I didn't even read the article. So the Democratic party spent all of their time pursuing this for the last few years and they are going to do what if they win (all chasing a losing battle, but not putting forth a Ideal change for the future). So if Trump is gone who is running the ship? Illegals crossing our borders, get a pass on Federal laws? Pick and choose, is this current state of the Federal rule?
Nancy Pelosi and the New York Times editorial board getting aboard the impeachment train is not about removing Trump. The Senate will never convict and everyone knows that.
The real reason is to distract the populace from their "leftward" drift as evidenced by the success of Warren and Sanders and the faltering campaigns of their centrist competitors.
Making the conversation all about Trump and impeachment rather than health care, college costs, inequality, corporate taxes, big banks, big donors and climate change is the game plan, especially now that Biden is faltering badly and Warren is coming on strong than ever.
The big donors and the Washington beltway establishment dislike Warren only marginally less than they dislike Sanders, so now the only play remaining to them is to keep distracting the populace from progressive issues by making the election all about Trump and a futile charade about impeachment, even if that means making it easier for him to win.
1
@Guy Baehr Poor thinking and obviously no appreciation of the details.
1
"...Impeachment inquiry...was too extreme a measure to be warranted."
I don't think it IS a big deal. Not anymore. And I don't mean it has been made less so through overuse as a political weapon. I worry it has been rendered ineffective because it is dependent entirely on politics. It's been rendered toothless.
We have been blessed with some great presidents, some good, and some mediocrities. We have also been cursed with some truly awful ones. Only once (I'm being generous here) has this process been helpful (though incomplete) in remedying a disastrous presidency.
The framers never foresaw, and were immediately chagrined by even the mild "party" antagonism that took root in the Federal government. We now have that antagonism turbo-charged and on steroids. An impeachment process that in some way allows for some initial high level "adjudication" (not SCOTUS) of whether there exists a plausible case, complete with "high crimes and misdemeanors" is needed. To prevent a total political capture, let's secure an initial finding from an ad hoc panel of judges much like the initial finding in existence elsewhere in the Federal court system.
3
The argument against impeachment appears to be that Trump will have the Senate Republicans behind him so the votes will not be there. It seems that the impeachment option is a waste of time. Clinton had a supportive Senate and the votes for impeachment were not there. So what is the point of all the time and effort.
3
@Bala Pillay Because it is the right thing to do. As Edmund Burke noted: "Evil things happen when good men do nothing".
Our current Governor-General, General David Hurley, has stated: "The standard you walk past is the standard you accept". His words have since been frequently invoked by those seeking moral leadership.
If Congress does nothing, won't those millions of Americans, who find the behaviour of the current POTUS unworthy of the office, be entitled to ask: "How are you protecting our values in this time of existential crisis? What purpose do you serve?"
5
@Bala Pillay The impeachment process gets more information to the people than they would otherwise have because of the Congress' investigational abilities. I am so glad that the Democrats are not sitting on this and blowing it off with "what is the point" thinking.
Trump will most likely not be convicted and removed, but this impeachment process has informed many and changed the opinions of quite a few. If you ask "what is the point" here, then what is the point of ANYTHING?
1
I keep saying I wish Congress would hear from the translator who was there when Trump talked to Putin. There is so much we still don't know. I suspect that getting dirt on Biden has already been part of the China tariffs discussions so we need to find out more about those. To my mind, the plug has just been pulled and more people should summon some bravery and come forward. Even if the Senate votes quickly to absolve the president, they will at least be on record. And as more comes to light in the future, they will have to defend that vote. There are so many people who have worked with Trump close up who have obviously felt he was mentally and morally not fit for office -- Jim Mattis among them. One thing that really scares me is that he is clearly a white supremicist. Who knows what he will do if given a second term. And please remember -- he only won by a 77,000 vote electoral college margin. He lost nationally by close to 3 million votes. He knows he is not a legitimate president.
9
I think there are three more obvious questions:
1. Did the EB support an impeachment inquiry during/after Mueller?
2. If it did - does it still think that was a rational case in hindsight?
3. Explain - using small words - why Ukraine is different than Mueller
3
Clinton's impeachment was about sex and dirty politics, and those proceedings were a smear on the reputation of the nation and the Rep's who orchestrated it.
Nixon and Trump's are about something else entirely: bringing to account Presidents who are entirely corrupt, who use their position for political and (in Trump's case) financial gain, who don't think the Rule of Law applies to them, or even should.
In Nixon and Trump's case, these are Presidents whose routine, egregious behavior makes it clear why Impeachment is detailed in the Founding Documents of our country.
They both also had a slew of miscredents in their campaigns, cabinets and social orbit, and as a result, both saw some of their cronies do jail time.
(More Trump cronies may follow, Pence, Guiliani and Barr, for example, unless they get wise quick and turn state's evidence against Trump. While Trump may be pardoned by the next President, the system may still want a few examples that justice was served and will take any of those in Trump's stead.)
Finally, realize that Trump and his cronies have been both poor winners and poor losers (and poor players demonstrating poor sportsmanship for that matter). As a result, their LONG list of enemies may want their pound of flesh for all the suffering they inflicted on others, foreign and domestic...... I would be looking for a chair for when the music stops, if I was an ally......
1
The Times Editorial Board need to publish a challenge to all Washington Bureaucrats for anyone with direct, relevant information to the impeachment inquiry, to stand up and be counted. America, now more than ever, needs some patriots.
5
Are you serious? I nearly busted out laughing. You are going to try to portray yourselves as wrestling earnestly with serious questions because you take your responsibilities as journalists so seriously? That you finally almost begrudgingly decided that yes, this rises to the level of impeachment?
Good grief, the NYT went over the edge the day Trump was elected (in fact, the day he got the nomination.) It has been nothing but a literally daily barrage of anti-Trump articles and op-ed hit pieces. A half dozen to a dozen a day. You'd think the guy hasn't done one single thing right in his entire term.
Do you honestly think there's a single person in this country - left or right - that didn't hear the NYT was in favor of impeachment hearings that didn't say "well, duh".
Were this an honest article, the title would read "The Times Editorial Board Supports an Impeachment Inquiry, and is proud of the role it played in bringing it about."
4
@JRC Maybe they should have just squelched all that information so you wouldn't have to feel uncomfortable.
1
Since election day, the Times editorials have moved to the front page and almost every page from sections a-d. A series of disappointing actions from a once great paper.
4
Trump should have been impeached and removed from office long time ago. Better late than never.
2
"...whose job it is to set those opinions aside in the honest pursuit and presentation of the truth". Sure sounds good. Isn't this the board's job, too?
If the board were so concerned about the impeachment process being used as a political weapon and were, otherwise, so on the fence about it now why was this not clearly expressed (as it is here) in their OBVIOUSLY one-sided article? Answer: They were manipulating. This editorial board operates closer to tabloid journalism than to the objective reporting of truth... fully unaware of it for the most part, I'd say. They clearly have zero training in science... though maybe law.
4
Left out of the discussion on impeaching Trump is whether he engaged in a willful attempt to deliver Ukraine to Putin.
He had a campaign manager, now doing time for other offenses, who plotted to keep Ukraine as a Russian puppet state. He winked at Russia's armed seizure of part of the Ukraine (as the rest of his own administration moved to oppose it). He kowtowed, almost literally, to Putin in person, while trying to delegitimize both our own intelligence agencies (and our intelligence) on Russia and our allies. There was a "surprise" winner of a national election in Ukraine who was promptly congratulated by Trump and of whom a quid pro quo was demanded. Did Trump, by any chance, help covertly throw that election as he tries to rig our own?
Then, with a country who's already been invaded in a bigger neighbor and desperately needs to restore its international standing, he works to undermine their legitimacy. First he sends a lower-level official to its presidential inauguration, then he cuts off military aid they need to prevent further predation from Russia.
If Trump isn't on Putin's payroll, he should be. And he should be trusted neither in the Ukraine nor here.
14
I have to completely disagree that before Ukraine "the system was working" and so impeachment wasn't necessary. Volume I of Mueller Report lays out as clearly as possible that Trump is a witting agent of the Russian Government. All of his nefarious international actions from discrediting NATO, trying to cancel sanctions, alienating allies everywhere in favor of dictators, denying Russian interference in our elections, excusing the Russian interference to encourage them to keep it up, siphoning money from the European Reassurance Initiative, and now his pressures on allied governments to help him by ginning up false narratives help only one other party, the Kremlin and Vladimir Putin. Occam's Razor is usually the best explanation for the otherwise inexplicable.
8
What is an Editorial Board?
An objective group of people who view the world from different perspectives....(this board may or may not meet this definition)
Importanly, impeachment is only a worthwhile process if you can gain 2/3 votes in the Senate.
3
What's to inquire?
We aren't drowning in facts?
2
The problem is that trying to pin Trump down on this can be an exercise in paradox. First, let me dispense with the idea that the Bidens have been exonerated of any wrongdoing. There has not been an in-depth investigation of the Bidens' interactions with the Ukrainians. You can argue that an investigation is unwarranted, but not that one, say like the Mueller Investigation, has been conducted.
Second, let's discuss the appropriateness of Trump's actions. Is it ever appropriate for an administration to pursue an investigation of a political opponent? Apparently it is, because the Obama Adminstration investigated the Trump campaign. Is it appropriate to seek foreign assistance in such an investigation? Again, the investigation of the Trump campaign involved seeking help from foreigners, including the government of Australia. Is it appropriate for the president to be involved? This is more problematic. Presidents tend to stay arm's length from investigations, but this protocol is not required by the Constitution. Ultimately, the president is the chief law enforcement officer. But this smells of self-dealing doesn't it? Yes, that's the way it appears. However, if the Bidens are innocent, what do they have to fear, and how would an investigation help Trump? If the Bidens are guilty, then Trump is justified in pursuing an investigation. Either Trump gains no advantage from the investigation or the investigation is justified by the result. Thus, the paradox.
4
@Charles
Your logic is flawed. Trump absolutely gains an advantage against Biden even if he and his son are innocent of any wrongdoing. He would have successfully smeared a political opponent without justification.
Also, the investigation launched in this manner is unjustified by any measure, regardless of whether Biden and his son are guilty of any wrongdoing. A proper investigation would be conducted by the justice department based on evidence of wrongdoing entirely independent of the president's urging. By urging the investigation of a political opponent, Trump has already invalidated it.
1
Well, this picture of NYT unity may not be complete. David Brooks is certainly no Trump fan. Here is what he says about Impeachment, "Congress is supposed to do what is in the best interest of the country. And this process could be very bad for America." Bret Stephens writes, "The best way to end this administration — and the only realistic way — is for him to be convincingly turned out by a vote of the American people next year." He adds, "Elections give millions and millions of Americans a voice in selecting the president. This process gives 100 mostly millionaire senators a voice in selecting the president." Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti makes the case that "even if Trump had offered an explicit quid pro quo to the Ukrainian president, it would not violate any federal bribery statutes or any other existing criminal statute." This process would tie up the House for months during which they would accomplish little or nothing. This has always been political, from Russia to the Ukraine. To convict 20 Republicans would have to vote against Trump. That's not going to happen. Let American voters decide.
5
@Ron “This process would tie up the House for months during which they would accomplish little or nothing.” As opposed to what it’s been doing? Tie it up and finish off with a Gordian Knot.
1
The answer to your question is simple; it’s for the same reason that every article you publish about Trump is slanted against him. This is yet another doomed to fail attempt to take him down, because it is meritless.
8
@NRI
Wait and watch to see what happens.
4
I have been a subscriber to NYT Online for 8 years now, and print edition for the preceeding 20 years. This article is a good example of why I continue to subscribe and support the NYT. The most thoughtful and balanced reporting available, if generally a bit left politically... all part of my own thinking calculus.
1
@BD so what you are saying is you like to live in an echo chamber.
3
Thank you for helping us understand how your Board works. It would have been interesting to find out, apologies if you already wrote one and I did not read it, your opinion after the Mueller Report.
In my understanding of it, there were enough obstruction cases that the House could have taken it up except for the push back from Nancy Pelosi, our very own resident from California and the Speaker. I thought that was a rank political choice she made and I have commented on it at every opportunity.
However it looks like we have a "made for TV bite sized" indictment for the greater American public. I hope there's a speedy conclusion. Like Cortez, the Democrats in the House and Senate should burn their ships and support Rep Schiff without any second thoughts.
6
Congress will be violating the constitution if they try to impeach the president on non-impeachable activities. The allegations of a whistleblower in the INTEL community is not evidence that a high crime and misdemeanor have been committed.
1
@Samuel Taylor...which is exactly why we need to have an impeachment inquiry, to determine whether or not the evidence exists that the president committed an impeachable offense. There is already evidence to prove that at least some of the whistleblower's allegations are true.
1
@Samuel Taylor Perhaps not sufficient in and of itself, but a credible basis to compile and examine further evidence. Given Pompeo’s presence on the call and slipperiness of the past two days, I want him deposed along with other State Dept. personnel who knew of his participation.
1
Obviously, the Senate will not convict, so impeachment is a wasted exercise. The most popular comment on this editorial says that doesn't matter because we have a historical duty to do what is right, and that we will be judged, etc.
I really don't care about how people judge me. But I support the impeachment exercise because it will keep the Congress busy. If they don't have this to do, they might get up to even more mischief. Your freedom and property are in danger whenever Congress is in session.
5
@Herr Andersson, the Senate apparently isn't a done deal. Seems McConnell, with an aversion to high and dry, may have already noted the turning tide.
Those who abjure democracy and the rule of law are free to leave. This case is sufficiently grievous, seems you're either for it or against it.
1
"what the founders envisioned only as a last-ditch measure to protect democracy could become just another political weapon"
I certainly agree that is something to think very carefully about.
Is our democracy at a higher risk today than it has ever been?
My sense is that the last impeachment of Clinton was political and emotional, Nixon's was too to some extent. This one, we will only really know when all the investigations are returned and hearings have been held.
Certainly, the Founders included this tool for Congress "in the case of a real and present threat of seeing our democracy destroyed".
It has been used three times in recent history while only once in all the years before.
Food for thought....
Republicans were keen to impeach Clinton for lying about this private behaviour, but not keen to impeach Trump for lying, corrupt behaviour and incompetance on the job.
To the rest of the world this is an open and shut case. Since the Trump presidency started we have watched the ideal of American exceptionalism take hit after hit. In future years will we be referring to the US as a 'failed state' or one where the rule of law triumphed?
39
Times Editorial should be based on following:
1. Facts, those are clearly visible & dependable
2. Voters see things in a factual as well as sentimental way
3. Desire to shape future actions in the interest of the country
4. In the interest of all generations
5. Honesty is the best policy all the time
8
it is not true that "the only constitutional recourse is to pursue an impeachment inquiry." Voting Trump out of office in is quite constitutional. Dangers that Trump and pro-Trump force's will bias the 2020 election toward Trump are not allayed by an impeachment process extremely unlikely to lead to conviction or to otherwise avert such bias. True, conviction scenarios are beginning to appearbut, akas, the best of these the recent one by Ross Douthat because it has the wisdom to treat itself a fantasy.
1
Trump is trying to use a foreign government to find dirt on a respected American, a political opponent who has served both as a United States Senator and Vice President. If Trump suspects corruption, why not contact an American organization like the FBI? Not only is Trump unpatriotic, he simply doesn't get it not to mention the fact that his actions were potentially unlawful, i.e., solicitation of interference in an American election by a foreign country.
9
Thank you New York Times. Trump must be removed. Our country is in turmoil. Our people scared and demoralized.
You have done the right thing, keep going in the coverage.
9
The background of the Times Editorial Board at the end of this impeachment option editorial (9/27/2019) was a thoughtful frame of reference.
I was confused that you say that that board was founded in 1896, but say, in the actual opinion piece, that the ". . . board deplored Mr. Johnson's behavior . ." at the time of Congress' prosecution of him in 1868.
Was that earlier "board" not the NYT Editorial Board ?
So, I think on the whole the NYT is about as good as we are going to get in the current level of the crumbling walls with which the super wealthy and other self-centered individual power brokers who, for all their obvious intelligence, remain ignorant of Reality.
That this editorial board is still very much under the control of those ancient kind of consciousness is evident in the placement of "capitalism" in the following comment. "It has long supported a liberal order of nations in which freedom and progress advance through democracy and capitalism."
Every single step that Humanity, let alone the U.S., has taken out of the rule of the powerful few into Democracy has been made in spite of Capitalism. Capitalism is simply the guise, the present name behind which the Kings and Rulers have been hiding the rapacious, cruel, and totally ignorant systems that support and nurture the rule of the powerful or wealthy over all.
The best example of this is the fact that a tiny hand full of Capitalists rule/own the huge majority of the world's wealth. They live in unimaginable luxury while billions of others make due or die in bleak poverty, disease.
These are facts.
5
Why won’t the Times editorial board demand Trump’s resignation as they did when the specter of impeachment was looming over Nixon’s presidency?
6
A wonderfully written piece explaining the Board's make-up and intentions, and I share most of the sentiments expressed. The only thing I can't concur with is suggesting Nancy Pelosi jumped the gun in announcing the inquiry.
I believe Speaker Pelosi has shown courage and the patience of a saint in not pulling the trigger sooner, given the groundswell of Democratic demands both inside and outside of Congress for an inquiry on numerous counts related to Trump's abuses of power prior to the Ukraine incident.
I think at the time Speaker Pelosi made the announcement all the available facts, if we are to believe what was published in the NYT in the preceding days, certainly warranted initiating an inquiry. And in hindsight, nothing has transpired since then suggesting her call was wrong.
She may well concluded before the fact, and correctly so, that Trump would have nothing to offer in the way of defense, other than "I am President, and I can do whatever I please."
Thank you Speaker Pelosi, let the inquiry begin.
60
In this extremely mixed up political world we live in today, reading this Times Editorial about how the Editorial works was not only refreshing but calming. To know that people such as yourselves are looking out for Truth gives me hope.
Thank you for your work, it must both delight and frustrate all of you.
41
I like the well thought out and smart editorial opinions put forth by the NYT. Sorry to all the naysayers, but I agree. When things go this far, time to pay the piper. It's not about partisan conflict. If you can't see the allegations as being serious enough, I question your understanding of the constitution. Until the supreme court denies high crimes and misdemeanor as impeachable offenses this inquiry is warranted. Let the chips fall where they will, but first let's get the evidence. The house is doing their job as set forth in the constitution. This is the United States of America and this is the appropriate action. If you feel otherwise, by all means, get your visa to Russia and see you later.
35
No, unfortunately, at this point it's not surprising no vote was needed.
From the main editorial, these were awesome word:
"Mr. Trump has disparaged and degraded the institutions of American governance, and it is now time for them, in historic rebuke, to demonstrate the majesty of representative democracy."
36
Please, Democrats in the House -- put your best minds on this case (including legal counsel), and have a game plan. Let's not have wandering, pointless diatribes about abuses of process, etc., etc. We need razor-sharp questioning that cuts to the essence of the abuses of power and that dissects the lies that support them.
55
There are dozens of topics upon which the Democrats should have impeached Trump. Instead, they went with the topic with the highest risk of helping re-elect Trump.
Trump should have been impeached for violating the emoluments clause, for obstructing justice, for inviting the Russians to intercede, for giving up code-word intelligence to the Russians, for stealing money from the inauguration system through various vice, for diverting military flights to a small airport near his hotel, etc.
Instead, Pelosi pledges not to impeach Bush after he started illegal wars that killed hundreds of thousands and she didn't fight against torture, takes impeachment off the table for Trump from the beginning and now she chooses to latch on to the Biden/Ukraine topic.
Anyone with a semi-rational mind can look at what happened with Biden and his son (assuming actual investigative integrity, which I doubt), it would be obvious that choosing this topic to impeach over is perhaps the most destructive topic as the affinity nature of search algorithms and the fact there is a viable argument for corruption by Biden on behalf of his son Hunter, crony capitalism, etc., and that will, of course, be greatly amplified as Trump and the alt-right will manipulate the search algorithms to mute nearly any critical value of an impeachment based on a subject like emoluments, etc.
Its as if the establishment just wants to use this as another divisive distraction from defending the petrol dollar ...
4
@Tom Paine: I absorb as much information as I can from all perspectives to form my own conclusions. In this case, I believe Nancy Pelosi is smarter and more strategic than anyone else in Washington. She knows what she is doing, and I trust her primary focus is protecting the constitution and American democracy.
7
@BD
I have supported the NYT for many, many years. They are left of some of my beliefs, but mostly I'm with them except that they are not supportive of Biden. They do not give him fair coverage.
Reading the many comments, one can get the impression that an editorial published in a newspaper terminates any discussion. Many years ago, when every house took a daily newspaper, I wondered about newspaper endorsements. How did they affect the vote? The answer seemed to be by as much as seven percent in local races. The editorial board did not select all the winners, but boosted the chances of a few. People who send letters to the editor should be aware of the limits of the power of an editorial board.
Any bill of impeachment should include counts relating to Trump's violation of the emoluments clause and his use of the Oval Office for self-enrichment.
18
The Times article about Special Envoy Volker says, "With Mr. Trump openly expressing his disdain for Ukrainians — convinced that they were all corrupt and tried to take him down in 2016--it was an uphill battle."
That would be the Putin/Russian POV too.
Trump wouldn't want to get on their bad side would he?
5
Would really like to see more examination of Senate Republicans who are supporting this mess with silence. Trump's impeachment is inevitable - he is a child in an adults skin and totally incapable of running anything bigger than a lemonade stand. The right is taking advantage of Trump's incompetence. Hate to admit it but I pity the poor man - but .... time wounds all heels!
14
Based on the large number of pro-Trump comments here, I'm starting to think there's an orchestrated right-wing campaign to flood the Times with comments impugning the objectivity of the Times editorial board.
The Times editorial board considers the facts (the *real* facts) and comes to its editorial positions (many of which I disagree with) accordingly. The aim of readers' comments focusing on the editorial board is to distract us from the real issue: the crimes of one Donald J. Trump.
13
No choice but bad choice for Democrat moderates like me.
1
The Editorial Board supports an impeachment _inquiry_ because they're too timid to do the right thing and call for articles of impeachment to be passed by the House and for the Senate to vote for removal.
To impeach ?...…..or …..to get all the facts necessary to impeach by holding a very intensive impeachment inquiry.
I think an intensive and immediate impeachment inquiry is
the only way to find out the truth; must be done in a focused
way with the greatest endeavor...not to win...an election in
2020; but to get all the facts which will keep our country
Are there traitors in our government ; this is what must be
found out as quickly as possible; we must save our Republic
first before we worry about anything else.
6
There is no other choice concerning impeachment. What goes around, comes around. trump is the most corrupt, vile. arrogant ...president. He should have been booted out two years ago.
15
One of the problems is the hovering family-control (nepotism?) of the "publisher" passed down generation to generation by blood line—in the current situation, it's young A.G. Sulzberger.
Yes the NYTimes has been a family empire for a long time. But as it has emerged as the "paper of record"—
Is it not time to take "the publisher" out of the fundamental byline of NYTimes editorials—"The editorial board represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher"?
Have NYTimes editorials represent "the opinions of the board".
4
This is a trap!
The plan is to get Biden out of the way. Then steer the nomination to an “open borders” candidate.
Voila! Another liberal democracy bites the dust.
9
Am I the only one who finds it actually an interesting question why Ukraine’s largest natural gas producer paid Joe Biden’s son-who has no expertise in Ukraine or in gas-$60,000 a month as an absentee non-exec director?
9
@Michael Sorensen
For transparency payment to Joe Biden's son should be investigated
4
@Michael Sorensen
The Hunter Biden story reminds me of learning first hand that the children of political figures are held to a higher standard than ordinary people. Back in 1955 I discovered that steel wool burns with red glowing particles that can be sprinkled about and fall like the burning pieces in fireworks. So out to the alley a few of us kids went with steel wool pads and matches. While enjoying the colorful spectacle, a beat cop suddenly appeared. We had to give him our names and promise to never play with burning steel wool again. He wrote this up in his day book. The next day at supper time my father, who was the mayor, said he talked with the police chief today. The police chief said you were caught burning steel wool in the alley yesterday. My little transgression went right through the ranks of the police department to the chief at the top. The implication was that the Mayor's kid was behaving in a way that was embarrassing to his father, who was the mayor. This taught me that the son of a high ranking political leader needs to abide by the strictest standards of behavior less he become an example of why his father should be disqualified from his leadership position. Several NYT articles makes it sounds like Hunter Biden never learned to burn steel wool pads in the alley and get a strong message about how to behave as a member of a family with a political leader. He should never have given the impression that he was trading on his father's reputation.
6
Let’s face it - they support impeachment because they hate Trump. Why don’t they support any inquiry into Biden’s abuse of power as VP?
12
@Jackson
Please fill me in on exactly what did Biden do that was abuse of power? Biden did what the President told him to do he’s wasn’t a rogue VP. Now if you’re talking about Biden telling the previous Ukrainian President to fire the former prosecutor that was corrupt well other countries were telling that President the same thing. But if you watch Fox you wouldn’t get the whole story, sad.
17
This is a very helpful piece and the type of thing I wish the NYT would do more often. It often feels like the Times assumes that most of us readers understand the structure of the organization, what each sub-group does, and how they operate. We don't.
Tell us this stuff more often. Put a FAQ on the homepage. I've found myself wanting to ask questions like "why do some of your articles include comments and some do not?" but I have nowhere to go. (Hint: hire a Public Editor!)
The more transparent you are about how you operate the more the public will trust what you say.
Lastly, this piece includes a tantalizing bit about how the Editorial Board represents "a long-range view formed not by one person’s expertise and experience but ballasted by certain institutional values that have evolved across more than 150 years."
What is this view? What are these values? It's almost like you're apologizing for having values. Don't! Values are good. But you have to tell us what they are.
I believe the more explicitly you explain your values the more the public will trust you whether or not we agree with you. The Times is the best and most important paper in the country. Make it better!
12
Truth has a Liberal bias.
17
@Ghost Dansing: Fiction and falsity are Conservative biases.
1
The fact that Nancy Pelosi announced the impeachment on Tuesday before all the facts were out tipped her hand that it was not the facts that matter as much as the spinning of these facts for which she relied on the mainstream media to beat her drum.
Everything was so synchronized that I would not rule out that this CIA officer on detail to the WH was a plant to begin with, looking for any morsel that might undermine POTUS. While this might amuse the Trump haters, it is a net negative for the USA.
Mr. Bennet, each Trum and WB story in the so-called walled-off news section, was spun and worded to incur maximum harm on Trump and minimize the whiff of corruption coming from Biden and his son.
Your bias and activism are so glaring, they put the Times in the position of acting as an un-elected policymaker and un-elected king-maker.
7
Finally Nancy Pelosi the chairman of the house of representative starting the impeachment process for President Donald Trump the mob boss and Godfather three. After the dust has settled American people will find Pres. Donald Trump with high crime and misdemeanors .
After the phone call with the Ukrainian president a shakedown from our Pres. Donald Trump. What had a top-secret server in the right White house the cover his phone conversation now it comes in front of me what other have protected why high officials covered up his crime against the American people. It's been mention vice president Mike Pence, William Barr of the DOJ and President personal lawyers they should all be indicted for treason and a cover-up knowing aiding and abetting a criminal activity which is a criminal felony under the law see at the Congress and the committees look into.
The President hit-man or torpedo man is spreading lies to the major networks like Fox News or fake news Giuliani that he should beat up the whistle-blower and President Donald Trump to execute spy . The only thing left is to impeach this president for his lawless behavior also prosecute people involve in hiding the evidence on top secret server.
5
It's not surprising that the Editorial Board supports impeachment.
After all, the New York Times is one of the leading mouthpieces of the Democrats and the military/intelligence apparatus.
Apparently the fact that the Trump administration has lost the US effort to topple the Assad government in Syria, has sought to hand Afghanistan over to the Taliban after 18 years of bloody war, and, after Iran downed a $200 million US drone, is giving up, as one commentator put it, the “era of [US] air supremacy in the Gulf.”, has the Board and the rest of the ruling class worried enough to now seek his removal.
Just like publishing Hillary's e-mails were called "Russian meddling", now the real facts of Biden and his son's corruption are called "foreign meddling" - by the same corrupt Democrats.
Interestingly, both the Russiagate and Ukraingate hoaxes originated with the CIA.
What's particularly hypocritical is the swooning over this so-called "whistleblower", a CIA mole, knowing that Obama prosecuted numerous whistleblowers, particularly the ones exposing war crimes (Kiriakou, Manning, Assange).
Bush lied the US public into two wars causing genocide of more than a million, while his war profiteer friends looted the US Treasury. Obama with HRC's help expanded two wars into seven, bailed out his Wall Street friends, but gave the working-class the scam Affordable Care Act designed by insurance lobbyists.
Just as with their endorsement of Libya war criminal HRC the Board is completely wrong.
6
Ironically, The Times is alive and kicking because Trump is the president. If Trump is no longer the president, many digital subscribers would bail, leaving the iron lady cash starved and headed for financial doom.
Apparently, the editorial board could not care less about financial viability of the Times, or simply wrote the editorial to please its Liberal base, knowing full well that this impeachment nonsense is not going anywhere in a hurry.
7
Eleven cases of obstruction, most sufficient to impeach based on (Nixon) precedent. Suits being prepared to address thoroughly documented tax fraud and sexual harassment. Documented emoluments abuses.
Denigrating the office of the president? Sewing discord and divisiveness among Americans and allies through ignorance, xenophobia, misogyny, racism, sexual bias, abysmal governance. Twelve thousand plus lies. --All of this has place in articles of impeachment.
It is frightening to contemplate that there would be no impeachment inquiry had Trump not ensnared himself in the Ukraine. It is frightening to think that because the GoP controls the Senate so many including the NYT counselled against impeachment. Did the NYT really think that the standards for impeachment had truly not been met by arguably the worst president with the most egregious record since Andrew Johnson?
It is frightening to contemplate that the country's leading newspaper could ignore the principles our country was founded on--essential for the protection of the Constitution--only supporting Impeachment based on Ukraine revelations.
It is frightening and not a little ironic that the bar for wrong doing has been so lowered by Trump yet raised so high by the NYT that Impeachment prior to Ukraine-gate was not supported by its illustrious Editorial Board.
So when it comes to doing what is right is the NYT follower or leader? What is your mission and have you failed us?
8
As to the decision the Times made to identify as much as it could the whistle blower was a self-serving effort to scoop other news services. It added nothing to the facts of the case, it endangered the person who risked everything to bring these facts to the congress and the public. Shame on the Times and no amount of explanation will right the wrong done to this person and future whistle blowers. Who would risk everything knowing that if the Times learned anything about you they would not hesitate to tell the world. Shame on the Times - SHAME
6
Why?
I wonder why a former Democratic Rep. like Joseph Crowley, who AOC beat like a drum, would now be working here:
Squire Patton Boggs is currently the third-largest lobbying firm in the U.S. after Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld and Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck.[9] The lobbying arm, long managed by Thomas Hale Boggs Jr., is managed by former United States Senators John Breaux and Trent Lott.[10]
And talking about ‘not your average Joe’s — what’s the real story on Joe McGuire:
Apparently, Joseph McGuire, seems to be a bit more than the bumbling Admiral dupe of Emperor Trump and the Disguised Global Crony Capitalist EMPIRE.
McGuire after retiring as a U.S. Navy Admiral, Joe’s first ‘civilian’ job was with Booz Allen, of which Bloomberg wrote and named "the world's most profitable spy organization". According to an Information Week piece from 2002, Booz Allen had "more than one thousand former intelligence officers on its staff". According to its own website, the company "employs more than 10,000 TS/SCI cleared personnel".[Wiki]
Which FACTS about senior military men jumping from what I call the ‘militarist-sector’ of the Disguised Global Crony Capitalist EMPIRE, to the ‘corporate-sector’ of the same Empire — which means he was, likely to be a ‘double-dipper’ parlaying his military bona fades for economic value, but possibly fitting the model of what John Perkins called “History of an Economic Hit Man”, or perhaps a recruiter of ‘Jackals’ using retired Navy Seals.
3
Answer is very simple: In this country, you can speak whatever you want to.
Big mouth can make loud sound. But, once we recognize that it's just noise happening from time to time, we are accustomed to it and ignore it quite naturally.
Talking about impeachment while presidential candidates of your own party are working hard is a joke, and it's a very insulting and demoralizing one. Pathetic!
1
The New York Times needs the Public Editor back and it is hubris to think otherwise.
Margaret Sulllivan was a great loss. It is hard to read any editorials from the Times without this check.
And we certainly have seen where unchecked power has led in the last three years.
5
I am wondering why Editorial Boards (not just the NYT) publish columns expressing definitive positions on political issues. Doesn’t this tradition run counter to the stated purpose of the Op-Ed page: “to supply the wide-ranging debate about big ideas that a diverse democracy needs”?
3
Right from the get-go, as soon as the starter's pistol was fired from the inauguration date, the Times editorial board and all of its opinion columnists (and reporters) have been itching to support an impeachment agenda. So, it's no surprise that the Board has climbed on the impeachment express. Of course it doesn't follow that Trump's behavior in office hasn't been reprehensible and remarkably stupid, to boot, inviting the the very bric-bats that he ce complains so vociferously about. On balance a waste of time for the Dems, but the Board, of course, will be cheering them on. It'l be a nice show for us spectators.
The title of the article, phrased as a question, is strange.
I love the reporting of the NYT, but its Editorial Board is a nest of dyed-in-the-wool Democrats. Can they in good conscience do anything other that support Trump's impeachment, and, maybe later, his exile to Dry Tortugas or one of the uninhabited Aleutian islands?
4
The Times keeps using the word "pressed" to describe the President's ask on Biden. In headlines, in articles, and now in editorials. If the editorial side and the news side are separate operations then why are they acting in concert in order to paint the President's actions? Are these actions not bad enough on their merit?
And to note, the entirety of "pressed" is this:
"...Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it..."
That's it. A rambling old man "pressed" with portions of two sentences. The fact is, no one was pressed.
But pressed sounds more devious than asked or inquired about.
4
All I can say is God bless the New York Times. It is the greatest newspaper in the world and a beacon of good journalism.
Does it make mistakes? Of course. We all do.
But in my long career in the city working with the newspaper I always found it to be fair, reasoned, and forthright. And sometimes I was its adversary.
Now, in retirement, I appreciate more than ever its excellence.
18
Impeaching Trump is the moral, constitutional, imperative thing to do. But let's stop playing Charades. This is going to come down to pure power. Once Trump is removed from office he will spend the rest of his life in jail (after fighting the charges in court for a couple of years). He won't let that happen without attempting to create political Armageddon. At some point over the next year he is going to order our armed forces to back him in an overthrow of our democracy. The future of the republic will depend on whether our troops defend Trump or the constitution. Which way it goes is anyone's guess.
4
I have a friend, a retired school teacher, who has given a lifetime of service to her community. She recently confided in me that that she no longer receives the $3300 tax rebate she has come to expect each year each; instead she will be liable for an additional $2400 in withholding. This, she says, is due to Trump’s tax cuts for the wealthy. I have long believed that is the kind of issue the Democrats should run on in 2020, as they did in 2018 with great success.
But now I’m persuaded by some readers that a free and fair election may not be possible in 2020—if in fact Trump can enlist various foreign countries to intervene on his behalf. Moscow Mitch has agreed to a token additional $250 million for states to strengthen election security, but experts say that is grossly inadequate.
It is encouraging that polls in favor of impeachment have spiked up since Speaker Pelosi’s announcement. To me, and I hope to most Americans, the key worry is not Tump’s actions per se—although they are bad enough—but the threat to the integrity of our elections that they portend.
9
The plod to the impeachment process did grow out of the Clinton impeachment. In retrospect, impeachment turned out to be too extreme considering what he was charged with. That is, lying to Congress under oath. Also, impeachment in Clinton's case, was very politically motivated, by a GOP majority in the House.
20 years later, we are about to impeach another president. Unlike, in 1998, this time Congress tolerated one transgression after another, and wanted to be absolutely and positively sure that impeachment was the right course of action; as this newspaper.
When it became clear, early in Trump's term, that his actions were pushing the boundaries of acceptable behavior, the possibility of impeachment may have been a possible end outcome.
So, now here we are investigating a president for articles of impeachment. The charge? Using his office as president of the United States to ask fro help, from a foreign power, to interfere in the 2020 election, in return for release of money for military aid. And, trying to conceal this information by making it classified.
Thus, what we have is violation election laws, obstruction, bribery, extortion and abuse of executive authority. A far cry from just lying to Congress.
This is the proper course of action, because ignoring it would have further destabilized this country. Also, it needed to be done to show that "rule of law" is paramount, and sacrosanct,in a functioning democracy.
14
An impeachment inquiry is not an impeachment. There is no reason to hold off on the inquiry. There is enough already known about the President's actions to obstruct justice to warrant the inquiry.
11
I commend your transparency. I am interested in the protocols you follow to come to a consensus.
I am curious your voting process to arrive at consensus. You could describe and explain the process in more detail, however, since you have not at this time I am not able to understand you well enough to agree or disagree with that you have arrived at a valid consensus.
I reference you to how medical experts vote to arrive at consensus guidance statements, specifically one published by the American Academy of Neurology online on June 29, 2019.
The study employed th RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method for formal consensus to quantify agreement. The subject matter is myasthenia gravis for which there was no accepted internationally accepted standard of care.
The panelists were chosen to represent the breadth of knowledge and experience and a wide variety of opinions on the subject matter. (it seems you lack there given the length of human life.)
How good is your game then? The voting was anonymous, do you vote in one room with everyone there?
1
Where is Attorney General William Barr licensed? (New York?) Has that state's Bar Association initiated disciplinary investigations -- possibly resulting in disbarment -- regarding his role in this cover-up, and his violation of legal ethics in his failure to recuse himself?
11
For me, the turning point came when Corey Lewandowski appeared before a Congressional hearing earlier this month. His smug and defiant refusal to answer even basic questions - even though he's a private citizen and is not protected under executive privilege - turned the entire hearing into a sham. And certain GOP members added to the circus environment, disrupting the hearing and requesting pointless procedural vote counts. And the Democrats didn't even charge Lewandowski for defying Congress and the law. They just let him sit there, defiantly defying Congress. ...... I realized then that Congress had become totally impotent under Trump - and was no longer able to hold our president accountable as the Constitution states. Trump was emboldened - and felt he could do or say anything - break any law, force people not to testify, ignore subpoenas, etc. - and nothing would be done to check him and hold him accountable.
So, when the Ukraine issue came up - I was happy that Nancy Pelosi moved toward an impeachment inquiry. For the first time, Trump didn't defy Congress - and actually handed over the requested documents. (In the past, he ignored every single subpoena, filed frivilous suits to delay every request Congress made, and ordered people not to appear before Congress). .. So, if it took an impeachment process to make Trump realize we live in a democracy with three co-equal branches of government - and NOT a dictatorship - then so be it.
9
The New York Times decision to publish details about the whistleblower was a reckless decision that could result in that person's identity becoming known to the Trump White House. I find your lack of judgement staggering. You are well aware that for all his life Trump will stop at nothing to inflict revenge on his enemies. You have helped him in what must be currently one of his major goals. Your stated reasons are frankly ridiculous given the reality of politics in the United States these days.
5
The best antidote for a nefarious administration is to not only get rid of them but the political cancer that enables them, the GOP. They MUST be relegated to minority status because plutocrats are a minority. For the past half century not only they gave us Trump, but wars, economic catatosterpies, corruption, nepotism, crony capitalism, inequity, environmental chaos, etc. all to fester their plutocracy.
The plutocratic cancer that their St. Reagan began not only needs to end but reversed. There is a energizer bunny for democracy with full great ideas to do it. Her name is Elizabeth Warren! To undo the catastrophe of Reagan, we need a green new deal, medicare for all, economic equity, free college, financial regulation, campaign finance, etc.
Lucky for the nation this time the evil plutocrats elected a corrupt buffoon who will not only self impeaches himself, but the entire party of plutocrats, hopefully for decades. FDR did to them almost a century ago and we became a superpower, Elizabeth Warren will do even better.
9
The NYT has made no secret of the fact that it's raison d'etre is to remove Trump from office. Fair enough. But the self-serving sanctimony about maintaining institutional continuity or whatever is really annoying.
The only internal debate at the NYT is whether endorsing impeachment would be productive, or counter-productive, in helping Democrats get rid of Trump.
It's like a Politburo debate between Trotsky and Stalin about how best to eliminate counter-revolutionaries.
30
@Chorizo Picante
Do you disagree that Trump used government resources to coerce the Ukraine government to harm Trump’s political opponent?
10
@Chorizo Picante
Funny you mention Trotsky and Stalin - the Russians are no doubt debating what directions to give Trump.
13
@Chorizo Picante
Fourth Estate. Look it up. I'm much more sanguine about the NYT editorial board risking "self-serving sanctimony" than the money-serving corporate ties of more rightward-leaning media outlets.
8
There is no excuse for the Times to publish the information on the informant. Just as the White House's and Justice Department's actions may make it more difficult for future whistleblowers to come forward, so, too, will the Times' decision to expose this much information about the whistleblower give future informants the will to trust the Times with their information. The Times has already bent to this administration's use of foul language by publishing words it had previously listed as inappropriate for publication because of the administration's actions. Now it has apparently eased its own restrictions on exposing those who are brave enough to come forward with information for the good of the country. The information was not worth the trust the Times lost. I am a long time subscriber and still a huge fan of the Times' adherence to truth. Yet this time I am disappointed in its willingness to break its own rules of conduct.
4
The identity of "whistleblower," through his actions, must be revealed. He or she has presented nothing but hearsay evidence and has caused a firestorm with unsupported and unsubstantiated allegations. This has been a pattern with Democrats and the MSM throughout Trump's time in office. If the whistleblower won't come forward, and can't convince any of his "senior official" sources to come forward, this is all over.
2
The timing of Speaker Pelosi’s announcement doesn’t matter, in my view. The essential facts have not changed and should be rightly be part of an impeachment inquiry regardless of the outcome.
This president needs to feel that he has competent people looking over his shoulder. People who are not his pitiful sycophants.
20
I enjoy the thoughtful process that goes into editorial board opinions, and the fact that they come from one of the greatest news organizations ever. However, they are only opinions, and often (in my opinion) wrong, reflecting the biases of New York and its liberal echo chamber.
Take, for example, the last presidential election and the editorial board's support of Hillary -- a deeply flawed, widely disliked, obviously compromised (by her support of Goldman Sachs), overly hawkish (supported the Iraq War), and very self-serving person who got into office by nepotism. The editorial board was unfair to Bernie Sanders, and contributed to not only his loss of the primaries, but also the win of Donald Trump (since Sanders could have beaten Trump, but Hillary could not).
Take the current impeachment inquiry. You can argue about the timing (a day or two too soon), but either way it comes off as an extremely partisan, very weak case that is bound to fail even if impeachment gets through the House. Most Americans will shrug and say "What's new?" Throughout the Obama administration, there were calls for his impeachment as well. Yes, the Dems are diluting the significance of impeachment, and it is unquestionably becoming just another tool in the partisan armamentarium.
The inquiry will most likely help Trump -- it alreay helped his fundraising -- and the editorial board will have again contributed to the (re-)election of this vile man.
8
@Unconventional Liberal
Polls indicated Bernie would win over Trump. Polls predicted Hillary would beat Trump. She lost. Concluding that Bernie would have beaten Trump is counting the proverbial chickens before they hatched.
You are unfair in blaming Hillary's loss on the editorial board's endorsement of her.
2
@Unconventional Liberal
Hillary was (and is) indeed unlikeable, flawed, and compromised. I didn't vote for her in the primaries--I was for Bernie--but I did in the general. But she didn't get into office via nepotism. She wasn't gifted her senatorship. She ran on a ballot and won, then parlayed that into an appointment to another office (in which she acquitted herself ably), no different than many other pols.
Also, is it partisanship to hold the president to the rule of law? Would you prefer looking the other way when Trump--or any president--commits acts that are arguably illegal? What kind of precedent does that set? Checks and balances is a core component of our republic. Getting to the truth of the matter is important if we're to be a society of laws everyone is subject to. I'm a liberal, but I'd recommend the same for any Democratic office holder if the evidence points to illegality. Democratic or Republican, holding presidents accountable through impeachment is not the dilution of impeachment's significance; that's the definition of it.
Last thing: Obama faced congressional Republican majorities--one can easily categorize them as obstructionist--during most of his presidency. If any of his actions, or those of his administration, amounted to something illegal, we can be sure those same Republicans would have brought articles. So saying there was talk of impeachment during his term is much different than action in that regard.
5
@Unconventional Liberal I wouldn't be so sure Bernie would have beaten Trump. Bernie had too many socialist ideas that would have hurt too many people. Medicare for all is no. 1. Who wants to give up their private insurance so we can be socialists? Bernie made so many loonie promises, the average dope knew he couldn't do any of it.
1
Every day that the NYT and the NYEB wastes ink on the impeachment saga and Trump, wastes a day not talking about the fact that:
1. The United States is the only developed country where people live in trailers because they cannot afford to rent or buy a home.
2. The United States is the only developed country in the world where people go into bankruptcy because of their medical bills.
3. The United States is the only country where a median salary, 40 to 60K per year is not enough to pay rent in any of the bi cities, and people are forced to live with roommates until old age or commute for great distances.
4. The United States has the biggest drug addicted population in the civilized world, and the most people afflicted by depression and taking meds for it.
These issues started long before Trump and will continue long after he leaves because no one wants to change the status quo and do good, everyone is running for power.
24
@European in NY
5. The highest rate of incarceration and the highest total number of incarcerated people in the world.
6. The highest-off the charts- number of mass shootings, and most number of firearms.
A healthy society does not "murder" itself.
7
@European in NY do you not think that the Trump administration's policies, such as a tax cut primarily benefitting the wealthy, eliminating the requirement to carry health insurance, and imposing tariffs that adversely affect farmers, manufacturers and consumers, have made the existing situation worse?
12
@European in NY do you not think that the Trump administration's policies, such as a tax cut primarily benefitting the wealthy; eliminating the requirement to carry health insurance; and imposing tariffs that adversely affect farmers, manufacturers and consumers; have made the existing situation worse?
4
Whether you like the make-up of the board or not, or think there should or should not be an editorial board (there should be) isn't the question. The question is how a president who has broken so many laws can remain in office?
How can a person who has sided with evil despots from Russia and North Korea be wildly applauded by so-called patriots? Even our worse presidents -- Nixon, for example -- never did this.
How can these so-called patriots approve of Trump siding with Putin over his own FBI? How can these so-called patriots approve of him trashing a war hero in John McCain? How can they approve of Trump's six deferments for bone spurs to get out of service?
Add the constant lying, the caging of children, and tax breaks that are crushing to farmers and the lower class; the huge tax breaks for corporations ... and how can these so-called patriots accept all this? It makes no sense.
30
As the Wheelhouse turns, so begins the Trump high crimes and misdemeanors show. It will be a show unlike the previous impeachments. A 7x24 non stop twitter, news cycle technicolor production. Rotten Tomatoes ranking the true arbiter of quality entertainment.
2
Just like the Editorial Board writes in a contained, astute, combined Voice-Democrats must convey same. White Noise results if too many messages in different directions. The existing facts are enough. No need to mine--just emphasize facts in a simple fashion--hysteria not required.
9
Please run a story about how Rudy Guilainii can legally represent the US in foreign affairs, as a quasi personal Lawyer , essentially a civilian . Also, the WH lawyers including Barr, how can they get away with the alleged activities (cover up and not investigating whistleblower complaint). Are they in jeopardy of losing their licenses to practice law? Isn’t this illegal. How is it justified in to the face of Americans ? What does the bar association say ? Meanwhile, what else is going on behind this recent smokescreen drama?
19
I initially shared Mr. Bennet's criticism of the timing of the Speaker's call for an impeachment inquiry. But as we are often reminded, the leaders of the two major parties are skilled politicians who rarely err when it comes to major political decisions. And make no mistake, this is a political decision. Ms. Pelosi clearly recognized the gravity of the President's actions as the nation heads towards a constitutional indictment of 45 knowing that a subsequent removal is nearly impossible.
The consequences
7
@Selby Jessup Before you assume removal is impossible, recognize that understanding of the facts can change as new facts are uncovered during the impeachment inquiry (and if impeached by the full House, the trial in the Senate). New facts came out about Watergate throughout both Sen. Sam Ervin's committee hearings (no equivalent here) and Rep. Peter Rodino's Judiciary Committee inquiry, culminating in the so-called "smoking gun tape" (where Nixon ordered the cover-up) becoming public just after Judiciary voted on the articles of impeachment. Once that happened, even Nixon's supporters in Judiciary said they would vote to impeach on the House floor, and Sen. Barry Goldwater privately told Nixon he didn't have enough support in the Senate to avoid conviction; that, plus a law denying pensions to presidents removed after impeachment, is why he resigned just before the House could impeach him. It's still possible that the inquiry could produce facts that sway enough GOP Senators to vote to remove Trump. And unlike Clinton's impeachment, Trump's may well produce enough facts for the voters to reject him at the polls no matter what the Senate does.
4
Thank you for this explanation. We know that everyone there at the NYT is sincere, smart, and has the country's best interests at heart.
The only matter I would caution the editorial board about is how representative their opinions are....or even should be. I am not wise enough to know.
I am a life-long Democrat, 50 years of voting that way without exception. My first "liberal" statement was being a conscientious objector in Vietnam--ready to go to prison for my beliefs.
I vote Democrat for one reason only--to protect the vulnerable. I, myself, and my family are doing fine. We are upper middle class. But we don't vote in our own interest.....or we'd vote for Trump, who gives us money.
We vote for the single parent mothers trying to raise their kids in great hardship. We vote for the environment so everyone's grandchildren can have good lives. We vote to make it possible for everyone, regardless of gender identity, to have the same opportunities for a good life.
I would feel more confident in the editorial board's decisions if some of those vulnerable people had a voice on it. Because, for example, this impeachment inquiry hurts them--it creates the opportunity for Trump to shine, and for him to get a "win."
The way to protect the vulnerable is to think of the long-term, and that means we must, regardless of anything else, get him out of office. That won't happen with impeachment. In fact, it is less likely to happen with impeachment.
11
@Travelers While I agree with the logic of Travelers' statements, I would urge him/her and all who are willing and able to get involved in the 2020 campaign as an antidote to the possibility that the impeachment drama will restrengthen authoritarian government.
2
@Harrison Howard
"Urge" all you are want and can, but we live in a life or death world. And in that world, we have to keep our eye on the ball, as Obama said. And that means everything has to be geared toward the goal of defeating Trump in 2020.
Many, many of the vulnerable in our culture will not vote. That is the reality. Has been and always will be. So, what do we do? Stand on principle or stand on protecting the young and vulnerable?
I stand with them--get rid of Trump. And that means voting him out of office. Nothing else matters. Not to me, but to them.
Impeachment is a vote for him to stay in office. My liberal colleagues have abandoned the vulnerable.
1
Holding powerful people to account is even more important than holding the likes of me to account. The reason being, powerful people set the tone of the country. If that power is corrupt, so will the country be - as we've seen with many of the government's agency heads - because that cancer grows and trickles down. The country will also turn more violent, as we've also seen, with insular people emboldened by nationalist rhetoric reminiscent of 1933 Germany.
Sometimes you have to do what is right no matter the consequences. Not standing up for the nation's laws and its Constitution, for fear of dividing the nation is absurd. The nation is already divided. Even if no Republican stands on the side of the law, there needs to be a reckoning, because history will tell the tale and lessons will be learned.
At the extreme level of this presidency, if it continues, lies the dreadfulness of subjugation - as we've already witnessed by sycophantic meetings. That alone is reason for impeachment. Freedom of choice is the bedrock of this nation and should be protected at all costs. Many thousands upon thousands have already dies for it. We would not be doing our duty if we did not pick up the torch that those souls left to us.
In the case of our freedoms, it is better to have fought and lost, than not to have fought at all.
22
Thank you NY Times. I agree with the editorial board. In the short term, this may not be helpful for the Democrats. In the long term, it's what's best for America, and the statement that is being made for all of history. The nation needs to be woken up to the objective reality that a sitting US President tried to strong-arm a foreign nation in order to dig up dirt on a potential political rival. This is Watergate on a much higher and more dangerous level than a botched break-in at a hotel. This is certainly of more significance than tasking an investigator to reveal that a President lied to hide an infidelity.
15
@Red Tree Hill
We should also not ignore the fact that vital military aid for Ukraine was held up, notwithstanding that Russian troops have taken over Crimea and occupy much of eastern Ukraine.
8
Personally I support this impeachment inquiry and the activities of establishments like the editorial board play a critical role in my reasons for supporting the inquiry. In fact there are excellent tactical reasons for avoiding impeachment. One can fear that it will energize the Republican base, that it will alienate independents who might have voted Democratic and that it will induce sympathy for Trump and that his removal would most properly and efficiently be achieved through the ballot box. But Trump's victory reflects a fundamental problem. Though he quite objectively is unfit for office and incapable of governance, most who voted for him did not understand the constitutional and legal realities, the role of the presidency and the fragile nature of political and international power. I believe that there must be some kind of national educational process to properly expose these concepts and to elevate them to their proper intellectual place rather than leave them languish as one more partisan controversy. It seems to me that that can only be accomplished through the arguments that will emerge in the impeachment process and that they will spread through things like editorials and public discussions. So yes we need to impeach and the existence of editorials an news and discussion outlets are what will make it work.
12
@Bill H
They need to bring back Civics as a required course to graduate from high school.
3
I was, for many months, convinced that an impeachment would be counterproductive, because I feared it would increase the level of political division in your country and fire up the electoral base of Donald Trump. Also, the possibility of Mike Pence becoming president was dreadful.
I want to thank the Times editorial board for changing my mind. Today’s editorial makes it perfectly clear that an impeachment inquiry is, indeed, the only right thing to do.
11
Helsinki. Summer 2018. The President met privately with President Putin of Russia. Trump refused to release the transcripts. There were already credible questions about Russia the state and the Russian President and our 2016 election.
Trump had already a background as Chief Executive of making erratic and puzzling decisions in almost every sphere. His foreign relations actions were already eroding long-standing positive and beneficial histories in favor of abrupt cancellations. There was no trust. The Dept of State had at least 30 unfilled vacancies. 4 resignations.
It was clear that Tump was acting on very personal impulses. There was he Muslim ban, there were camps of immigrants.
But Helsinki was a clear violation of communication and accountability on the part of the President. I think the rogue action of meeting with Putin should have instigated some sort of
check on the part of Congress.
In the coming years we need to rebuild our institutions on a firmer
foundation of more Justices in the Supreme Court, abolishment of the Electoral College, and secure voting protocols. And term limits for Senators. And maybe Representatives.
Impeachment is just barely bringing us up to speed on the abuses of power that have been strangling our Republic.
16
Much as I often agree with the NYT editorial, the self importance evident here reminds me why I've more often than not thought, "I wish the NYT did not have an editorial."
Individual columnists, fine.
Choice of which stories to report, a very important source of tacit judgment, fine.
But the idea you might think your 14 wise men and women merit a speaker's platform and microphone is unconvincing.
The process in which you take such satisfaction does not mitigate the arrogance of the assumption.
Your news stories can show us a sort of truth.
But when you feel it necessary to tell us the moral of the story, you lose not just the art of the story but our faith in your wisdom.
7
There is no alternative. This has to be done. Trump has over 400 days left and, like the blob, he’s only going to grow bigger each time he gets away with some illegal act. If democrats are punished for doing the right thing in 20, then this country is doomed to failure anyway.
25
The Editorial Board aims to protect democracy from ignorance and by supporting the impeachment inquiry, the hope is that we will get more information upon which to make important decisions. I think this is not a matter of "opinion" but an urgent matter of fact, so I totally agree with you guys. However, we should remember that the conflict, as alluded to in these pages [‘Everything You’re Seeing Is Deception’: How Right-Wing Media Talks About Impeachment by Jeremy Peters] is being fought by the media to claim the minds of electorate. What's at stake, with the impeachment of Trump is whether we will get the real information, without which, there can be no USA.
5
My cynical view is that most Americans don't understand or don't take the time to understand the difference between editorial and news and that much of mainstream journalism has either purposely or carelessly blurred the lines.
The Times isn't always right and makes mistakes, but it always appears to me like it tries very, very hard to be a real journalistic organization.
3
"Why is the board making this argument now?"
Because they can.
In all candor, they were among those who hoped for it on Election Night 2016, and never let up.
It is a purely anti-democratic elitist motive, hiding behind outrage at the abuses of the other guy, and shaded by the sanctification of the candidate they offered who lost (we won, we won!).
If we get Trump again in 2020, it will be because of the people who would not listen in 2016 and would not learn after that.
It is like the French royalty after Napoleon, they learned nothing and forgot nothing.
We so need to fix so many problems, and all we are offered is return to the problems as they were (status quo ante) instead of real fixes. Look at medical prices, or forever wars, or suicide rates, or ever-rising economic inequality, or lack of affordable housing stock as we zone for McMansions.
There is a general disgust among many voters, and the Editorial Board boasting here is part of what disgusts. Trump is of course another big part, but he doesn't excuse this.
11
Mr. Bennet's criticism of Ms. Pelosi seems to disregard the fact that information about the famous call and more importantly the whistle-blower complaint was initially being withheld from Congress by White House instruction in flagrant disregard of the law.
(And this was by no means the first instance of such behavior - remember Ms. Conway and the Hatch Act, for a minor example out of many?)
Congress, therefore, had to assume the worst, which has now, and again, been shown to be exactly true.
Also, though I'm sure he's a great editor, I can't help but wish James Bennet worked somewhere else, so that maybe the Times could have given his brother better coverage without appearance of favoritism.
That Michael Bennet isn't at least a front-runner in the primaries indicates a troubling lack of clear thinking in the Democratic zeitgeist.
8
I usually disagree with the New York Times Editorial Board.
Probably 7 out of 10 Editorials strike me as either naive,
or out of touch with mainstream Americans.
I may be wrong but it seems most of the Board was educated
on the East Coast, and come from the Eastern part of the United States.
How many of you served in the military, how many of you served in combat, or had children that did ?
How many of you live in High Crime neighborhoods and send you children to Public Schools that have most poor minority students.
How many of you voted for Trump ?
Or were appalled that the DNC did its utmost to make sure
Bernie did not defeat Hillary in the Primaries ?
How many of you have hired un-documented Immigrants instead of Poor Americans do to work around your home ?
How many of you spend significant time with Americans who are barely getting by, rather than those who are looking for a two bedroom condo with a view for no more than $ 1.2 Million in
Manhattan as an ongoing article has us worry about each week.
How many of you will honestly say it is not Trump as much as
those who voted for Trump that you want "impeached/removed from office/power" ?
As it is we, the Board/Elites, who should be running American and the World, not those blue-collar workers and quasi-racists who voted for Trump...
Notice the email to contact any member of the Board is not included on the Board web-site, only their twitter account.
Twitter is for Twits.
Please provide your emails.
33
@John Brown
I agree the board/elites should be running America. The people you purport to speaking for are not being served by this president.
12
@John Brown I'm from Idaho, too, and the poor, rural people in this state -- farmers I know -- are being crushed by Trump's policies, which enrich the same Manhattan people you're talking about here. I'm not sure why a rural person would support a Manhattan rich guy, who inherited $418 million at age 8 and never worked a day in his life. There's a huge disconnect there. I'm just not sure why his taxes on the poor are supported by people who are being crushed by it. Do you know any farmers?
33
@ john brown
As an independent who lives on the east coast, I appreciate your comments.
I believe the NYT is a valuable resource, but has some serious bias built into its opinion section and editorial board.
3
Better late than never. Especially given your less than visionary historical record.
10
What an excellent piece.
My only criticism is that while Mr. Bennet graciously doffs his hat to the family that OWNS ("publisher" strikes me as a wonderful - almost scarily powerful - title) the NY Times, it isn't at all clear what happens when - literally - one man does not share the sentiments of 10 or 14 people who essentially report to him.
Maybe, that falls under "executive confidentiality," but we can definitely something similar at play with Ms. Pelosi.
HAD THERE BEEN anything like the NYT "editorial board," she would have been in the ticklish position of either resigning or capitulating or fighting them, ... who had decided before she did that ONLY IMPEACHMENT - with all its flaws - *MIGHT* stop the bleeding. (That sounds overly dramatic, but when - just to name one - the President's every policy decision re "energy" puts our planet at greater and greater risk ... I don't think I'm overstating matters.)
Mr. Bennet may well "chortle" about the Times' long ago opposition to women's suffrage. Their (was it "German roots?") handling of Adolph Hitler in the 1930's would surely consign an Ochs or a Sulzberger or 2 to a torrid afterlife.
And the Times *WAS* on W's and Cheney's "let's go to war with Iraq team" not all THAT long ago.
Which is not to disparage them, who - by my lights - gets things right 95%+ of the time.... But just as the central point in the National nightmare is "What limits are there on a President?" I wonder if the NYT publisher is any different.
7
@pfusco
I've read your comment three times and now fear I've suffered a stroke.
Either way you play this we know that Trump will play his skill at dark arts. It is time to impeach and let that lead where it leads. I do not agree with those who think we necessarily will win in 2020 if we play the wimp card.
Interestingly, already those for impeachment in polls have jumped up. Perhaps the American peo[ple need to see some spine from the Dems. To continue this evening talk show whining is just turning people away from the Dams. Isn't it interesting that Warren was the one who said early on that you cannot take a break from constitutional duty.
27
"because for all the shouting and suspicion in Washington and elsewhere, the system seemed to be working"
Sorry, but, system working, for who? Not for the American people, that's for sure. Trump has been playing the system like a banjo for almost 3 years. And telling everyone to dance to his jig, or else. And he's still doing it now, with impeachment hanging over his stupid head.
I'm disappointed that the editorial board didn't stand up for impeachment much, much earlier than now. There were no lack of reasons not to.
18
So the esteemed New York Times editorial board supports a impeachment process that will further polarize the country based on a CIA agent's compilation of hearsay evidence?
15
@David Sperling I would point out that the whistleblower's hearsay evidence has so far proven to be accurate.
16
@David Sperling
Not so hearsay now, is it? The "transcript", the admission by the White House today that they did move the transcript to a secure server - how about that? Everything that's come out so far has corroborated the whistleblower's complaint. Why would we not think that he or she has it right?
18
@David Sperling
Hearsay evidence ?
The President has released a transcript of the conversation and so signed off on the evidence himself. In addition, the White House lawyers have now publicly admitted they falsely classified the transcript and encrypted it on an NSA computer where it did not belong, to keep it from being seen.
That's not hearsay evidence. Those are admissions from the guilty.
15
Nancy Pepsi has more wisdom than the entire Editorial Board.
You look silly quibbling over the timing of the announcement of an impeachment inquiry.
16
The answer to the headline question is simple but cannot be mentioned. It is the NYT’s hatred of Donald Trump since he won the election...plain and simple. And I am not a supporter of this president.
15
That the Editorial Board took so long to accept that impeachment inquiries were warranted will be a source of shame for the Gray Lady for generations to come.
11
Message to Editorial Board:
Your bias and anti-Trump sentiment has never been more crystal clear; it makes your bias during the Russian Collusion hoax seem opaque.
You should be concurrently investigating and opining about Joe Boden's withholding a Billion Dollars of Ukraine - and boasting about it - until the Ukraine prewsident fired the prosecutor who was investigating Hunter Biden's corruption.
(or is it simply coincidence that Hunter Biden received millions for sitting on the board of Ukraine's largest gas company when he had no prior experience in the energy industry, nor experience in the Ukraine?)
14
@billy what is it you don't get about the difference between Biden doing his job per foreign policy -out in the light of day -- because it was the right thing to do, and Trump trying to extort personal political favors from a foreign government - and shrouding it in secrecy because he knew it was wrong?
3
@billy Except that the prosecutor wasn't investigating Hunter Biden or the company at that time. Just saying.
2
Being actual journalists, I fear that the Board’s expertise does not extend to far-right hallucinations.
4
While I applaud the Board's decision to support this impeachment inquiry, I cannot help but ask: Where have you, and other reputable news outlets been these past three years? Your publication and others treated Trump like any other Republican candidate in 2016, while excoriating Ms. Clinton for, what were in retrospect, minor "offenses" at best.
Fast forward three years. We have a "president" who has said that the KKK and neo-Nazis are some very fine people. A "president" who has shoved Hispanic infants and children into cages. A "president" who publicly toadied to Putin with his disgraceful performance in Helsinki. A "president" who has used the Justice Department as a blunt force instrument against his political "enemies." A "president" who has trashed every single international alliance this country has, many of which took decades to build. A "president" who has turned our country into a laughing stock at best, and an international pariah at worst.
Every sane person in this country understands this. And yet, this Board and others, in treating Trump as they would any other president, have normalized his conduct - worse, by failing to speak out sooner, have enabled his conduct. All respected news media outlets should have been screaming from the rooftops starting in January 2017.
But Trump saw the media's passivity, their appeasement, and knew nothing could stop him. This board and others must acknowledge the role they have played in this national disaster.
48
The Times claims that the political views of the Editorial Board has no influence on "the newsroom" is delusional.
No media organization, including the Times, can be both strongly partisan and a source of fair and responsible journalism.
21
Are you really claiming that the editorial page has the “same standards for fact” as the news division?
Please. You publish climate change deniers. Might as well “both sides” whether or not the moon is made of green cheese. A scientifically illiterate oped page cannot be considered factual, regardless of the popularity of their denial.
12
I really don’t care about the NYT editorial board opinions, it’s not news but publishers opinions. What I do care about is hard news reporting. I have been a NYT reader for many many years and am disappointed how the Punch of yesterday’s just the facts hard news reporting has slipped into Pinch’s of ever more editorializing and partisanship.
20
@Jerry Davenport
It is now *literally* impossible to tell the difference between alleged "news" and editorial pieces.
2
@Jerry Davenport
I agree totally; it's a true shame that "All the news that's fit to print" has slipped to "Just the news that fits our preferred narrative"
3
The Times editorial board along with hard news department has been crying Wolf for 3 yrs regarding Trump. Credibility is waning. Looking forward to seeing Schiff, Pelosi and Nadler in the news often as the face of the Democrat Party.
14
@Lane
So who are the truth news tellers in your world? FOX News?
17
@John P
Zing. What a comeback!
5
@John P
For more than half of this country, Fox News IS their 'truth teller'. Your disdain of conservative thinking people is obvious. Personally, I am somewhere in the middle but starting to believe that Fox News is less biased than MSNBC or the NYT when it comes to news on Trump. There are reporters on Fox who obviously dislike the president but, at least I'm getting both sides. Whereas, on the left media, the hatred is so intense and obsessive, that I don't feel it can be trusted anymore. I am not a supporter of the president but that doesn't mean that, therefore, I only want to hear biased news about him. I want the news only, not opinion nor emotion. I can do that part on my own.
2
The editorial board really doesn't need to address this issue: the entire newspaper is devoted to the issue of "Trump", to the total detriment of reporting news. TDS in spades.
11
As bad as it usually is, Trump’s words and behavior make news. The news isn’t distorted or deranged - the President is. The Times’ Job is to report it. If you don’t care for the way they do their job you are, of course, able to say so. And it may make you feel good to waste your time doing so. But, it’s about as useful as me sending complaint letters to Fox News for producing their daily torrent of pro-Trump agitprop.
2
@Tcarl.
If you want a real look at TDS, go on YouTube and look for Bill Maher’s “Catch 23” new rule from last week.
TDS has engulfed the GOP akin to OCD.
Even Fox News is seeing the writing on the wall with only Hannity and Ingraham still drinking the TDS flavored Kool-Aid.
You say Mueller was ultimately able to interview everyone he thought necessary?
What parallel universe do you live in, Editorial Board member?
Your perspective offers keen insight into the huge problems in the reporting, editorial, and the problematic excuses the “institution” pushes out.
Perhaps the problem lies in the paper deeming itself an institution, rather than a newspaper with integrity.
Your editor, publisher and editorial board need a house cleaning.
10
In light of the partisanship the NYT has displayed I would have expected a recusal.
10
"Why The Times Editorial Board Supports an Impeachment Inquiry"
Simple - Your editorial mission is to remove Trump from office. It's obvious to any objective reader based on how you craft and change your headlines and how you write your stories. I think everyone except the 14 people who sit on the board know this. It's like when everyone knows that a person is an alcoholic except the alcoholic.
20
Members of the NYT editorial board, although erudite and accomplished, seem superficially of the same ilk. Is the NYT including diversity of thought, background and experience? Are they their own echo chamber?
16
I have no reason to doubt the integrity of the "wall" between the Opinion and News departments of the Times, but I can't help but wish that this wall was more obvious, graphically, on the front page of your website.
3
The Times Editorial has to avoid political opinions like this. You have to inform with impartiality.
8
The NYT does not like conceptual analysis . No phenomenology here .
4
The Times EB supports impeachment against Trump ? Shocking !
Heads are spinning and jaws are dropping nowhere at all.
18
I'm shocked! The NYT is in favor of impeaching Trump! Wow, breaking news.
Next you'll tell me WaPo, or MSNBC agrees.
15
@DMA
Agreed. It is only the mis-informed fox audience that does not favor impeachment.
Is this about the editorial board?
2
let me add to that... :)
Editorial Bd is the propaganda handling machine that only allows ideologically acceptable far left liberal opinion but then hiding behind statement that it is ea individual contributor's view not necessarily shared by the Board... And then they're in charge of the censorship that is hiding behind a convenient shingle of "moderation" to reader's comments to the Opinion site... The one's who wont let this comment go thru since it is not following strict ideological views of the Board or for that matter the Censor... err... Moderator... :))
14
I look for thought leadership and differentiating journalism from NYT. However, over the last 2-3 of years, I have seen the writers and reporters writing as political activists with clear personal hatred toward the duly elected President, a Supreme court nominee, and many others in the administration. There have been omissions, lies, selective reporting, beating on the same negative message. Even before facts emerge, the verdict comes out and many of the NYT opinion writers turn into a lynch mob to hang the President. Happens again and again.
The NYT and its EB want to go in history as a paper that brought a President down. The coverage is far being fair It is a hunger for power and influence. It is all about TRP, clicks, and profits and not about journalism as it used to be.
16
Trump's ceremonial signature – displayed many times beneath his smiling face following a signing – clearly inks his legacy.
Enriching the rich.
Villainizing non-whites and non-Christians.
Terrorizing children.
Abandoning historic allies and commitments.
Accelerating climate change.
History already has a sufficient amount of The Official Donald J. Trump to judge his presidency.
Impeachment – painful, divisive, and embarrassing for our entire nation – will serve to provide our other elected leaders, in the House and Senate, the opportunity to ink their legacy. History and the eyes of our nation and the world are watching.
I wish this wasn’t happening.
Although he wasn’t my choice, I do wish Trump was a solid president.
I wish I had more faith that justice will prevail.
My well-earned pessimism is eating a hole in my heart.
13
I have been in favor of impeaching this so called president since day 1. Inauguration day. He is an illegitimate pretender, helped by the secret police of our number one adversary, and he should never have been given the oath.
But here we are.
Let the inquiries begin; let the articles of impeachment stack up; let the hearings be heard; and let t rump, his party, and his very base base go off the rails.
There is a very solid majority of Americans who are appalled by this so called man and his crime family. That majority is sure to grow when all the facts are put forth... on TV... for all to see.
t rump is a coward and as the walls close in on him his cowardice is going to be on full display and that is going to shake up a certain percentage of his supporters.
The election of 2020 is going to be the most important election in the history of this Nation.
20
@Bob Laughlin
What had Trump done to be impeached before he
was inaugurated ?
No, Lincoln's election, and re-election were far more important, as was FDR's first and second election, as was Ronald Regan's.
The NYT and democrats , and US citizens in general should not forget that this is not about Trump but about principles of democracy . And that there are forces of repression and lobbying who absolutely don't care about those principles and they will fight by saying that the opposition is about Trump, the person.
All the near future of progress will be about making that difference in the analysis .Don't fall for the TRUMP trap.
9
Your columnist David Brooks argues that it is a mistake to impeach Trump, and that Democrats should simply work to vote him out. But Brooks is an interested player--he's advocating for the Republic position, and he knows, like we do, that if Trump has been caught working with one foreign leader to steal the election, he's surely been in contact with others, which is to say there is ZERO reason to think the next presidential election will be in any way fair.
Brooks, like the rest of the GOP, is praying we don't impeach Trump, because then he and his GOP co-conspirators can continue their criminal scheme and will likely steal the election, AGAIN.
Impeachment is the only way out of the morass of GOP treason and criminality. One of our two political parties is now an agent of Russia, a criminal enterprise dedicated solely to retaining power and funneling more and more money to themselves. We need a hero, we need an honest cop to bring these mobsters to justice. Pelosi is that honest cop.
15
The T.E.B. should go further and recommend actual impeachment by the House if: (a) the White House fails to fully cooperate in the impeachment inquiry; or (b) no credible evidence is brought forward that casts reasonable doubt on the truth of the material allegations of the whistleblower in his complaint.
4
Thank you. Please keep up your fight for reporting the Truth. Sadly, conservatives depend upon creating and maintaining a web of lies. Your journalism is our nation's best hope.
9
I predict the next Democrat president will face impeachment from a Republican House and the following Republican president, who will be in the mold of Trump and very unsuitable, will be impeached by a Democrat House and so on. US federal politics is now basically in a state of war without actual guns, and will be for decades to come.
6
In a previous comment it should have been: Nothing will come of this and President Trump will be reelected.
2
Can you please hyperlink to some of those historical impeachment editorials you referred to, re: Andrew Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton? Thanks!
2
If the Board is so concerned about all of this, why hasn't it announced the formation of a task force to do a deep and thorough re-investigation of the Biden-Ukraine connections, just to prove that allegations of pro-Democrat institutional bias are unfounded ?
10
@Objectivist Maybe because those allegations have been fully investigated and deemed unworthy of concern, by the WSJ among others? Just a thought.
14
@Laura
If that were true, you'd have me in a corner.
However, documents that have since been declassified and released through Freedom of Information cast doubt on that conclusion, and with sufficient force to warrant re-opening the investigation.
For references, see:
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story
https://www.scribd.com/document/427616178/Ukraine-PGO-Memo-Translation
We have no President to Impeach, just Don Donald!
We have a Capo di Tutti Capi in charge at the White House with henchmen in strategic positions to give him cover and abet his actions. Giuliani and Barr are now onstage, but there are so many more.
Anyone who still believes otherwise must be delusional, slow-witted, or in denial. Republican Senators who still say otherwise are conspirators.
God bless this whistleblower for he (or she) may have laid bare Trump's modus operandi for all to see, and I believe this is but the tip of the iceberg of regarding this administration's perfidy!
12
This Times reader, Mr. Bennet, salutes both you—for this rare byline of yours here—and the New York Times—for telling—no; explaining to your vast audience—how the Board functions and reaches a decision, if not a consensus.
America must have at its disposal the unemotional, clearly dispassionate reasoning that is the underpinning of responsible journalism. I can personally relate to this process. Many long years ago, I worked at a radio station as a news writer. I then became a researcher at a large, nationally-known and respected newspaper. An editorial board, regardless of its internal political philosophy, must always seek to make its voice heard and have its readers understand that facts, logic and common sense are the sinews that compose its decision. There is absolutely no room for the runaway agitations of personal, private piques, sins which are at the heart of media outlets like, e.g., Fox News and its stable of on-air personnel who are the president’s electronic cheerleaders. Or the intemperate rantings of a Rush Limbaugh, who seems to exist as a flamethrower on all things gasoline. In both respects, the Times’s noble mission is a badly-needed counterweight that comes from irresponsible sources whose only mission, it appears, is the opposite of that stated by you, sir: to place before your readers opinions that are clear and concise and are the result of serious deliberation, especially now, given the gravity of what now presents itself before us.
Godspeed, Board.
9
And what if any was the EB’s position on releasing the whistleblower details? And if involved, will the NYT publish a public apology to the WB? I’ve read nearly all the comments on that and they are nearly uniformly negative at the short-sightedness of that thinly justified and tepidly worded decision. I’d be interested in knowing how many subscription cancellations you’ve received in the last two days.
3
The NYT supports impeachment because you have hated Trump since election night and have done everything to assist fabricate reasons to remove him, including publications of many completely false articles. I read the transcript of the call and it was truly a " NOTHING BURGER". The true criminals are Democrats who lied and took money. This impeachment will assure Trump's re-election like nothing else could have done.
13
@James, “The true criminals are Democrats who lied and took money.”
Give us one or more instances of this and Justice will be served. The Ukraine call(s) provide proof of Trumps self-dealing. If you cannot provide proof of your assertions then you should not make them.
If you assert Hillary’s private email server, I agree, it was wrong and should be looked into. But she was Sec. of State, not President. What punishment would you give?
If you assert that she lied, I suppose she might have. But if you recommend jail time for this, then the entire Republican Party should be thrown in jail as well.
1
Amazing. Illegal acts, but involving payoffs to female porn stars, no go for impeachment. Illegal acts, but involving Russia and causing harm to the average American citizen’s vote, no go for impeachment. But illegal acts involving Ukraine and rumors about a rich, white, former politician?
Egregious! Impeach! Impeach!
I’m glad the political class has finally grown the backbone to do what should have been done, oh, about a thousand scandals ago ... and I’m also glad it’s bringing to light what harms are more important than others in Congress (and the New York Times Editorial Board).
The most dangerous outcome of all of this is that once the immediate danger has passed, people in power try to pretend they - and by extension, we, the people - can go back to “normal,” like none of this ever happened. They tried that after Nixon’s resignation. The only result was that this country’s government became a cesspool.
The question, then: are American institutions’ members willing to look inward? They are all complicit. Trump is the culmination of the hard work they have done to protect themselves and their status for the last 45 years.
6
@Shorty You got it right - the powerful aren't like us - it's a dog eat dog world. Trump was okay with saying "lock her up!" but if he had actually tried it, there would've been hell to pay. Looks like he didn't get the message.
Obama let go of the Bush 2 admin people and Wall Streeters. Bush 2 didn't do anything about the Clintons, and so on. They're all pals now. So it's all a game to them - Trump must've crossed the line.
3
I read the Editorial Board’s recommendation on impeachment and I agree. The EB exquisitely outlined its position and its reasonings therein. After the Mueller investigation Trump certainly has learned nothing.
Donald Trump is a real estate developer who has honed his thug-like behavior to insult, disparage, and ridicule his opponents. Being the narcissist that he is, I imagine Trump fancies himself as a Mafioso Godfather, something akin to Marlon Brando’s portrayal but worse. Trump is nothing but a bully. He has no innate skills or knowledge, he must rely on ‘muscle’ to get his way.
Rule of Law is what separates America from third-rate Banana Republics. America sets the standard by shining the Light of Transparency on corruption and evil-doing. And now, as I read the EB’s position on impeachment, I understand that America is showing the way both in normal times and under unusual circumstances. The World can learn a lot.
The Republican Party has morphed into a corrupt and banal organization of liars and cheats. If you hold up a black sheet of paper they will steadfastly refuse to admit that it is black. Republicans hide behind the corruption that Trumps amplifies because they have no moral compass. Gerrymandering, racial discrimination, voter suppression, white supremacy, cheating and lying are the Standards by which they live and operate. It’s no wonder why the Republican Party is enthralled by Putin, both are cut from the same cloth.
NYT, keep doing, what you’re doing.
19
A decent newspaper should refrain from presenting opinions of serious political matter . Even less about legislative decisions that should be left to the democratic process .
An editor in chief can be the voice of the team of journalists to express a feeling about events or facts, and their association, of course but what is this attitude of an "institution " ( a newspaper is not an institution - do you know what an institution is ? ) and its "board " , like if it was a major structure of the power itself ?
Explaining its political decision as a force capable of pushing the political future into a certain direction.
It is incestuous . Why do you justify yourself ? It is intellectually weak. Premature. I don't want to say what else...
4
@JPH Most newspapers publish editorials and usually they are about politics. I do not always agree with the NY TIMES editorials but I read them. And decide the facts on my own. Most people knew Trump was an abomination but some voted for him anyhow. You cannot lay that on a newspaper.
1
Thank you for giving us a description of the Board editorial process.
Why were you against Nancy Pelosi announcing the impeachment on Tuesday? Was it because the facts hadn’t yet surfaced?
2
The impeachment has zero support beyond the group of passionate Trump haters that makes the entire board of the NYT and the majority of it readership. Beyond the 35 percent of people who support any way that might remove Trump, legal or not, most people see this impeachment as a new insurance policy cooked up to remove a President that has big chances of beingreelected.
The issues at stake are muddy. Trump asked the Ukrainian President to look into a certain server which so far escaped the FBI (how come?) but launched the entire Russia gate, and to look into the removal of a prosecutor which was demanded by Biden whose son worked for the shady company investigated by that prosecutor. I find Trump's request fair ad justified.
Had Trump plotted with the Ukrainian President to fabricate fake incriminating evidence against Clinton, Biden, or any American, that would have been treason in my book. To this day those who fabricated the Steel dossier went unpunished, and I am not sure Obama was not in the entire scheme. Most likely he was.
Of course, the NYT is too partisan to look into such facts.
So I see this outrage, as a cry of fear that POTUS might find something that would truly hurt the Democrats and unseat them from their high horse.
I am also a journalist, and I am not a member of either party.
12
@European in NY What kind of journalist are you to think like that ? FOX journalist ?
7
@JPH Not a Fox journalist, just a journalist that removes wishful thinking from my judgement. I predicted Trump will be elected President soon after he started campaigning. although prior to that moment I had utterly disliked his flashy persona. But it was clear as day he was going to be elected for the simple fact that he was bringing back common sense in a country beaten down into submission to the left's positions and the neocon's agenda.
2
@European in NY Respectfully, I think you missed a couple steps. As I understand it, first, President Trump established that he and the Ukrainian President agreed that the United States is the greatest source of foreign aid to Ukraine. Then he asked for a favor. If you do not see a problem there then maybe you are more partisan than you are willing to admit.
7
I am 75 years old, DJT is the worst President of my lifetime. I can still remember Harry Truman, I was a little boy and saw him on TV. America deserves better. Trump must go, any American citizen with a brain knows we need to get a President we can respect and trust. Nixon was a crook but he had the decency to know what was best for America, Nixon served the country as a Naval Officer, I believe he loved this country. Trump only cares about Trump, America be dammed.
31
You cannot make up your mind or get informed by or with "opinions ".
It is part of both the English ideology of the Self and the causality of behaviorism .
No dialectical analysis in any .
Opinions do not express diversity, they represent undifferantiation.
What readers need is cross analytical articles with different points of views by epistemological strati of concepts .Factual, legal, political, psychological, etc ...like historians do.
4
This is disingenuous. The Times has wanted impeachment from the word go. This is simply an excuse.
6
It seems you were hesitant at first NYT. Please assist the public with objective inquiries and call out discrepancy and hypocrisy when you detect it, before public outcry, as that reflects delayed information and we expect you to be ahead of the curve.
1
That’s not enough. Call for his resignation or removal. It’s the least you can do after outing the whistleblower and poisoning the national discourse with your climate change denying columnists.
3
Lies! Progressive liberals wanted to impeach Trump from day one after his election.
6
@Gennady, nope I think you are mistaking Mitch McConnell’s threat to obstruct Obama presidency from day one.
8
Dear Mr. Bennet, dear Mr. Baquet,
You don’t need to apologize for, or even explain, your decision to publish the Whistleblower document. You only did what your profession, journalism, mandates and what your stellar publication, the NYT, has been doing for generations: keep your readers informed of important developments in our country and around the world as soon as they happen, regardless of the consequences. And, as somebody who has lived under despotic systems, I thank you for it from the bottom of my heart.
4
If anyone really believes there is a high wall between a media's news department and its editorial policy (and board) they have never worked for a news organization. Yes, the opinion editors can run pieces which offer contrasting views on issues. That is no measurement of the paper (or broadcast's, or web page's) basic opinion on any issue. Nor is is any proof of the media's balance on issues- many of which do not require, or are ever worthy of balance or defense. Some are only worthy of sorrow and pity.
5
@Mark Shyres
From my humble opinion, in cases like this impeachment, the best is that the editorial of a newspaper like The New York Times doesn't publish comments.
1
I wonder how the Republicans are going to spin “do us a favor” comment when Trump ask for help on Hunter Biden and help on shifting the blame from Russia from meddling in 2016 election Only two things he asked for.
7
@CathyK If Hunter Biden was indeed corrupt, got his high paying gig because of dad, and cashed 50,000 dollars per month to shield the oligarch from a nosy prosecutor then what is the harm of said favor? And if said favor comes back empty handed and clears the Bidens it is again welcome. Trump never asked the Ukrainian president to fabricate data, just to go to the bottom of it. Big difference.
2
Aside from letting the US slide into dictatorship, it’s the only option.
3
Thank you. And kudos to the editorial board and the Opinion department in general. Despite the highly visible flub last week, the Times Opinion department is remarkably intelligent and well-balanced. Keep up the good work.
7
Thank you for your openness. Keep up the fight for truth
4
The NY Times editorial board and Mr. Bennett lack the intestinal fortitude to admit what they desperately want, the impeachment of President Trump.
Not at all surprising.
5
I'm glad the Times is supporting impeachment of the President and I'm glad Pelosi and her moderates are supporting impeachment of the President.
The only thing I find troubling is they jumped on this like ugly on an ape the second the whistle-blower report hit their desk even though Trump said he was going to release the transcripts the next day.
It feels contrived...manipulated...as if the Democrats already knew they were going to weaponize this whistle-blower report like they did the Steele dossier.
How long did it take us to figure out the origins of the Steele dossier? a year?
The timing is highly suspect on this.
If those moderate Democrat House members have flipped their 'no impeachment' mindset to "we need to now impeach"..with a 3rd hand account of a conversation that is now on record...something's rotten in Denmark.
I called my Congressman's office this morning since he's one of the new moderate D's and asked why he's now going to vote to impeach the President..and I asked what's changed in the past 3 days to make such a dramatic change?
They said they're still open to all avenues and all ideas and impeachment is just one of those options..but they need to gain more facts first.
Which was their position a week ago until they got out in front of the cameras and told the Minnesota media they now support impeaching the President..only when you peel back the layer of the onion..you find out they don't
Trying to be too clever by half usually doesn't end well.
4
@Erica Smythe It's a warning to Trump. Surely you see that he can't go after Biden without consequence is the message the D party is sending. They're just fighting like he always does... let's see if they continue to show spine. But yeah, if they didn't do anything, the bully would've gotten even more emboldened.
3
Ordinarily waiting to Friday would have made sense, but in this case Pelosi was right to do it on Tuesday. The administration has been stonewalling Congress; Without a bona fide impeachment inquiry, it might have seen fit to Barrify the telephone record, or to not release the complaint at all. The situation might never have seen the light. In this case it took an impeachment inquiry just for us to see the facts. So be it.
8
Impeachment is the correct action for Donald J. Trump. After the exhaustive effort of Robert Mueller he attempts to coerce a foreign leader into providing damaging information of a potential political opponent.
The unfortunate reality is that impeachment is not going to happen as it has to go through the United States Senate. We the People are going to have another reminder of how broken our government actually is.
6
The House of Representatives had to open an impeachment inquiry. We cannot abide by this corruption. I don't care if half of the nation wants to act as if this is acceptable and/or brush this under the rug--those of us who study government and politics know that the president's behavior cannot stand if we're going to have a democracy that's respected in the world. I get the arguments that the Democrats have taken a big risk, but not to take that risk is to tacitly advance the idea that the public cannot be educated and that politics is more important than the legal and moral standards on which our country is based. Sometimes you have to sacrifice for ideals. Now is the time. I'm so thankful that the editorial board has made its statement. As a professional educator, I'll be doing my part to help my community understand the gravity of the president's actions.
6
A worry of mine though is that if Trump does get convicted and removed from office that it will depress the Democrats base for voting. My reasoning for that is since Trump would be removed the anti-Trump voters wouldn't come out to vote for the Democratic Party's nomination.
@Quentyn Roberson It does not make any sense .
Why would the democrats base, as you call it, be depressed ?
3
“It was just possible, as some lawmakers suggested, that new revelations might clear the whole business up. Instead, they substantially darkened the picture.”
I disagree.
I’m old enough to get Social Security checks and to remember voting for George McGovern.
I think the “picture” was about as dark as I’ve ever seen it a month ago. And so was it a year ago.
Nancy Pelosi’s announcement was (finally!) a ray of light at the end of a very long dark tunnel.
The Trump administration has proven itself to be a nightmare from which our country cannot awaken.
Donald Trump? A class of third graders could carve a finer president out of a large zucchini.
8
The Congress has only 11 percent approval rating, and with such a low reputation all the struggles to impeach will make little dent in the public opinion, which is already so divided. The ballot box is the wiser and democratic option.
7
As I commented on Mr. Brooks' article it is clear that Trump well deserves impeachment (and conviction). And he deserves it today, if not yesterday.
The only problem is that the result of his removal from office is the installation of Mike Pence, a person whose ideas are perhaps to the right of Trump, and more important, a person who is more politically competent.
I suggest that it would be better to wait until after the election. If Democrats retain the House and attain control of the Senate we can wait until the new Congress is seated but before the new Democratic president takes the oath to impeach and convict Trump. On the other hand, if (God forbid) Republicans retain control in the Senate, there is still time to impeach after the election and before the new Congress is seated.
2
Thank you for providing the back story to how the NY Times Editorial Board works. Were it not for the REAL news media, such as the NY Times, we would be much further down the dark road that you describe. The news media, and the laser-focused Democratic legislators, so loyal and patriotic to the most fundamental values of our founding fathers "to form a more perfect union," all contributed enormously to keeping the nation afloat, as Trump and his cronies sought to sever our deeply rooted beliefs. The truth rules. My deepest thanks to all of you.
3
I agree with your editorial boards opinion regarding impeachment of D J Trump.
His efforts to enlist a foreign government to interfere with what we in America believe to be fair and honest elections could damage the public trust in the election process
we have been proud of for almost 250 years.
Trump whether by ignorance or mob boss behavior has attempted to intimidate a neophyte president. One who badly needs promised help from AMERICA and the Tax Paying public
to defend against Russian aggression is to me is organized crime tactics 101.
I grew up fighting for unions and against the Teamster tactics Trump is employing now.
Thank you for your efforts to keep the public educated and informed.
John Hartley
2
Impeachment as a last-ditch protection of democracy v. routine politics. As with so many other aspects of our changed nation since it’s founding, our election process doesn’t encourage high-minded, altruistic, knowledgeable individuals to run for office, stay in lower paying public service for years/decades. The need to raise millions, travel a vast continent unimagined by the founders, months, now years, before an election- little wonder our officials have to compromise - many things. Landed gentry, educated in Greek, Latin, philosophy, etc.- even with baggage (ie hypocritical slave owners)- are scarce on the ground today. Some of our more open-minded billionaires might come close, but this president calls even that into question.
Constant inquiry, oversight, by one Party over the other, may have to replace - trust that the national good would be the top priority. One more reason to update our Constitution.
Impeachment isn’t some sacred ritual - its now a recognition that our flawed system has made a mistake, and needs correction.
1
I think many readers share with me that Sixth Sense, that nagging feeling that takes hold of our thinking in spite of outside circumstances. I first observed it politically when President Obama won his election back in 2008. I just knew he could do it. Sadly, when Hillary Clinton was running and in spite of projections that she would be the victor, there was an aura that something was amiss. Indeed, there was. The Editorial Board has mirrored my thoughts during this whole unpleasant odyssey of Trumpian corruption. In spite of his egregious actions, in spite of the Mueller Report, the reasons to oust this specimen were just not enough....until Ukraine. There seemed to be the smoking gun. To not do anything would diminish our Constitution, our democracy. At this point, a shout-out to Speaker Pelosi’s wisdom and experience is warranted. We have a true leader in this lady. Be thankful.
7
I am not surprised that the editorial board has recommended impeachment against President Trump. There have been few articles positive about our president and most of the readers dislike him immensely. We have a very strong economy and very low unemployment but this goes practically unnoticed. Instead they write the most negative articles about him and his family. This has occurred since he was elected. The media was stunned when he won the election and have been in a snit ever since. They just cannot get over the fact that he is our president.
Impeachment will further divide our country and voters will not accept a lengthy investigation when the government is In a standstill. Instead of taking care of business, congress will be wasting time and money that will result in the same outcome as the Mueller investigation. Nothing will come of this and the president will be reflected. The Democrats will suffer in the long run. Is this what they want?
15
@KMW The president's demeanor and behaviors are not excused by some existential realities which are not in fact even directly related to his presence. Economic states are effects of previous activities, and oh, didn't we have 8 years of a somewhat different president prior to the economic bliss Trump has stepped into? Trump, try as he might, cannot change the economy overnight or even in a few years. Effects of his actions will be felt, but later, and smart economists give us many reasons to believe they will be negative.
In any case, a criminal CEO might have had 10 good years before deciding to defraud his company, but should he still not go to prison? Good does not undo bad, sorry.
6
@KMW The reason many people "cannot get over the fact that he is our president" is because of his obvious lack of qualifications and skills for the role of president, not to mention his sketchy personal history and his apparent tax fraud. Really, now. Who are the people that want to hold Donald Trump up to their children as a role model? I'll vote for Republicans on occasion if they know what they're doing and seem to be noble, rational people. So . . . you can guess why I wouldn't dare vote for Trump.
5
@KMW I am a lifelong Democrat and would not think of voting Republican - until now!! The Democrats have been after impeachment since the very moment Trump took office. The NYT has used the entire newspaper to write something negative about Trump day after day after day!! This is the final straw. I do not like much of what Trump does, but I am so sick of the NYT and the Democrats that he will get my vote in 2020!
6
I appreciate your ability to change your opinion as information changes, just as I appreciate your allowing columnists to express different opinions freely. I agree with you this time, but I disagree with David Brooks today for a reason you did not mention. How can we trust that our election will be more honest and effective than an impeachment trial? Three years ago we now know that our election was illegally influenced by a foreign power and that a minority won by over 2 million votes because of our antiquated Electoral College system. Why should we trust it in 2020?
8
At one point, and not so long ago, it would have mattered how the NYT editorialized on this issue. Similarly, with respect to impeachment, the public would have been intensely interested and concerned. The prevailing line now is that this will fade to irrelevance within six months, leaving only the issue of how much this will help Mr. Trump come November 2020.
10
Really doesn’t matter. Just like with Clinton, the Senate will never convict the President. The highly partisan House efforts will simply serve to further decide the Country and there will be absolutely no benefit.
5
I applaud the New York Times for supporting impeachment.
William Barr continues to act in lockstep with the President, despite being a lot more involved in this than Jeff Sessions ever was in the Mueller probe. Congress therefore has to act as the last defense against lawlessness.
Trump and the whole Republican machine will of course paint any action against the President as unfair, a witch hunt, unprecedented etc.
We need to have faith that a majority great enough to compensate the lower value of urban people will prevail.
7
“Mr. Trump pressed the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden.”
No doubt. And probably not the best way to go about it.
“Mr. Trump seemed to be using the power of his office to solicit foreign interference in the next election.”
The problem here is the word “seemed”. There is no smoking gun here, but rather an act of mind-reading.
Not a solid basis for all this brouhaha.
7
@John ✅Brews
But a solid basis for the inquiry, which will reveal this “brouhaha” for what it is. Given the Presidents track record for lying, I suspect that this will get interesting.
2
@John ✅Brews you obviously do not speak mob boss. He more than seemed. Also, if the call was so innocent why were his minions so anxious to hide it? Why is trump threatening people if he is so innocent? This guy is a bully and he had the perfect foil in the neophyte Ukrainian President.
1
Actually Donald Trump lost his right to be the leader of the free world on July 25, 2016, when he invited Russians to heck Hilary Clintons email server. Inviting a foreign adversary to domestic election should be violation now. Lawmakers need to address this issue. But now he is POTUS. And again Trump is asking foreign help for his personal gain in 2020 Election using taxpayers money as leverage. This is plain & simple violation. Trump need to go and probably Joe Biden also withdraw his name from 2020 Election. We need young leaders who are not in their seventies like Trump, Biden, Warren and Sanders.
5
@Trevor Diaz
I can't believe the never Trumpers keep beating on this. Trump made that comment AFTER Clinton had her disks deleted and bleached. There were no emails to be hacked as they had been disappeared.
But then again, facts don't seem to matter to many readers of this newspaper.
How much do you think the Editorial Board succeeds in making a difference in public opinion? Is there data that shows that undecided readers end up embracing your arguments, or would you say you're preaching to the choir?
5
Thank you for illuminating this process. While it may have been obvious to most, I was never certain of the personal, professional, commercial and institutional dynamics involved. I teach government and politics at the college level. I encourage my students to freely admit when they are unsure of something, and seek the answer without fear of humiliation.
I plan to share both the Times editorial in support of impeachment and this explanation of process piece with my students in class next week, and I will reveal my ignorance about this process as a teachable moment.
Again, thank you.
57
I for one appreciate the explanation. It is important to note that the Editorial Board is independent of the Newsroom. The NYT may be among an ever-shrinking number of institutions who follow this protocol (cf Sinclair's "Boris").
I certainly hope that the editorial position the false equivalence of the Clinton impeachment, and yesterday's not-in-the-slightest-veiled threat against The Whistleblower by the current sitting president. Were an ordinary person to make that threat, that individual would already be under diligent surveillance if not behind bars.
24
@The View From Downriver
Oops, so much for using angle brackets in a comment... What I actually said was, "I certainly hope that the editorial position EXCLUDES the false equivalence of the Clinton impeachment, and INCLUDES yesterday's not-in-the-slightest-veiled threat against The Whistleblower by the current sitting president. "
2
The Times Editorial Board is obviously entitled to its opinion, as are all members of Congress, but in order to prevent this ordeal from becoming a circus, some elementary steps need to be followed.
Foremost among those is that the House needs to call a formal vote now to authorize the inquiry.
If Democrats want to move forward towards impeachment, each individual member of the House should stand up publicly and formally and say so.
Why haven't they ?
The Times Editorial Board should demand this.
11
@G
"The Times Editorial Board should demand this."
It's not up to the NY Times to tell or demand of Congress what it can or should do on any issue. It's one opinion in a sea of opinions. As is yours and mine. But I'd be surprised if anyone is surprised at their support of the inquiry. Come on. Did anyone really expect anything else based on their opinion pieces since Trump got elected?
4
@G there is a count and a list of names. Just do a web search. Even the NYT has a list. No one is hiding their support for impeachment.
3
Impeachment timeline:
Oct-March - Endless recycling of what we already know (which is still more than enough to impeach). We will also see ever increasing partisanship and frothing at the mouth.
March-June - The Democratic debates and issues will swirl around impeachment, leaving no room for real issues. The party will solidify behind an embattled Biden. The Democratic party will select Biden because something-something centrist, middle-of-the-road, "safe bet."
June-Sept - Trump and Biden will compete to prove that "the other guy is the corrupt one."
Oct - Barr will announce some new "bombshell" investigation into Biden (hey it worked last time). Impeachment vote in the House may or may not have happened yet. If it has, it will have passed the house by the slimmest possible margin. Some how McConnell will be able to say the Senate will not vote on impeachment until after the election (hey it worked last time).
Late Oct - Election day - Trump will take a premature "victory" lap. Millions of swing voters will shy away from the Democratic party, seeing them as weak and unable to focus or get things done. Millions of disenfranchised voters will be disgusted with both parties and stay home on election day.
November 6th - Trump will lose the popular vote, this time by only 1.2 million votes, and will win in the Electoral College. Jan 20th - Trump sworn in.
6
The type of person who believes that since death is inevitable, then why bother consulting doctors at any point in life...? Like in any pro sports, we don’t award championship trophies after the draft and before the season..
2
@Bartleby S People can't even agree on the past but are so sure they know exactly what's going to happen in the future, in an exceptionally complex and chaotic issue. Such predictions aren't worth the recycled newsprint they aren't printed on.
5
@Bartleby S As predictions go, that's some pretty persuasive reasoning. But I sure hope you're wrong.
Thank you for making clear your thought processes and editorial board standards regarding how you take a stand or make a case in the editorial board section.
Reading the board editorials for many years, it is evident that 'many voices' are in play as to what's written. What I notice the most is what's not written at the time. I sometimes look for an expected comment and it's not there. This I contribute to the debate among the board. It appears that what is actually ultimately published is what remains and has 'survived' the rigorous debate.
Thank you, in this time of doubts of the media and attacks by many different angles in todays polarized populate, this editorial was comforting that what we see from the NYT Editorial Board is exhaustively and rigorously debated and what's included was fought for and what is excluded was fought for, so thank you for sharing your process.
9
Amazing how easily the Trump people are framing the debate.
I keep hearing people referring to the "transcript" that was released... but no actual transcript was released. The script that was released was a paraphrasing of the call at best, and just like Barr's statement about Mueller it has absolutely been polished and spun to diminish the impact on the president.
45
@Celeste It was perfect.
Thank you for a look behind the scenes. Your process shows a consideration of varying viewpoints, but stays true to what I would expect from a journalistic enterprise, with a history on issues, like you have.
I admit, although only an long term amateur concerning politics and journalism, I share your concern for holding impeachment proceedings, but also came to the conclusion that the time is now ripe for an impeachment inquiry. The president’s actions involving the phone call, of which we only see a partial view of what was said, filtered by the president’s perspective, which is itself constrained by already widely known facts, is sufficient to require an inquiry. Whether he deserves to be impeached will, hopefully, become clear by the proceedings. Then, if he is impeached, we will have to wait to see whether the facts uncovered will sway enough in the Senate to remove him from office.
4
I believe we are on the verge of discovering that something far more sinister is afoot here, and it is going to shake the country to its core.
AG Barr's actions to-date--since his appointment--have made little sense with regard to his charter, and it is frightening.
97
I have been reading the New York Times since each of us had our own subscription starting in the 2nd grade at PS 199 in Brooklyn, NY. The first thing we we were taught was how to fold it so that we could comfortably read it on the subway without annoying our fellow passengers.
I have depended on this publication to supply me with an honest look at and understanding of the city, the state, the country and the world - on so many different levels (amply listed as your table of contents). My life has been made infinitely richer by this. I thank you for that.
I subscribed again when your publication went digital to ensure that you continued to exist in this rapidly changing publishing world. I’m so glad that many others felt the same way.
Now, in one of the most troubling times in this country’s political life, I thank God that your newspaper has continued to exist and to provide a clear and balanced voice. I do not believe we’d be the same country if not for it and a few other seriously truth-seeking publications.
Thank you for all of your hard work, your diligence in seeking the truth and your lack of fear in expressing it - no matter what the cost. You help to make and keep this country the great nation that it has been and hopefully will continue to be. God bless you and God bless America.
90
@Richard
Your comment moved me, not only for its content, with which I fully agree, but also for its style. Your writing is clear, concise and thoughtful. A lifetime of reading the Times has served you well in more ways than those you mention.
In these frightening times of “fake news,” alternate “facts,” lies and propaganda, each of us must judge the media and make a personal decision whom to believe. I consume a variety of news sources, but for me, the New York Times is the gold standard. I don’t always agree with its writers and I know it sometimes makes mistakes, but I believe in its underlying integrity and devotion to truth. Thank you for this explanatory piece. It helps to confirm my trust.
24
"We reviewed Times editorials during the previous three impeachment inquiries ... [T]he editorials shared a deep reluctance, if not aversion, to the impeachment process itself, a view for which I had a lot of sympathy from having watched an impeachment up close. Words like “agony,” “divisive” and “traumatic” are salted through these previous editorials."
I find it disheartening that concerns like this reveal an attitude towards the voting public that infantilizes us. This is a representative democracy, and in theory that makes us the "deciders." It's inappropriate to treat the matter as if your biggest worry is "what will we tell the children?" If John McCain could spend five years as a POW in the Hanoi Hilton for his country, I think I can bear the trauma of sitting in my living room watching an impeachment hearing on TV ... for my country.
The issue is simple. If there is no accountability, then there's no deterrent effect. Future Presidents will accept the new "Imperial Presidency" and disregard the very self-governance that initially made America great at all.
25
@Kathleen L. I agree. I, like many other readers, remember watching the Nixon "trials" in awe. I feel it is time to investigate and impeach Trump. I fear that neither the House nor the Senate today have the type of honorable statesmen we had for the Nixon inquiry. I hope I'm proven wrong.
4
@Kathleen L.
If you deign to read the WSJ, check out Daniel Henninger's article in this week's Journal.
Use the impeachment process as a stage for demonstrating the criminality and unfitness of the president. Make the case so damning that failure to take up the matter seriously in the Senate rebounds against the Republicans there. Make sure all this plays out in the run-up to the 2016 elections. Make the impeachment process a fitting demonstration of the president's depravity, dishonesty and criminal character, and make sure the American people understand how they are forced to pay and suffer for this, while the Republican Party does nothing but coddle and enable him.
Trump will ALWAYS claim vindication no matter what happens. If there is no impeachment process in the House, he will say that his innocence of wrong-doing made it a futile enterprise. If there is an impeachment process and the Senate does not consider the case, Trump will claim that the case was flimsy and false from the start. If, somehow, the Senate did take up the case and fails to convict, the response would be the same. If the Senate did actually convict, Trump would say the trial was a rigged sham. There is no situation in which Trump will not insist that he has won. So factor that in to the conduct of the impeachment process.
Remember that only around 19% or so of Americans wanted Nixon impeached at the start of the process. By its end, the percentage had risen to 57%. It was the revelations in the hearings that made the difference. Democrats in the House need to learn from that.
39
Thank you for this explanation of how the editorial board works and your thoughts. This was helpful to me.
5
Trump violated the law when he reclassified the verbatim transcript of his conversation with the president of Ukraine. He violated President Obama's executive order 13526. Under U.S. law an executive order has the force of statute law. It can be revoked only by a vote of Congress, a ruling of the Federal Courts, or the issuance of a new executive order by the same, or a subsequent president.
E.O. 13526 in section 1.7 states " In no case shall information be classified...in order to"
1) Conceal violations of the law, inefficiency, or administrative error.
2) Prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency...
It would be Shakespearian irony if President Obama's E.O. 13526 was the basis for Trump's impeachment and conviction in a Senate trial.
19
I enjoy many aspects of the NYT, but having the editorial board consist of opinion page editors supports a highly critical aspect of this paper and the media in general today. “Opinion” has replaced much of the neutral, apolitical writing that grounds our journalism. It’s a world now of click-bate and agenda pushing by powerful owners and interested parties.
To suggest these pages portray a “debate on the wide variety of diverse topics a democracy needs” suggests there are stories reflecting a spectrum of views, backgrounds and political affiliations. That not what I have seen so far,, but maybe that will change if we are fortunate to have a new White House administration in 2020. I can only hope.
5
Editorial pages have consisted for more than 200 years. Newspapers have had opinion pages, editorial writers and editors. It is a segment of the paper that is needed. This is not something that is new, it's not click bait, and it hasn't replaced real journalism.
Probably 99% of most papers across the country are neutral in news and have an opinion section that is the other 1%. I find opinion pages very interesting and enlightening. I don't have to agree with the writers all the time to enjoy reading it.
The myth that newspaper reporters are pushing bias into their general news stories is just that: a myth. The editorial page? I'm just puzzled after centuries of having them, people still don't understand them and scream bias when an editorial is written.
1
@TRS
Agreed, Opinion pieces have been part of journalism since the beginning days of “news”. But respectfully, that’s not the point.
People today are having a hard time separating opinion from standard unbiased reporting of news— often through no fault of their own. This has been well studied and likely has its origins in how we get news today— i.e largely from an internet/TV format that works toward maximizing readership/profits via marketing their stories with emotional triggers. A simple example is seen with many news apps— or even this news app. When opened it will load the most popular articles—which invariably consists of biased articles— as top stories.
I share your frustration, but it is real concern and unfortunately no myth.
When I look at newspaper websites in Cincinnati, Green Bay, Dallas and Dayton there is hardly a mention of impeachment- what little there is, is further down the page- so much different from the lead the NYT or The Post has placed it.
What has to happen in order for the local high school football scores to be moved out of the way for important news like the impeachment of the President?
Is it significant that there is any acknowledgement at all in the vast middle?
The health of our democracy is at stake...
7
Such is by design: whenever a conservative media either presents conservative politicians’ wrongdoings or are critical of them, conservative voters tend to stop consulting those media (revenue goes down along with the ratings). When conservative media actually present poll predicting a GOP loss, conservative voters turnout is reduced.
That’s why conservative media MUST always only attack GOP’s opposition AND predict a GOP landslide win every single time, irrespective of the polls.
1
@Al Morgan
There is an obvious connection to attempting to influence the next election, because the President of the United States contacted the President of the Ukraine and asked him to look into information that he believed was problematic about a single individual out of all the 330,000,000 in this country, and that individual just happened to be the man who may be running against him in the next election. Hmmmmm. Now why would the President of the U.S. be interested in finding out about criminal activity (that doesn't exist) about a single individual ? That's not in his job description.
3
Where is the Conservative on this Editorial Board or even a non-Trump hating Republican??? The New York Times is an echo chamber of extreme liberalism and while it may make some readers feel understood and comforted, it certainly does not reflect the majority of Americans.
This impeachment ploy is ridiculous and is going nowhere, my Liberal friends. Be aware that it has a great chance of destroying Joe Biden’s presidential hopes. You are also going to put House members from more conservative states in a terrible situation. It is clear that the Democrats know they cannot beat Trump at the ballot box, so they must bring him down by other means. But you are sadly mistaken if you think the rest of the country will permit you to nullify a valid election!
5
@Kelly
The NYTimes is indeed a liberal paper, and a very good one. If you're looking for something more conservative, there are many other sources out there that you might like. I would also argue that the views of the Editorial Board do reflect the views of a majority of Americans - take a look at Trump's approval numbers, and consider who won the popular vote in 2016.
3
@Kelly It seems that all of you "this impeachment ploy" folks are missing the whole point here. For most of us who support an impeachment inquiry, this has little to do with who wins the election in 2020. It has everything to do with standing up for the checks and balances that are supposed to keep our government as honest as we can make it. If this destroys Biden's run for President, so be it.
If there is evidence that a President is abusing his powers, it is the obligation of our Congress to act.
As for bringing down Trump by any means...none of us believe for a moment that the Senate will impeach, but we're desperately hoping that we can show that America is still a country that believes in the rule of law.
3
@Kelly if you support Trump and his actions, you are supporting the end of democracy as we know it. I'm puzzled as to why this doesn't worry you. We are not communist China or North Korea. We are the United States of America.
2
Great perspective. The most amazing part is that you can get 14 writers/editors to sign off on a single draft!
7
My wish is that we had an executive branch of or govt which functioned as well as the Times and the editorial board. At present we certainly do not!
3
I’m disappointed about the make up of the Editorial Board. I always thought there were newsroom journalists on it, not all opinion writers. The latter, IMO, don’t have and are not held to the higher levels of research, fact-checking, scrutiny, etc. They also tend to whine a bit, again IMO, and don’t present their cases/arguments as thoroughly/properly. I’m glad the NYT in the past year or so have clearly labeled opinion pieces, separate from the newsroom pieces...and henceforth, I for one will stop believing the Editorial Board carries the weight of NYT overall. Suggestion: add newsroom folks to the Board.
5
@Eric Hill
Opinion is Opinion. Keep the newsroom out of it.
2
I most respectfully disagree with the Editorial Board's collective perception that the system has been working. It seems to me that the Trump administration has been very effective in disrupting normal checks and balances. The tendency by responsible journalists to try to present both sides of an issue has worked to legitimize that disruption. News media that are less responsible have been able to manipulate public opinion in support of the president even when he is committing outrages that endanger our democracy.
I agree that the time has come for an official inquiry into what this administration has been doing officially and unofficially. That inquiry need not morph into articles of impeachment, but some response by Democrats who control the House is important.
It boggles the mind that Trump and his minions thought that releasing the "transcript" of the phone conversation would make Trump seem innocent. We should remember that the administration has been stonewalling other attempts to get information about questionable behavior. We should also remember that Robert Mueller essentially said that the question of whether Trump obstructed justice was beyond his ability to determine.
Let's avoid getting bogged down in discussions about whether an impeachment inquiry is a good idea. Public opinion did not support impeachment of Richard Nixon until the evidence became overwhelming. That may happen again, but it will not if our leaders lack the courage to move ahead.
192
@Betsy S A well thought out and written comment! And I almost recommended it on that basis. But with regards to the premise of your argument - that "the system has (not) been working" I disagree.
You state that "the tendency by responsible journalists to try to present both sides of an issue has worked to legitimize that disruption". This is an indication that the system IS working. Freedom of the press gives those the right (like Fox News) to bias their reporting if they choose, but not giving the opposition a chance to rebut a journalist's opinion results in their reporting also being biased.
Always trying to be fair is not easy, but it is the best path. It is up to each individual person to determine what they think is fair or biased reporting and then to choose which they want to watch.
And though I agree with your comment about getting "bogged down in discussions", with the vast number of news outlets now presenting news 24/7 some may see all the coverage of "impeachment" as being over done. And again, it is up to each individual to determine when it is time to turn his/her attention to something else.
4
Trump's behavior is so beyond the pale in it's reckless breaking of norms and laws, that Congress should start the impeachment process. Trump is bringing this awful situation on himself. The impeachment process will indeed be divisive and nasty, but not to look into this matter with Ukraine would be far worse. This is a constitutional crisis. The Mueller report gave enough facts to justify impeachment, I think. Now the duty of Congress to start the process is even more clear.
114
I have always felt that failure to impeach would ultimately be a dereliction of duty and a terrible precedent. But the timing, in my mind, should have been later. The prospect of either a Pence administration, or a Trump administration declaring vindication, leading into the 2020 election is not what I hoped for. Nevertheless, I understand that the recent revelations are so egregious that they could not be ignored. Now that the die is cast, I'm fully supportive of impeachment.
54
@syfredrick. The impeachment investigation will reveal that Pence is smeared with Trump’s dirty dealings.
4
I, too, just came to agree this week that Trump should be impeached. My strongest reservation was, and still is, the strengthening of Trump's voting base. His people are climbing out from under every rock boasting their 'IMPEACH' shirts, donating money hand over fist, ready to usher their standards bearer back into the Oval Office.
Democratic voters, in contrast, are not coalescing behind any one candidate - and many voters say that, if the nominee is not progressive enough or too progressive, they will stay home. Too many Democrats have forgotten that politics is a team sport - and we have to play together because we are playing the dirtiest team AND many of the umps have been bought.
That all said, these concerns take a distant back seat to clear evidence that Trump bribed the Ukraine with the threat of withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in exchange for gross interference in our democratic voting process. That doesn't just rig the game, Trump just blew up the ballpark.
IMPEACH. Game over, Mr. President.
106
@common sense advocate
Me too. This week finally did it. We can’t wait for 2020, and THEN pick up the pieces. He’s too dangerous.
I’m finally afraid, not JUST worried.
Seriously.
8
@common sense advocate What game do you think will be over? It’s unclear whether there are enough Democratic votes in the House to pass a motion of impeachment (not one Republican will support it). Even assuming that such a motion passes in the House (in a flagrantly political, partisan manner), the Senate will not vote for remove Mr. Trump.
The only game that’s likely to be over is the bid of the Democrats for the presidency in 2020.
@Shiv Even if, through some major miracle, the House votes to impeach and the Senate votes to convict and remove DJT from office, the country is left with President Mike Pence. Republicans will then have an opportunity to pick another more electable candidate for next year's election. Mitt Romney may be positioning himself for that outcome.
I entirely agree that an impeachment enquiry is warranted. However, I wish I saw someone looking more than one step ahead. Yes, the outcome judged likely is that the Senate will not vote to convict. In the meantime, the enquiry, impeachment, and trial will interfere with all other activity. Will that be a net gain? Trump will claim he has been exonerated. Will the voters? How will the Republican senators fare next November? And if Trump is convicted, what will a Pence administration be like? Will it respect the facts any more than the current one?
@James Van Zandt
and if the republican senate doesn't convict & vote to remove, than it should pay the price at the ballot box come next november --- one more reason for truly patriotic americans, especially democrats and independents, to get out and vote as members of team Rescue America.
4
@James Van Zandt
If the Impeachment inquiry cannot muster enough evidence to convince Senate Republicans to convict, then Articles should not be submitted. But at least the American people will have more information for their assessment at the ballot box.
2
Many Americans are largely asleep- conditioned by years of unjustified complacency. Ask yourself these questions:
1. What worse things can the President and his Administration do that they have not already done?
2. If they should do them, how will his supporters in the electorate respond?
3. What red line exists with Senate Republicans for impeachment?
When you examine these questions, the answers, at least by historical standards in the US are astonishing. Yet they fully reveal our current political and social reality.
In my view , short of starting a war to deflect political scrutiny, there is not much worse that the Executive branch could do in the open- without full circumvention of the law. We see what they will do behind closed doors.
The President's and Fox Media's truth suppression machine is working with about 40% of the electorate. They will never abandon him. And Senate Republicans have no red lines.
So what is left is for the majority is to support each other and the nation and exert our constitutional, judicial and most importantly moral power to do everything in our power to thwart and remove Trump and his key operatives in the Executive branch and elsewhere.
Impunity is what is at stake. The President, his collaborators and Republicans in Congress have chosen to act with impunity and bald faced lies. Our political system is unable to remove them fully from power, short of new elections. We can expose and impede them. We can and must take a stand.
159
@Lowell Greenberg
I truly believe that all of the impunity comes from the real man behind the curtain: oil money.
Right now, for republicans, their dark secret is that the ends (the money) justify the means (whatever that might be).
Even if the means go as low as being Donald Trump.
In a weird way, the climate crisis is tied to so many problems. Diversify and localize energy creation (green energy) and many of these problems might go away, or at least be mitigated.
If we don't, well, I fear not only will we destroy our planet, but our politics too.
14
@Frank Scully And the gun lobby linked to our military contractors and Russian Oligarchs. Once the divestment movement gains steam - and because the oil companies are overvalued with stranded assets on the balance sheet, order may be restored. But it may be too late for the planet and for our republic.
4
I too have followed this drama and have wondered when the right time would come to take action, despite the risks, if for nothing else to establish that corruption is not what Americans want in their government. People will finally be able to look back and say that a line was drawn, action was taken. Having said that, one must wonder what drives those lawmakers that cower in their elected roles, privately choking on the stench, silent, tacitly approving of the downward spiral in national ethics, as well as those who cry out to defend corrupt acts as right and just. When you sell your soul to the devil you generally know what you're getting in return. What recompense could such people possibly be expecting either in real terms or in the eyes of their children and history?
36
Too many people are afraid to begin impeachment because they conflate it with the conviction and removal of the President.
Furthermore, as it now stands, conviction is a near impossibility, as it would require at least 20 Republican Senators to vote in favor.
Instead, if Speaker Pelosi, would frame the impeachment vote if and when it comes, as the indictment it actually is, and state for the record that we, the electorate, are the real jurors. Not the Republican led Senate.
By stating that the removal of this President must come from the voters, the Democrats might gain more backers for the process.
78
That is a really great suggestion to the difficult dilemma that Democrats face as a result of this impeachment action and the “damned if they do, damned if they don’t” consequences they likely face, as referenced in today’s editorial by David Brooks. I strongly recommend that you relay this suggested approach to Nancy Pelosi or other Democratic Party leadership.
Thank you!
4
@William Feldman
The whole point of the impeachment process is the conviction and removal by the Senate. Think of it like the grand jury vs a general trial in the justice system. What you are describing is censure, which is as appropriate now as it was in 1998.
1
"Some warned during the Clinton impeachment that the inquiry process risked becoming routine — that what the founders envisioned only as a last-ditch measure to protect democracy could become just another political weapon."
I fully understand this argument, long used by the president's supporters and alllies, to prejudice the environment surrounding impeachment. If a political movement can convince enough Americans that impeachment is a "casual" thing, an easy, quick way to get rid of an unpopular president.
Of course Donald Trump will try to reduce this weighty moment to the type of raw policital calculus he makes 24/7. That alone is further evidence of how strongly this man dominates public opinon.
But impeachment is far more than the nuclear option in the battle between right and left. Maybe this country is so far gone it can't understand the difference--I hope and pray not, just as as I pray no violence erupts during this turbulent time.
9
I have more knowledge about that call now that I read the transcript, then the whistleblower had at the time he was filing his complaint.
Who are these people who were so alarmed within the Whitehouse? Why don’t they come forward themselves? The hearing yesterday yielded no nee information and was a big waste of time. I’m still waiting for concrete evidence and or incriminating testimony, not just timelines, hearsay and media interpretations and opinion.
5
@DKC
based alone on what we explicitly & implicitly know and have heard & seen to date (mueller report, whistleblower, and now trump's own statements) nothing could be more "concrete" in terms of justified removal from office. the preponderance of the evidence (more than substantial at this point) is all that's needed for congressional action on this matter. anything less would be dereliction of its constitutional duty to protect american democracy from destructive undemocratic forces. you seem to be waiting for guilty beyond a shadow of doubt. nowhere does it work that way, even in normal american jurisprudence. we've seen and tolerated enough, already. the time to impeach is NOW.
2
Thanks for a very important piece.
What I am most concerned about is the removal of documents from view by the White House and locked away. Surely this is illegal. Most importantly I and probably many others want to see the full content of the phone call trump made to the Ukrainian President, not a summary.
28
Matters like this one, president of U.S. using his power as the head of the government to withhold the military aid to a foreign country and in return for investigation of his political opponents, does not need a vote at all.
This is a clear and dangerous act to destroy our democracy, like the ones used in dictators' countries such as China and Russia. It violates the basic principles of our constitution. And the founding fathers have long suspected that it will happen one day so they wrote in the constitution that Congress needs to impeach.
And that moment has arrived, and Donald Trump must face the consequences!
32
The reputations of the two western democratic governments probably most respected around the world are being seriously damaged by their two foolish leaders who were sponsored by foolish parties and elected by foolish voters. In both countries, there is push back against the foolishness by institutions both inside and outside of government. They must be very careful. Perhaps it is random chance that this is happening in both countries at the same time. Perhaps not.
9
Two compelling reasons exist for launching the impeachment process.
1. The scale of presidential malfeasance is so deep and broad, including but not limited to the most recent whistleblower embroglio, that failure to secure a reconciliation of accounts leaves the judgment in place that the malignancy was too minor to require legal remediation.
2. The country is being damaged by this presidency daily right before our eyes. Congress needs at least to try putting a stop to the spiralling abuse.
In both instances, doing nothing and waiting hopefully until November 3, 2020 is as risky as it is a congressional dereliction of duty. This president's wrongdoing is so manifest that he cannot rest assured he will benefit politically from an impeachment proceeding against him.
There is no good path forward but there is a responsible path, and the House of Representatives has at last embarked upon it.
25
If a president is derelict in his sworn duty to the American people, he should be relieved of the responsibilities of his office. An impeachment proceeding will question the wisdom of millions of voters and divide the country even more but an egregious wrong must be corrected if America wants to truly be a democracy. The country survived the Nixon impeachment maelstrom and it will survive the coming storm.
5
Now that this divisive process is underway, it is probably appropriate to suggest that, should the Supreme Court suddenly have a vacancy, it would be be best to let the next President nominate a replacement. I'm sure Mitch would agree.
24
Trump’s latest act of corruption displays his characteristically brazen stupidity and complete lack of familiarity with any moral code, but also any understanding of the rule of law.
What I find most troubling is that the actions of Trump with respect to Biden’s son and Ukraine are surely consistent with how Trump has comported himself his entire corrupt professional life. Maybe if we had his tax returns the American people could have made a more informed decision on this pattern. Fortunately, this time at least, there was a whistleblower who would not stand for it.
Seeing congressmen and women from purple districts, including those which Trump won solidly, support the measure, is another cogent sign that the tide is turning. An impeachment inquiry is not only legally necessary, but politically deft. The drumbeat of news about Trump’s malfeasance in Ukraine should dominate the news cycle for the 2020 election.
Hopefully, the Republicans who conducted a needlessly prolonged “investigation” into Benghazi for the transparent political purpose of weakening Hillary’s electoral chances will learn a nice lesson in karma.
24
To say "It was just possible, as some lawmakers suggested, that new revelations might clear the whole business up" shows that you just haven't been paying enough attention to the news. Prior to the release of those documents, the president and Mr. Giuliani had already admitted to the crimes described therein.
To suggest that Tuesday was too early to launch an impeachment inquiry into a president who has behaved with such venality, such lawlessness, such bigotry and cruelty, and one who has spit on the system of checks and balances that is meant to protect us all from a criminal like him, is not just willfully naive, it's frightening coming from someone in your position.
The list of crimes and possible crimes committed by this administration is likely longer than any of us know. Pelosi was years late with her decision. So much harm inflicted on innocent people, refugees, children, people of color--the list goes on and on and on--could have been avoided if more people, including you and the House Speaker, had acted. Look at Paul Ryan, who is bizarrely telling people that only now that he is on the board of Fox News does he have the power to do something about Trump.
More courage is called for in all quarters. Thank goodness for this whistleblower. May he inspire others.
5
Thank you for such a professional presentation of the NYT Editorial Board process. I wish only to suggest that a link could be added to the editorial to present the II Article of the Constitution called into question. I believe our fellow Americans need all the tools possible to follow intelligently the ongoing process and challenges of our Democracy.
3
Interesting to note that you thought the timing of Nancy Pelosi's inquiry announcement was wrong. I wonder what you thought the chances were that Trump wasn't acting unlawfully--exactly as he later was shown to have acted.
4
“the system seemed to be working. “
Redactions in the Mueller report belie this assertion. Congress should have been given the untampered truth, but wasn’t. The system failed. Let’s hope there’s still time to put things right.
5
@RjW Watching with interest from the UK to see how robust both of our democracies are.
7
Isn't this a rush to judgement. You even say "Mr. Trump seemed to be using the power of his office to solicit foreign interference"...the key word seemed. And I take the position, that it can be construed to be that at the extreme, but President Trump bought it up as a "please look into it", never said he needed to get some dirt, never said it would help him in the election. Therefore, there's not a direct connection to his request to interfering with the election. Also, doesn't this imply that there's some credibility to Biden interference if by just the mere "looking into" it implies a election interference? If so, why isn't Biden being accused of the same? And the whistle blower, made his case without even have been an actual witness to the conversation, without seeing any transcript...The whistle blower made it all on hearsay, and some speculative circumstantial evidence.
Listen, I'm not a Trump fan either, but this is looking to me too much of hateful democrats revenge on what Trump represents to their liberal values, and also an attempt on election interference by itself.
3
@Al Morgan The Editorial Board is supporting the inquiry, not making a "rush to judgement". To quote from this editorial. "The only constitutional recourse, then, was an impeachment inquiry, to air all the relevant facts and permit Congress to consider whether the president should be removed from office."
5
Great institutions have great structures, principles and people to build on these structures and live up to these principles.
You go NYT!
7
I am gratified to learn that my thinking on impeachment has followed precisely the thinking of the Editorial Board, right up to the current moment. I didn't realize I was that smart.
5
The editorial board did not need to take a vote but a long cascade of votes beginning with our representatives in Congress assembled and culminating in the exercise of our own right and obligation to vote for our representatives in November 2020 is our civic obligation.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." -- Declaration of Independence (excerpt)
True in 1776. True in 2019.
10
I appreciate the editorial for both differentiating between the two divisions within the NYT. And I especially appreciate your honesty at a time when it is very difficult to find thoughtful reporting.
11
I appreciate your somber and fine words and the gravity of your decision. Would that the Whitehouse have even a smidgen of such integrity and honor. I wish I could understand better the reluctance to impeach a president who has broken the law? I believe your research and experience in the devastation and terrible fallout that history has shown in impeachment cases.
If our founders envisioned it as the last resort, then what are the other methods to deal with a president who continually breaks the law? Censure? I do not know. Allowing a president to keep breaking laws right and left and looking the other way to save the nation from being ripped apart does not seem helpful either.
And what about the 25th amendment? Is that a possibility?
What makes me ill is the corruption which mainstream media hardly ever admits. And I get it. It is because mainstream media is often dependent not only for access to political figures but often for revenue from the very corporations who buy up politicians by the basketful.
See as much as I am angry at the right, they do have a point in not trusting the government. The corrupt in government have let down we the people for at least 40 years and we are hurting badly.
Editorial board please comment on why corporate Dems will not ever broach the subject of Trumps business affairs. It is pretty plain that the Russians have bailed him out over the years and they own him. Do Dems have something to hide themselves?
7
The timing of House Leader Pelosi's announcement is not a significant issue. Nancy Pelosi could have made a formal announcement at any time since Robert Mueller submitted his report. There was and still is plenty of evidence in the Mueller Report that could have precipitated the same announcement. Historians will find a treasure trove of evidence outlining Trump's abuse of power in the Mueller Report. The Ukraine episode is merely an exclamation point on the Mueller Report.
7
Honestly, I don’t blame trump for requesting the real story be investigated about the Biden sweetheart deal with the Ukrainian energy company. Yes, an investigation was held and both Bidens were exonerated from doing anything illegal. Exonerated by whom? Eric holder or Loretta Lynch? The Obama administration? What a joke! What Hillary and the Steele dossier did to trump was one of the most slanderous and disgusting display of democratic dirty politics in the last two decades. Impeaching Trump is a huge mistake. I’m not a Trump fan , but Biden and the 20+ wannabes are far more dangerous and loathsome to ever be considered as a future president of our country.
5
@Pvbeachbum...Oh for goodness sake. Stop falling for the Biden red herring. Even if Biden is guilty as sin, pressuring the head of foreign government to investigate your political opponent is way out of line.
4
I don’t believe Nancy Pelosi announced the formalization of the House Impeachment Inquiry prematurely. The President and those around him had given no indication, ever, that they deserved the benefit of the doubt regarding their stated intention to make documents or witnesses available to Congress by a date certain. Some of my sharpest memories of the Obama years relate to a Republican-majority Congress seemingly offering to work with the President on this or that, only to re-neg on the cooperation as soon as President Obama agreed to negotiate. If Ms. Pelosi had failed to announce a formal impeachment inquiry I doubt we would know as much today as we do. During the last six years of the Obama Administration Congress’s intention was to make the President seem ineffectual. For the last three years, Trump has tried to do essentially the same thing to Congress as it sought to exercise its executive oversight responsibilities per the Constitution. I believe Trump left the House little or no choice, having both violated the law and his oath of office - as well as having aggressively avoided any opportunity to build trust of any kind with the legislature. Trump thinks of himself as a tough guy, thinks of Congress as a bunch of meddlesome fools, and believes everyone in the press should behave the way his ex-friend David Pecker of The National Enquirer used to in the good old days of catch and kill. Thank god the good old days are behind us.
7
I wholeheartedly support the editorial boards decision to call for an impeachment inquiry. I further support your well reasoned judgement as laid out in this article. The president, no matter how loathsome, furtive and detestable is entitled to due process and the due process is indeed impeachment and trial. However, and this cannot be stressed strongly enough, this narcissistic, dictatorial President is lawless and dangerous and as part of that descent into lawlessness he himself has denied due process to countless victims of his greed, unscrupulousness and myopic priorities; furthermore, we should all, as Americans, support further due process for all his sycophants and enablers of which there appear to be many. If the reporting is correct, this President is and has been compromised for quite some time and that further adds to the suspicion that American foreign policy, like everything else in Trump's world, has a price and is for sale. Impeach him. Now.
6
NY time writers and boards love drama its good to sell more paper and its easy to talk and write about Trump than talking or writing about the nation and world problems.
Same Adam Schiff doing nothing in his district but wasting our California tax money, Trump impeachments is just a waste of people money its just pure game politics.
6
@Zeespirits this is the story of the year, as a sitting president tries to destroy democracy in the United States and make the country a dictatorship. Trump also has the backing of his base and the new Fox News GOP with full, 100% intention of bringing down our Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and our entire American political system. I'm baffled as to why you think this is a non-story?
4
@TRS
Really, baffled?
There have been estimates going back more than 50 years on the make-up of the citizenry of this country. The estimates range from 25% to 40% tending authoritarian.
These are particularly interesting numbers, given that Trump's strongest approval comes from about 25% of the population, with weaker but still positive approval from 40%.
My own reading of the research suggests that there are about 20-25% of Americans who, no matter what is occurring in their own lives or the world at large, are susceptible to authoritarian rhetoric.
There are probably another 15-20% who, in times of difficulty (or more likely, when they feel they are living in times of difficulty and are inclined to blame an "other") will become susceptible to such rhetoric.
The question for all of us is this - how do we reach those 15-20% in order to prevent them from devolving to the more primitive state of dependence on autocratic figures?
1