that's why our only hope is to add more.
1
This piece is a bit disappointing. Foremost is the concept that the subpoena is "just" political theater. The fact is that little can be done or said on the issue of the Mueller investigation that doesn't turn in to political theater. Yes, it is theater. No, it isn't "just". By focusing only on the inevitability of theater, Mr Brooks obscures the entire context of the situation, practically normalizing the degree to which the Trump Administration has worked to obstruct not only the investigation but also many rules, laws, and democracy itself.
The constitutional crisis isn't "just" the lack of compliance of the DOJ with respect to this one issue. It is the thousand other acts the Trump administration has engaged to frustrate the functionality of this country.
5
The problem is impeachment won’t work
If an impeachment vote is successful it will lead to a trial in the Senate which will clear Trump of all wrongdoing
better to conduct hearings on collateral issues very similar to the Benghazi hearings that the Republicans utilized to downgrade Hillary then to conduct hearings focused on a process that will inevitably fail
~"But Trump is far from the only villain in this showdown. If the House of Representatives wants to preserve its oversight power on the executive branch, then it has to be willing to oversee."~
Explain to me: where are the "Republicans" in this process. You have essentially renounced your affiliation with the so-called "Republican" Party. We have now a cult following which includes members of the "Republican" Party who will not rein in a person who thinks he is King, or more aptly, Boss.
Those of us who understand History know that the reason we have the United States of America is because "we" would not be governed by George III, the King of England. Why would we want to now be governed by Donald Trump?
8
I listened ro Congressman Nadler's ten-minute statement at the opening of the session discussing whether or not to issue a contempt citation to Attorney General Barr. It was dignified, densely factual, and -- compared to the incoherent bloviations of the ranking Republican member -- restrained. The central point is not the amount of the Mueller report that remains redacted (that material happens to be far more important than the percentage of space it occupies). It is that Congress's oversight role is being blacked out at every turn. Previous Congresses - including the one inquiring into the faux issue of Hilary's e-mails -- got every page they wanted. Apparently this right extends only to Republicans.
I am a liberal who likes your copservative brand, David, but you've missed the mark on this one.
8
mike from down under captures the essence of mr. brooks misguided piece. the administration is willfully stone walling the american public's right to know the facts of the russian attack on our election in 2016, and to what degree the trump campaign helped russia accomplish this. there can be cooperation between the 2 sides to reach agreement on how we proceed. we see less evidence that the administration wishes to settle this. why?
1
"The problem with any policy of appeasement is that it rarely appeases; it only emboldens. And that’s what’s happening."
In the situation we're in, you write those words about someone *other* than Trump? Good lord.
David Brooks has distorted the issue to make Democrats look unreasonable. But he ignores the fact that Trump has declared complete and total non-cooperation in all House requests for information and witness testimony on a wide variety of subjects, not just the Mueller Report. Does Brooks think the Democrats should quietly acquiesce to this massive Trump obstruction of the power and duty of government oversight? Trump is committing another obstruction of justice by his universal non-cooperation with lawful Congressional investigations. Trump seeks the right to act as president without any oversight. And David Brooks apparently supports Trump's efforts. David, what were you thinking?
8
The first request that Nadler should have made was to have Mueller appear before the Judiciary Committee in an open hearing within two weeks after the release of the Mueller report.
The request should have been made, PRIOR to the release of the report, way before we had heard from AG Barr. The request would have been a reasonable scheduling move; not politically reactionary.
Mueller remains the only person who is not tainted by a political agenda. His incites are the only ones that are credibly objective; they can all be corroborated by his mountain of evidence. Only he knows what was redacted by Barr. Only he can say if the redactions were done in good faith. He can say for all the world to hear if Trumps actions would have been indictable offenses if he were not a sitting president.
Nadler needs to be more focused on what the “big get” is and that is Bob Mueller.
Brooks fails to understand the simple fact that Congressional oversight is impossible if the Congress is forbidden to see.
Redactions and the failure to respond to subpoenas are designed precisely to pluck out the eyes of Congress and leave them blind.
Nadler is not making this constitutional crisis up. There can be no oversight without sight.
10
Brooks betrays the most basic tenet of conservatism; respect for institutions.
What we have here, in plain sight, is a president who has engaged in obstruction of justice. The president also sought, and accepted, aid from a (adversarial) foreign power to secure election. These are the exact concerns the Founders had in mind when they created the impeachment mechanism. For heavens sake these are the very arguments Publius raised in the federalist papers.
This president is manifestly unfit to remain in office. He has contempt for our Republican form of government. He has violated the law and violated his obligation to see that "the laws are faithfully executed."
The fact that the US Senate is likely to be unfaithful to its duty to act impartially as a jury does not excuse the House from its constitutional duty of oversight and impeachment when high crimes and misdemeanors have manifestly been committed.
We are a republic, not a democracy. We cannot allow the executive to violate the law and basic constitutional structure on the basis of popular sentiment. That's how the system was designed--including indirect election of the executive via state legislatures in the original configuration.
A real conservative doesn't excuse the House from its responsibility because of a faithless Republican senate. He castigates the senate.
This is about the life or death of republican government. Now is the time for courage and leadership, not cowardice based on false equivalence.
10
@Ben
Excellent post. The sad thing is why does this have to be explained to people?
1
First, David makes some good points here. To use an overused word, the weaponization of congressional oversight to pursue endless partisan witch hunts has long been a problem. In fairness, David's team pioneered that one during the Clinton years.
But this feels different. Outright defiance of congressional subpoenas crosses the Rubicon, effectively neutering a key legislative breach tool to check and balance the executive. If allowed to get away with it, it would effectively give the presidency king-like powers. There is a huge amount at stake here whether David wants to admit it or not.
6
In situations such as this, people tend to view those sections which support them and ignore those that support the others. In spite of Brooks' initial statement, he is doing precisely that. He finds Nadler's request for the complete uncensored report as crossing a red line and a political ploy. However, there is an important principle involved that does portent a constitutional crisis. And that is, does the Executive branch dictate what Congress can and should see or is Congress the sovereign and independent entity that the Constitution declares. It is not for nothing that a president-elect swears to "execute faithfully" the laws of the United States and those laws are made by Congress which has to have complete knowledge and information in order to pass those laws. The privilege that a president has to keep private his deliberations does NOT include those that seek to contravene the laws of the country. And Barr, the defender of the justice system in the country, is of the opinion that a president can put an end to an investigation "if he THINKS it false" In such circumstances, it is indispensable for Congress to want a full and uncensored report.
5
What if Robert Mueller is prevented from testifying? Would that constitute a “constitutional crisis”? Would we have to wait for the courts to decide he must be allowed to testify before we have a “constitutional crisis”? At what point would it become obvious to a majority of the public or more importantly, to our Republican Senators, that we are no longer following our Constitution? Does anybody still care?
I’m hoping it isn’t true but I’m beginning to think Trump has changed us.
1
In some small fractional way my fellow taxpayers and I paid for that investigation and the report that the investigation distilled down to.
We can handle the truth.
Mr. Brooks doesn't want to.
The Republican Party doesn't want to.
Trump doesn't understand the word, "truth".
4
The public already read 200 pages of intent to obstruct justice. It's there in black and white. Quit arguing and make trump account for his actions, tweets, choices. He is openly flaunting his unobstructed power that Barr is granting him knowing full well he won't have to face the law. A second term stalls the process of the law. That's the only reason he wants a second term. He doesn't care to accomplish a blasted thing except living the life of luxury paid for by tax payers.
4
Strange, that members of a party as craven and dissolute as the Republicans can't stop lecturing Democrats, not only on political strategy, but probity itself -- week after week.
Or are Brooks and Stephens, having the perfected the Republican party to their liking, now determined to finish the job?
5
We sometimes forget that Brooks is a Republican partisan. Should the house uphold the constitution, or let us slide into dictatorship without a whimper? That is the question. The house intelligence committee is unquestionably entitled to the full report, and to Mueller's direct testimony. Barr is clearly, again unquestionably, in contempt of congress. The executive branch is blatantly defying the constitution to protect information about Trump from coming out. The whole world know why.
12
"That's when the real trouble starts." Mr. Brooks, the real trouble started on Election Night 2016!
Also: While I am all for cooling passions that blind us to the most rational and effective course of action, there is no equivalence here between (supposed) Democratic overreach, and the present crop of Republicans with Trump at the helm.
12
Ah Mr. Brooks...According to the Constitution, the legislature is an EQUAL branch of the United States government. Trump's declaration that he is going to challenge every request for information and, even more alarming, every subpoena is an absolute rejection of representative democracy. George will once stated that the American belief in the imperial presidency is a myth. Trump wants to make it a reality and he has shrewdly played thoughtful conservatives like yourself to lament about the fact that democrats know they have to fight back.
9
To say that Trump doesn't understand checks and balances is underestimating the man. He understands perfectly, and he intends to defy that constitutional mechanism because that is what autocrats do. We must understand that occasionally an ostensibly elected leader may come along who will refuse to give up the reigns of power, no matter what. That is Trump. It was probably Jackson and Johnson as well. Trump is not Washington, and there are no vines or fig trees to shade him at Mar a Lago.
We must not blanch at the prospect of having to manacle this man to lead him away from the seat of power.
8
David, the real trouble started when there was evidence that Russia was interfering in our elections and Mitch McConnell refused to let the American people be told. It continued with a president that has called the press "the enemy of the people," has denigrated immigrants , cast disdain on those who serve our country, has openly lied so many times Truth has taken a hit , has pretty much said he's above the law, etc. , etc.
To cast Chairman Nadler in the same light as Donald Trump is somewhat like Trump saying of Charlottesville that "There were good folks on both sides."
12
...and what if Mueller is blocked from testifying? Then what should they do?
3
When things get dicey for Republicans, you can always count on David Brooks to roll out a "both sides are to blame" column. Democrats are well within their rights to request these things. He even notes that the Trump policy of noncooperation is a "betrayal." But he can't resist defending Republicans and taking shots at Democrats.
Republicans have "crossed this line in the past?" Let's see in the Obama years, McConnell's Senate confirmed the fewest civilian presidential nominees of any Congress in 30 years and never held a hearing on a Supreme Court nominee. In 2017, Newsweek found at least 70 Republican-led attempts in six years to repeal, modify or otherwise curb the Affordable Care Act. McConnell just told a group of donors that he will be the "Grim Reaper" blocking any attempt to pass progressive legislation to benefit most Americans.
David, I'd say that Republicans have obliterated the line. But when meek Democrats fight back a little, you and other Republicans will pull out the "both-sides" card.
23
A nakedly autocratic president is destroying every norm that supports our democracy, and Mr. Brooks plays the game of false equivalence. Three hundred seventy five former federal prosecutors sign an open letter saying that the president committed felony-level obstruction of justice and Mr Brooks criticizes congress for wanting to look behind the redactions put in place by an attorney general who is acting a lot like the president's defense lawyer. That same attorney general was called out by the special counsel over the way that he misrepresented the special counsel's report, and Mr Brooks wants to compare that behavior with Eric Holder's.
I'm predicting that in ten years Mr Brooks will look back on this column with deep regret.
1384
@Mike
"I'm predicting that in ten years Mr Brooks will look back on this column with deep regret.2
I've read nothing from this commentator that would support that. He's GOP hack, through and through.
151
@Mike
I agree completely. The piece reminds me of those who want to find themselves on the "correct side" of an issue and here it is NOT justice! Brooks of late wants the mantle of the "philosopher king" which is certainly not due him after this piece. I have read his work for years and have respected most of it even if I disagreed with it. That is what this should be. Without trying to be cute or fanciful, Brooks might want to find a third mountain and think about how terribly incorrect he is. I am certainly he will not take the challenge but as old soldiers "he should just fade away" (quickly).
96
@Mike
As of 2 days ago...USA Today
“This week about 800 former federal prosecutors (so far) have signed a letter objecting to Attorney General ...”
92
I so respect your opinions, insight, expansive knowledge.
You started out great, I especially liked, "But Trump is far from the only villain...". I also agree that reasons to pursue impeachment need to be long term protection, strengthening our democracy. But then you say, the crisis is just for show. NO! We need to look at the big picture: The corruption of the administration, the non existent foreign policy, the ethical breaches, on and on. People in the country need to see some sense of SOMEONE doing something to stop the bleeding. Hopefully it won't be called Impeachment hearings, but "Congressional Oversight", and let the truth be known.
7
I know it's been said a million times before, but the Republicans would absolutely turn over every rock and demand every piece of evidence if a President Hillary Clinton (or any Democrat for that matter) was accused of a fraction of Trump's shenanigans. To ask Democrats to do less is disingenuous.
1048
@Kathleen
Eight investigations of Clinton and not a single conviction.
The country is desperate for leadership, the Dems are our only hope. Godspeed Nadler.
169
@Kathleen shenanigans? How about CRIMINALITY?
31
@Kathleen So glaringly apparent that Republicans have a very hard time with truth.
34
Seems to me that Mr. Barr was the one that decided "to go to the mat" over this. Nadler's committee had every right to subpoena him and he could and should have honored their subpoena. When he didn't, the committee had two options. One was to let it slide affirming Trump's refusal to accede to any oversight. The other was to hold him in contempt of Congress, which he most certainly is.
850
@Seldoc it's literally illegal for Barr to fulfill the subpoena. He can't un-redact grand jury material. He has made sufficient concessions by allowing relevant parties to review the document in a secured room. Why won't they take him up on that?
Because they want to politic.
2
@Areyou Actually, all Barr has to do is ask a judge to allow the grand jury material to be released. He says he has no plans to do so.
25
@Areyou
Barr has been asked by Nadler to jointly ask a judge for an unredacted copy of the MReport for only his committee to study which is within the law, but Barr refused.
11