I don't see what the big deal is in asking another head of state whether he has information on a political opponent who dealed with that country while he himself was a high elected official. Bret points out its not illegal. It's certainly not as egregious as using government employees as pawns and prolonging their imprisonment as hostages of a hostile power in order to win an election. If anyone deserved impeachment and probably criminal prosecution, it was Saint Ronald, who stole the election from Jimmy Carter by making a deal with the devil, Iran.
1
If the Republicans are smart, they will use this opportunity to destroy Trump. Otherwise, they will be under his Twitter thumb for the rest of their careers. They can easily drape themselves in the flag and roll him out the door as a disgraced, deluded ex president. Then they at least have a hope of getting their party back. If they don’t pounce now while he is vulnerable then they are incredibly stupid.
3
Although I have a wide streak of the cynic, I can't help hoping that there are some Republican politicians who might still consider themselves responsible to the American people rather than to the ruling POTUS, and/or who might imagine how the history books a few decades ahead may depict their words and actions before the 2020 election. At this point, they must all realize that they're frogs in hot water, and the temperature is rising (global warming, anyone?). The question is, do they dare leap?
3
Hearing that Trump is just being Trump makes me want to scream. Why yes, he is just being Trump, the lying, cheating, scamming grifter he's always been. Being himself is no excuse for his reprehensible behavior, some of which is most definitely criminal. Full steam ahead, and godspeed Democrats.
4
Bret said that impeachment shouldn't happen because Trump hasn't broken the law...
But he has. Many times.
You brought up yourself the campaign finance violations. Caught red handed. The obstruction of justice outlined in the Mueller report was clearly enough to charge anyone who isn't the president (and protected by a nonsensical Nixon era memo). The Ukraine call was clear solicitation of campaign interference, enough to charge anyone who isn't the president. His abuse of his charity is massive tax fraud and charity fraud. He's been profiting off of the presidency blatantly with emoluments violations (You can quibble about the legal precedent because there's not a lot to go on because no one has EVER been so brazen about violating an order so explicit in the original constitution).
I mean, how many clear violations of the law do you need for it to be well agreed upon that he's broken the law and at the very least SHOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT ANYMORE?
7
Would love to hear from the person who wrote the Op-Ed last year reassuring us about how the grown-ups would prevail over Trump's madness.
How's that working for us now?
1
I agree with Bret Stephens that impeachment could hurt Democrats if it is followed by acquittal in the Senate and that right now removal from office is about as likely as pigs flying.
That said, I strongly disagree with him that criminal violation is the only legitimate grounds for impeachment and removal. The Founders were deliberate vague on grounds: they could have said felonies, but said high crimes instead.
Malfeasance in office, incompetence, turning America into an international laughing stock, and running the country into the ground are much stronger grounds for removal from office that a “misdemeanor”.
We can debate whether impeachment is wise, but there is no question it is justified.
5
It doesn't take a criminal act to earn impeachment. This man has committed far worse: many obstructions of justice, aiding and abetting an adversarial nation, lying 12,000 times to the congress and the people, multitudinous emolument violations, destroying our relationship with century old allies, violating the emolument clause in a dozen ways, and just plain comporting himself and using language beyond any normative standard for a president of the United States. None of this takes a criminal court to establish.
1
The move to impeach Nixon was only bi-partisan because,unlike today, there were actually Republicans in Congress who had character and Republican primaries were not yet dominated by bigots and lowlifes.
I was on the fence about impeachment until this latest absurdity.
It hasn't been mentioned enough but Trump's game playing with Ukraine was playing into Putin's schemes quite nicely. And thus was directly antithetical to the interests of the United States. Sounds like treason to me, but of course, None Dare Call It Treason.
2
Basically, Bret is telling us to let Trump get away with serious crimes against our democracy - undermining the CIA, FBI and State Department and the nation while shaking down a foreign leader to create fake news on his opponent while helping a foreign dictator gain power over us - because Republicans will never uphold the law. If Trump wants to say, suspend the Constitution, skip the next election and start intimidating the media, perhaps throw Congresspeople in jail, will Trump have actually broken any laws? You people have no morality, no ethics, no sense of duty to our great democracy. And yes, he has broken several laws, sedition, violation of his oath of office, virtually every RICO statute, intimidating the witness, inciting violent insurrection, violation of campaign finance laws you've mentioned yourself. Bret is the blind leading the blind.
4
Maybe, when Elizabeth Warren is president, which can't come soon enough, she can make turning all those Egyptian Presidential Palaces into affordable housing for ordinary citizens a priority before sending more American tribute to el-Sisi.
Meanwhile if both Trump and his sidekick Pence are removed from office by impeachment, then Nancy Pelosi will become our first female president! Hooray!!!! Nancy will be great!!!!!!!
Then we can stop these silly and stupid Democratic "debates" and just re-elect President Nancy Pelosi! I will workfor her!
2
"And I’d like to know how Rudy Giuliani became our shadow secretary of state, which is kind of like letting Chris Farley from Saturday Night Live play the understudy to Slim Pickens in “Dr. Strangelove” (rest both their souls)."
An apt simile and an appreciated serving of levity amongst a buffet of cowardice and ignorance served in the steaming cauldron of confirmation bias that has split america in two!
The entire GOP and some 45 million fellow americans who have proved themselves incapable of holding core moral values and/or the inability to seperate lies from objective facts and truth.
Cornwallis is smiling.
I wonder where the legal Mastermind Alan Dershowitz has been the last 7 days? Is he abandon Trumpism or is just everyone to offended by his ties to the Epstein case?
1
Frankly, I've grown weary of this "he says, she says" balancing act in this column. Why does Collins sound so chipper about high crimes and misdemeanors while Stephens demonstrates that he commands the attention of a head of state, a moral reprobate of a dictator? We're all just "friends" here on the editorial board of the NY Times???? Maybe that's the problem.
52 U.S.C. §30121(a)(2) provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful for . . . a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagrah (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.” Section 30121(a)(1)(A) prohibits foreign nationals from making any “contribution or donation of money or other thing of value . . . in connection with a Federal, State, or local election . . . .” According to DOJ’s pamphlet, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses (7th ed. 2017)(“FPEO”), “[a]ll types of Section 30121 violations are subject to prosecution except those involving electioneering communications . . . .” FPEO at 139. Solicitation alone is a crime.
Bret Stephen & Prager U spokesmodel speaks!
52 U.S.C. §30121(a)(2) provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful for . . . a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagrah (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.” Section 30121(a)(1)(A) prohibits foreign nationals from making any “contribution or donation of money or other thing of value . . . in connection with a Federal, State, or local election . . . .” According to DOJ’s pamphlet, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses (7th ed. 2017)(“FPEO”), “[a]ll types of Section 30121 violations are subject to prosecution except those involving electioneering communications . . . .” FPEO at 139.
Dear Brett, I'm pretty sure most Americans understand coercion and extortion when they see it, especially when they can read it right off the pages provided by the White House. Yes, Zelensky said he didn't feel any pressure, but what in the world could anyone expect him to say when he is totally dependent on pleasing Trump in order to get the anti-tank weapons he so desperately needs against the Russians? An impeachment inquiry is the right course. Let it lead where it will.
5
In reply to Bret's second point: "The generally accepted viewpoint is much broader. It defines high crimes and misdemeanors as any serious abuse of power—including both legal and illegal activities." -- https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/High+Crimes+and+Misdemeanors
Trump has committed many things that fit this definition, some of which are illegal.
1
As at least one of your NYT colleagues has said, it is now untenable to wait for the ballot box to resolve the question since Trump is so shamelessly trying to stuff it. The self-proclaimed victim of rigged systems is trying again to rig it for himself.
What was the Pharaoh of Egypt doing at the G-7 aside from rubbing shoulders with Il Duce? It’s supremely embarrassing to have a “favorite dictator”. Who is his second choice? So many to choose from. I would have thought Vlad was his favorite.
2
I loath Trump, as a New Yorker I've been dealing with his arrogant lunacy for a long time; I desperately want him out of office. The Democrats have, with this impeachment, insured a Trump victory in 2020 and have probably lost the House again. It's that simple.
manafort was trumps campaign manager, trump idolizes putin, putin used manafort to get a pro russia president elected in ukraine (just like here)...how pro russia is our president? he has bent over backward to get russian sanctions 1 for attacking ukraine (and now occupying part) and 2 for attacking our election lifted. why? why does the president of the usa want to help an aggressor who wants to weaken nato, grab more of ukraine, grab more of eastern europe...talk about shadow dealing..there is much to see that is hidden still. when mueller tried to get info from ukraine, trump threatened to take away their aid if they cooperated. this treason began back in 2016...but likely earlier.
Divide and Conquer. Deep down I believe there are good hearted, law abiding, moral upstanding Republicans who don't want to be associated with or labeled, "Trumpublicans."
The constitution makes it clear that an impeachment trial is not a criminal procedure. It is a political one.
1
Bret - isn't soliciting something of value from a foreign government for political reasons illegal enough?
Another reason to impeach Trump is what he may do in the near future besides all he has done already. This man is not well psychologically. To me his psychological state , or a better word would be psychopathology , is the crux of the problem. This man is dangerous and he will become more dangerous due to the stress he is under. When he says he wants to arrest Adam Schiff for treason , he shows how unhinged he is , but also how dangerous.
1
Wait. Is not abuse of power an impeachable offense? If not, what is?
I would love to see Bret's responses to many of these comments but I rather doubt he will respond.
The bar is now there has to be an actual criminal statute violated to be an impeachable offense, eh Bret?
2
It is amazing to me that we are still behaving as if we are in a functioning democracy. Hasn't anyone noticed the Republican Party controls the Senate and the Judiciary and isn't budging on , nor likely to, budge on impeachment. I expect no one will respond to a summons to testify. Then what? The reality is totally exposed, so what? Trump is egregiously corrupt and morally bankrupt and no doubt impeachment is justified, but his base, about %40 of the electorate will never abandon him no matter what, even if he murders someone . . . so damaging our democracy by colluding with a foreign power is nothing to these people when it comes to their cult-like devotion to their "fearless leader." Our strategy for change must be based on recognizing the reality of our situation. Our so-called "free press" ought to be sounding the clarion call, not perpetuating commentary on and analysis of the spectacle in which we are living!
1
Looks like the next week or so will not involve the high profile folks like Rudy but could prove damaging for Trump. Volker will testify live or by deposition creating a bad day for Rudy, Pompeo, Trump, Lindsey, Jim Jordan, Stephen Saboteur Miller, and Kevin McCarthy. IG Atkinson arrives with his Christmas stocking of lumps of coal for all of the above. Next former Ambassador Marie Yanovitch will testify having recovered from the knives in her back tossed by Rudy and Don Jr. Also the IG of the State Dept not under the thumb of Pompeo will show up with documents. Yes Helen finally people with knowledge not under the yoke of anyone.
The insider testimony comes void of help from Trump, Barr or Pompeo. I look forward to information minus the spin.
I have reached the conclusion that the old maxim, "There is never the wrong time to do the right thing," has absolutely arrived with regard to impeaching Trump. Too much has been allowed to slide. Too much has been allowed to become accepted as "the new normal."
The man is a clear and present danger to the republic. He must be stopped. And I don't say that lightly.
6
Stephens favored impeachment in single tweet last year, remarkably stating "I've been skeptical about the wisdom and merit of impeachment. Cohen's guilty plea changes that. The president is clearly guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. He should resign his office or be impeached and removed from office."
Stephens realized he'd actually tweeted Trump was guilty and immediately wrote a host of columns arguing Trump could not be impeached as there was "no evidence" to support it. Stephens capped it with a Times piece, "Conservatives Should Thank Mueller", blatantly misrepresenting the Mueller Report to shield Trump and repeatedly and falsely arguing, as Trump has, that the Mueller report totally "exonerates" Trump.
Stephens does again. Evidence of Trump's guilt is based on his own words, not just a whistleblower. Stephens says the same things as Sean Hannity, inanely arguing: "I’m a skeptic when it comes to the Ukraine business, at least for now— at least until some other shoe drops." In plain GOP English, "there will never be enough evidence to begin an impeachment inquiry of Trump, even if we have phone transcript Trump redacted to remove the worst things, yet shows him pressuring a foreign leader to help him rig the upcoming US election."
Stephens tellingly uses the word "Skeptic" to describe himself. He was one of the most extreme global warming deniers, then switched to being a supposed "skeptic". Stephens is still denying everything that's bad for Trump and the GOP.
6
Bret Stephens is not aware of any law that's been broken. Here's part of the federal election campaign laws: "It shall be unlawful for . . . a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national." The contribution is described as "a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value . . . in connection with a Federal, State, or local election." I submit that soliciting help from the Ukraine constitutes a "thing of value"; it's solicited to affect a federal election, and it's solicited from a foreign country. Trump is clearly breaking the law.
5
I disagree with Mr. Stephens that there has to be a formal equivalence between "high crimes and misdemeanors" and a criminal complaint. The Founders deliberately left this phrase vague in application to those in high office. An impeachable offense is whatever a majority in the House and two thirds of the Senate says it is.
Mr. Trump's increasingly bizarre behavior, if it doesn't qualify for impeachment, is starting to border on 25th Amendment territory.
5
Bret Stephens, I couldn't disagree more.
Emphasizing the point about this riling up GOP supporters, I
Doubt that impeachment will really change anyone's calculus.
Begging the question, why, when the starkest evidence is
Uncovered, have you flipped to be anti-impeachment?
Gail, articulate as ever, but push him harder.
3
Gail, in a nutshell....Liars continue to lie. To do otherwise would expose them to ridicule.
Pompeo, in his pathetic TV appearances this week has shown he is nothing more than a coward, willing to sell his soul for a man who would willingly throw him under the nearest bus, if it were politically expedient.
William Barr? The man is beyond contempt. He seeks other nations to investigate OUR CIA?
Impeach trump AND Barr.
102
@Paul P.
And Pence. He's also up in the middle of these treasonous crimes.
7
El-Sisi & Trump are the new dynamic duo! Soon they will be "crimefighting" while driving the Batmobile through the galaxy.
I too was skeptical of impeachment, because it cannot succeed in removing the president, will paralyze the House probably for months so that nothing else gets done, and because it will totally confuse and disrupt the 2020 election campaign. "Why do that just to strike a superior moral pose?" I thought. "There's a good chance he will lose anyway." But now I support impeachment, notwithstanding these possible negatives, for a reason that I haven't heard anyone else articulate so far: which is that this out-of-control renegade has to be stopped NOW, even if not punished. We can't just stand here and let this continue. Just after barely escaping a finding of conspiracy with a foreign power to tilt the 2016 election, he flagrantly does it again, this time for the 2020. This shows that he has learned nothing and regrets nothing, and will shamelessly subvert both the State and Justice departments for his personal political interest. Impeachment without conviction might not stop him, but if it gets the whole sordid story on the record, including the acts of all his accomplices, it just might throw a scare into him, and tie him down so he hasn't space or leave to try it again. And it will force all the craven Republicans who have signed up for the Trump protection racket to take a stand. Maybe that will have a beneficial effect when the 2020 votes are cast.
9
On el Sisi, I lived in Egypt for six years back in the early - mid '90's. We used to laugh about Mubarak getting upwards of 97% of the vote in every election. Then, one day while on my way home from work in Tahrir Square, I noticed a big blue truck parked in a poor residential neighborhood. Soldiers were throwing men of all ages into the back of the truck while their wives and children were screaming and crying behind police barricades. It sickened me.
There was no evidence of warrants being shown only the indiscriminate nabbing of men being hauled off to jail, a place where we all knew you'ld be lucky if you got your hay changed once a week.
I'd been thinking about leaving the country for some time. We'd had a pretty bad earthquake, I'd missed a terrorist bombing by no more than 30 seconds one morning. The pollution was terrible. And the living conditions for most folks were terrible while Mubarak and his cronies were stealing all the valuable land and living in palaces. But this was the final straw for me. Tossing people in jail without due process because they might be opposed to the government.
Given Trump's comments about the whistle blower yesterday gives me the chills. I think he'd prefer, just like Mubarak, that his opponents not have due process. I also think that, just like Mubarak, he'll end up in jail someday. What seems so far fetched today will be the norm tomorrow. So, we're about to choose between due process and a dictator for life.
772
@Jack Hartman
Thanks for your moving story. i agree, the only thing keeping Trump at bay is our constitution and a handful of brave and honest people working in our judicial system and in Washington. Fingers crossed we make it until the next president and fingers crossed she or he is more democratic and honest.
115
@Jack Hartman
Or perhaps Trump can flee to Egypt and live in one of those palaces for the rest of his life.
26
@Jack Hartman I hope we have that choice. I keep thinking I'm going to wake up one morning very soon to the news that Trump has declared martial law. Scary times.
30
Trump has normalized his outrageous behavior so much, that apparently it's now a matter of debate as to whether threatening elected representatives, encouraging civil war, and using the DOJ to intimidate and possibly arrest political foes is a crime and really bad stuff. And if it was an impeachable crime to pay off Stormy Daniels before, why isn't it anymore?
5
I disagree that impeachment should require a criminal offense. Alexander Hamilton described impeachable crimes in one of the Federalist Papers as “those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”
6
Bret, let me help you out.
First, there was a quid pro quo. Apparently, the White House staffer who prepared the transcript was not smart enough to delete the word “though” in Trump’s request for a favor in responding to Zelenskiy’s stated intention to acquire Javelin anti-tank weapon systems. That also apparently tripped up Kevin McCarthy in his 60 Minutes interview in which he accused Scott Pelley of adding a word to the transcript. In the immortal words of our former governor “Oops”. Zelenskiy understood that it was a quid pro quo. He agreed to Trump’s condition. He had no other choice. It is of no consequence that Zelenskiy apparently did not follow through for whatever reason; perhaps because he knew there was nothing to investigate. However, a case might be made that Trump has a cause of action against Zelenskiy for breach of contract.
Second, impeachment as understood by the framers has its roots in the English common law. And, in the English common law, abuse of power was emblematic of an impeachable offense. Thus, impeachment as envisioned by the framers, did not require the committing of a criminal offense by a President.
For the record, I too had been opposed to an impeachment investigation. That changed with the Zelenskiy call.
7
One thing impeachment does is make Trump unsure..of many things. Thus, I wouldn't expect him having any bromance meetings with Putin in the near future. Or asking for election assistance from any other foreign leader, or making phone calls to Ukraine or Australia.
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not watching you!
1
@Bret really you do not see what Trump has down that would get him charged with a crime. I know of several but not enough characters to place them all. Let just say for starters in the most recent scandal the attempted coverup and with holding information is possibly the bigger issue but if it was no there there why try to hide it and why are people in the different agencies State, DOJ and other so alarmed both the ones who ran interference and the ones who would like to scream into the rafters of wrong doing I riddle you that
"They’ll ask why Nancy Pelosi didn’t wait for a transcript of the phone call or testimony from key officials before beginning the impeachment process. "
Bret,
Speaker Pelosi in her announcement on starting the impeachment inquiry stated it was because the administration was refusing to hand over the whistle blower complaint to the House Intelligence Committee as required by law. They eventually did so but do you think that would have happened had the Speaker not started the inquiry?
6
The fundamental problem with Trump is that he has no morals, no conscience, and no guiding principles other than self-aggrandizement and the massage of his ego - in other words, he's a sociopath.
He doesn't see anything wrong with anything he does - laws and norms are mere inconveniences, created by lesser creatures than he. Tax evasion is "smart", stiffing contractors is "business", and defrauding would-be students is a business model. It's hardly surprising that dirty dealing, extortion and character assasination are his tools of choice as Commander-in-Chief. The only consequences of his crimes, so far, have been the payment of settlements "without admitting wrongdoing," and the very real possibility that he'll suffer worse is what's driving him out of his mind right now.
9
Bret, you've likely heard about the lobster that doesn't jump out out of the pot as the water it's in slowly reaches boiling. Americans are the lobster. If we had been exposed to all of Trump's crimes/abuses of power/attacks on our institutions/betrayal of intelligence secrets/fealty to Putin/ethics violations, etc., over a short period of time, he would have been hauled out of DC by now. Instead, the slow drip of news stories, our deliberative processes in DC, and the slowly turning wheels of our justice system have all worked to keep the temperature of the water feeling comfy. As Trump's misdeeds pile up and Americans awaken to the betrayal and danger of the man in the White House, I hope you join us lobsters smart enough to climb outside the pot and see clearly that impeachment is necessary to lower the temperature in this country.
3
One thing neither Gail Collins nor Bret Stephens mentions here is violations of the emoluments clause. Another is the fact that there is another whistle-blower, somehow related to Trump's tax returns (although little is known about that.)
Then there's the fact that Jeff Flake said 35 GOP senators would vote to convict on a secret ballot. That raises the chance that conviction is a reasonable prospect.
6
I must point out, that the more Nancy and the House dems mess with the Tweeter in chief, the more insane his tweets will become causing the voters in the middle who are going to decide the election to turn away from him never to return. The polls will naturally continue to turn in favor of impeachment. One reason that Clinton survived is that his mantra became "I'm just doing my job," while he allowed surrogates to do the dirty political work. Either of you think that Trump is capable of being the voice of calm reason?
6
"the language on impeachment is fairly specific: “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” And I struggle to see exactly what criminal statute Trump violated with the call."
Bribery. "I'll release the money if you do as I want."
Extortion. "I won't release the money unless you do as I want."
4
I wonder if we all are overestimating the loyalty of Senate Republicans. I wonder if a few “fell” if another twenty or so might gratefully join them. I also suspect Trump’s loyal “base” might prove fickle. He hasn’t actually done much that benefits his base.
133
I’ve actually had exactly the same thought.
3
@Thomas Simson I'm with you both. I don't think the fact that the Senate voted unanimously for the release of the call notes and that McConnell said the Senate would take up the vote on impeachment has gotten enough scrutiny. McConnell is not known for following rules.
6
@WDP I would be very pleased to see some sign of a return to decency from the Republicon side. Fingers crossed.
5
Well bananas are currently endangered globally by disease.
One could only hope the trump administration is also.
3
Bret, what trump did was disgraceful??? No, I disagree strongly. He did something criminal. C r i m i n a l..get it?
2
The US is a "rule of law" nation. Trump's behavior -- past, present, and probably future -- plays fast and loose with legality. The Dems really have no choice but to make a formal inquiry into his excesses. By not doing so, they themselves, would be playing fast and loose with the rule of law. Do what must be done and leave the consequences to themselves. That is probably the best definition of what "doing the right thing" means...
3
Like some other commenters, I found the cutesy tone of this conversation to be rather sickening. But I can get past that.
What I can't get past is the fact that Bret Stephens is mostly parroting the official GOP talking points on impeachment (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/us/white-house-email-talking-points.html): "No crime, no quid pro quo."
The Constitution assigns the task of impeachment to the House of Representatives, not to the Department of Justice. As many, many experts have been explaining recently, impeachment is ultimately a political decision, not a matter of criminal law. It's supposed to be a backstop in case the Electoral College fails in its duty to ensure that a scoundrel -- i.e., someone who seeks the presidency for personal enrichment, or to further the aims of a national adversary, or both -- is never allowed in the White House.
Since the Electoral College has failed spectacularly in that task, and since abundant evidence is now available that Trump is a full-on scoundrel, impeachment is the only way to go. Criminal culpability is not required, only political malfeasance.
Of course, once Trump is actually investigated, it may well turn out that he is culpable for many crimes. So Mr. Stephens might still get his wish, and Trump might ultimately be found guilty of said crimes. Until he is out of office, however, such an investigation is impossible.
3
"High crimes and misdemeanors" are, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.
Andrew Johnson's primary impeachment charge was violation of the Tenure of Office Act which was passed by Congress in March 1867 over his veto.
Richard Nixon's three articles of impeachment were for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress.
Bill Clinton's offense, to Republicans, was about sex. No surprise there.
2
For the longest time, people like Bret Stephens and David Brooks have been counseling Democrats on how to adapt to Republican obstreperousness, from the time they united as a group to foil Obama's agenda, till now when they repeatedly turning a blind eye to Trump's complete abuse of the office. It has always been on the Democrats to adapt, presumably because Republicans had the majority in Congress and the support of the voters (never mind that they were elected with a minority of the votes). That has always been the conceit.
Well, now we have a Democratic majority in Congress, and they're still trying to deny the mandate that Democrats got from THEIR voters to hold this President accountable.
They still want to change the minds of Democratic voters, still criticize the Democratic base, but have NOTHING to say about the Republican base and how their opinions might be based in part on propaganda and lies.
9
@DebbieR
Amen!
1
"Many Americans will wonder why a lawfully elected president should be removed from office for no violation of the law. "
A failure of our education system to properly engage our kids in how our governmental structures work, as well as teaching their civic responsibility. For the most part, the same reason we got Trump in the first place.
4
Questions for Mr. Stephens:
Impeachment is a remedial rather than punitive process, not required to.meet legal standards of criminal acts Must the sole focus be on the criminality of Trump's behaviour?
Must we assume that the process will ultimately result in a party line vote?
Could it be that so many shoes have dropped it is time for GOP members of conscience consider a Midnight Visit as in Nixon's case?
Could failure to investigate a president who has abrogated many aspects of his oath, profited from his office,encouraged violence among citizens, made veiled (and no-so-veiled)threats against citizens--the list is long, I'll curtail it-- damage our institutions forever?
5
"And I struggle to see exactly what criminal statute Trump violated with the call."
Poor Bret! He struggles to see bribery when it's in plain sight!
Trump: You want money and weapons, bring me dirt of the Biden family and we'll send you both!
DUH!
5
An originalist is someone who believes in interpreting the Constitution in accordance with the intent of its framers and ratifiers. Anyone who is a consistent as opposed to an opportunistic originalist would accept the understanding of Hamilton and Madison that impeachable offenses are not limited to criminal wrongdoing but encompass, to quote Hamilton, "the abuse or violation of some public trust." Among the examples Madison gave were the president's corrupt use of the pardon power, to pardon someone of a crime the president had solicited, or the president's negotiation of a corrupt treaty, a treaty he intended to be favorable to a foreign country and detrimental to the United States. Those would not necessarily be crimes, but they would be abuses of presidential power and, as such, impeachable "misdemeanors." For a helpful discussion, see Cass R. Sunstein, Impeachment: A Citizen's Guide, pages 56-59.
7
For those who have been drinking the Trump kool aid from the beginning, I fear they will never be able to see the many impeachable acts clearly thru the dense fog of the president's Tweets, Fox news and other right-wing sources. I hope that there are some Trump voters who are reachable because they were not sleeping thru civics class and can now understand uncomfortable realities of the president's character, allowing them to regret Trump's election in 2016. These are the folks we need to reach with simple and, dare I say, unimpeachable argument, while not humiliating them for their 2016 misjudgment.
7
The idea that impeachment requires a violation of a criminal statute is so divorced from how the Framers felt about impeachment, it's hard to give intellectual credibility to Argument #4 -- which though I disagree with, is debatable and relevant. The term "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" was used precisely to avoid discussion of violations of criminal law and instead about breach of trust type issues (In England, that term referred to dishonesty and abuse of authority, among other "crimes"). If you want to argue that the people will only accept impeachment for violation of the criminal code that's another matter, but there is no offense more impeachable --in the eyes of the Founders-- than abuse of political office for personal gain. The Federalist Papers, Madison's Notes (even the 1973 OLC Memo on Indicting a President) say as much.
2
Read the 1974 House Judiciary Committee Report on the 400 year history of impeachments in England. (Link below). An actual crime is not a necessary predicate to an impeachment charge.
In England, impeachments charging the commission of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" included failing to act as required, exercising greater authority than authorized and abusing an office for personal gain. House Report at 5-7. The Framers adopted the phrase from the English practice of impeachment. House Report at 4 citing Federalist #65 ("that Great Britain had served as 'the model from which [impeachment] has been borrowed'").
https://ia801902.us.archive.org/14/items/constitutional_grounds_for_presidential_impeachment_-_house_judiciary_comm_staff_report_february_1974/constitutional_grounds_for_presidential_impeachment_-_house_judiciary_comm_staff_report_february_1974.pdf
1
I do not understand why everyone is so confused about this, impeachment is not a legal proceeding. The bar for impeachment is not set at criminal behavior, it is a purely political mechanism that while somewhat mirroring a trial, is not subject to the federal evidence rules and criminal statutes. The case law is actually pretty clear that "high crimes and misdemeanors" does not necessarily meaning actual criminal conduct.
5
If Trump engages in criminal behavior that is in violation of established law, how is he not a criminal?
8
Trump clearly intends to cheat in order to win the 2020 election. In this instance by digging up dirt on Joe Biden. How can we just stand by and watch as he continues his efforts? What will be next? Does anybody believe that he will simply stop acting corruptly because he's been caught and his actions revealed?
We need to remove Trump from office now to help ensure that the 2020 election will in fact be fair. It's actually pretty simple, isn't it?
8
Most Senators and Representatives are lawyers. As such, they are programmed to willingly represent anything, however ridiculous.
So, they're not crazy, they're just lawyers, doing what lawyers do.
2
Stephens says "...some of them, including some swing voters, may come to see Trump as a victim of elite liberals and “deep state” agents...."
It's hard for me to see the President having any credibility with voters, let alone being seen as a victim. That kind of whining passed its "use by" date the moment Trump released the "transcript" of his conversation with Zelenskyy.
5
Trump actually thought having a dog would make him look undignified. I guess that ship has sailed.
4
Perhaps he was concerned for the dignity of the dog?
2
I love dogs. No dog deserves Trump!
1
Trump committed treason in the Oval office with Russian agents and gave away highly classified intel without consent of the ally who gave it to us. I thought treason was a crime. Has that changed? He did it again publicly when he met with Putin .
he has publicly violated the whistleblower law not to mention slow walking aid to Ukraine needed to combat Russia. What more do you need?
5
Until the stock market crashes and body bags start coming home, nothing's going to happen.
2
@Debby B. The stock market could very well take a dive AFTER he's impeached.
I plan to give the economy a boost all by myself with the party I’m going to throw for 65 million of my closest friends. We’ll all be partying.
Bret Stephens reliance on "illegal" is irrelevant for a President who is so far off the rails that Congress hasn't written laws. It may be necessary to tell children not to "eat the daisies" but certainly not the POTUS???
The **Constitution** says that interference in US government and elections is forbidden. And Trump has been caught on the phone requesting providing information from Ukraine to do just that. That is conspiracy requesting interference. Not illegal, but unconstitutional.
The impossibility of laws covering every possible act of a President, even one as far off the rails as Trump, is counteracted by the general definition of terms for Impeachment.
The Constitution does NOT say that impeachable behavior must be criminal under the laws, legal determinations declare that it is whatever Congress decides, including unconstitutional behavior.
3
Bret,
Just what do you think the term “Misdemeanors” means?
3
What a cynic Bret is, can't even admit the impeachable level of that phone call. Gail has so much patience.
8
The complete destruction of very democracy, yes i know is a very minor point , my gosh i have grave doubts that we can even recover from the damage already done. You think we should cave to the toddler about to throw his dinner on the wall, if we let up ,he will inflict untold vengance on every blue state( he already has somewhat) go on the great trump inquisition that will make stalinist purge look mild. He is very unstable, and cornered he is trying to gain more power thru dishonest means, he has drawn every cabinet official into his maelstrom making him almost untouchable.
2
Mr. Stephens,
I imagine the Founding Fathers would have cheered for impeachment of a president whose behavior is reasonably accepted as "bonkers, nuts, deplorable."
(By the way, where have we heard the "deplorable" word used before?)
Didn't the Founding Fathers imagine such a situation? ?Wasn't the original purpose of the electoral college to prevent a popular but truly whacked candidate from being seated as president?
They knew all about demagogues. What they didn't anticipate is the degree to which Congress would be complicit in idiocy, greed and corruption.
5
OK, hang on. Brett thinks that because the senate republicans are cowards and traitors and won't do their constitutional duty is the reason not to impeach? Another profile in courage from the league leader.
5
Is it bribery if Trump offers to release a $400m package to a country that agrees to dig up dirt for him? Or is it blackmail, because the country already had the $400m from Congress but he's taking it away, like taking a kid's lunch money unless he pulls down his pants? Is bribery impeachable but blackmail not? Hmm, so many questions.
1
Impeachment lost much of its moral force when it was abused for the political goal of getting Slick Willie. Obama would have been impeached if any of the issues the Republicans used against him had taken off. The Republican Party introduced the tradition of wielding their mighty propaganda machine to impeachment and the threat of impeachment for political ends. Now they whine that Democrats are doing the same thing.
Nixon's huge reelection victory did not save him and his victory from being repudiated, although his party did manage to save him from a full investigation of his misdeeds, since such an investigation would have slimed them too. Dubya's reelection victory should not have saved him from a similar fate; a thorough and objective investigation would have discovered that he cooked the evidence to get us to invade Iraq and resulted in his impeachment, but again his party saved him in order to save themselves from sharing his slime. As soon as dubya left office, his party showed what it really thought of him by agreeing that he had never happened, and he implicitly accepted their verdict by taking up painting.
1
Brett - Bribery. Bribery! He's bribing the president of Ukraine - and with my taxpayer dollars, no less.
5
Sometimes I think Bret just likes being a contrarian.
3
If these are Bret Stephens's arguments, it leads to only two observations:
1. Prager University really does have low standards.
2. He's as crazy as a bedbug.
2
Bret, ever the republican apologist, attempting to defend the morally corrupt president and his inept traitorous staff, abetted by obstructionist Moscow Mich and his spineless colleagues, makes me wonder how he can sleep at night writing such drivel and what his family ( I assume he is married and has children ) thinks of it. After all, it is his offspring that will have to live under trillions in debt, polluted lakes and rivers, out-of-control climate change, and the damage wrought by this. Never mind, living under the republican non-existent health plan nonsense.
4
Watching cable news hosts and their guests try to analyze the Trump gang’s “thinking” is entertaining. “Well, Chris, apparently...”. “It’s obvious that...”. “It’s clear to anyone paying attention that...”. It’s absurd. There is no advanced planning behind any of this. Trump makes a mess in the yard and the reactionary shovel brigade is mobilized to go cover up whatever he said or did. Now, it’s the democrats and Ukraine framed the president and this exonerates Manifort? It wasn’t Professor Plum in the Library with the knife? This is the stuff of Entertainment Tonight, not of a news outlet.
5
Bret, Trump did violate the law:
“It shall be unlawful for —
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make —
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election . . .
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) . . . of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.”
— 52 U.S. Code 30121
5
If you don't think Trump has done anything worthy of impeachment, let's wait a few days...surely he will say or tweet something even more damning than, say, threatening the whistle-blower and his colleagues with death (like they did to spies in the good 'ole days), talking about the electric chair for Biden because of his supposed corruption, etc. Let's not forget about the cover-up, either; who knows what else they're hiding in that special electronic lock box. If nothing else, Trump is becoming increasingly unhinged, so maybe we go with the 25th amendment instead of impeachment.
4
How, exactly, was Bill Clinton lying about an affair "Treason, Bribery, or High Crimes or Misdemeanors?"
2
My question for Bret (or anyone): How in the world is it legal to hold back promised funding from a foreign government (and to lie to Congress about the reasoning) unless they provide personal help regarding a political opponent? Isn't that the definition of a foreign emolument (if not extortion)?
Never mind that Zelensky cited yet another emolument (he stayed at a Trump hotel!) during the same phone call, let alone the abject cruelty of playing games with an inexperienced leader already under tremendous pressure from an occupying force (name rhymes with Usher) that also happens to have messed with our most recent elections and is working on the next ones.
2
Now is the time for courage and strength. It is the time for moral and ethical conviction. Stop fretting about the political calculus. We must do what is right. Focus.
5
Yes, more is needed. That's why we're having an Impeachment *inquiry* and not an Impeachment proceeding. A small semantic change, but important if, as has been the case with The Donald through decades of malfeasance, he's slippery enough to make others take the fall.
If that were the case, censure would be the result. Then all the media would be shouting that "the impeachment" failed and Donny's the winner.
1
Stephens writes: "I don’t think most Americans want to see the impeachment tool used except in criminal misbehavior."
Surely there are some actions, not exactly criminal, that would call for it. Suppose (I hope we don't get to this point) some men assassinate congressional opponents of the president. There is no evidence that the president was involved in their plot. But the killings were done inside DC, hence are federal offenses, and we further suppose the president then uses his (unlimited) pardon power to dissolve criminal charges against the assassins.
The president's action would be perfectly legal, but if nothing were done to stop that from continuing, we would soon be ruled by terror, pure and simple. I hope Bret Stephens would find such pardons enough to call for impeachment.
You have to draw the line somewhere. Maybe managing congressionally mandated national security expenses to extort personal favors from various other countries isn't bad enough, but there surely are some things that are.
2
Duh! Trump is a crook and of course should be impeached along with all the people in congress and his cabinet who have aided and abetted his crime spree. Purge them all.
2
The entire Trump presidency is a nonstop parade of high crimes and misdemeanors. Bret, you haven't been paying attention. The Mueller report was damning, notwithstanding Bill Barr's efforts to obfuscate aided by the Faux News noise machine. The House impeachment investigation will inevitably turn up more wrongdoing by Trump and his enablers. Most likely we'll learn that there was a coverup of the coverup of the coverup. And it will involve Barr, Giuliani, Pompeo, Pence and White House staff. The level of corruption and criminality is staggering, along with the mendacity. Brazen contempt for the rule of law. Banana republic dictators around the world are furiously taking notes. "Hey, if that works in America, we can surely put that trick to use here!" Let's prove that "no man is above the law" is more than a sweet homily. Impeach, convict, expel from office and imprison!
2
Bret....I'm a liberal who values and respects your opinions. But you're wrong on this one. If they had intended impeachment only for criminal conduct they wouldn't have put the word "misdemeanors" in there. And soliciting foreign interference for your own personal political ends was exactly the kind of thing they were most afraid of.
6
What about this unfortunate argument? Let's say that, hypothetically, President Trump is impeached and removed from office. Where does that leave us? :( I don't know who is worse for the Country.
1
Is Mr. Stephens kidding? Is he just terribly undereducated? High crimes and misdemeanors refers specifically to political actions, not to "crimes" in the normal sense. The first person charged with them in the 14th Century was convicted for ignoring a promise to Parliament. High refers to the office, not the action.
3
The "banana Republicans" in the House and Senate would do anything for money. Not only do they serve the interests of American billionaires like the Mercers and Kochs to give them huge tax breaks and strip middle-class and poor Americans of access to healthcare and environmental, health, and consumer protection. Nor do they restrict themselves to serving the gun lobby despite thousands of Americans massacred. No, they are also eager agents of Russia - they visit Moscow and pay obeisance to their master in the Kremlin a few months before the mid-term elections. They cover not only for Trump, but also Barr as he carries out Trump's conspiracies to discredit the FBI, the CIA, and the Mueller investigation.
4
Plz consider changing your narrative in regard to a VERY important point that accurately depicts the facts of the Ukrainegate. It is NOT a matter of "tries to trade government favors to another foreign power for inside dirt on an opponent." There is NO "inside dirt" on JOE Biden. He did nothing other then his approved duty as VP being the messenger to fire a corrupt Ukraine prosecutor. The son Hunter doesn't appear to have engaged in illegal conduct, if ethically questionable choice to financially benefit on his father's good name. No one is voting for the son. What Trump is trying to extort from Ukraine is the manufacturing of FALSE - CONCOCTED - FABRICATED evidence against JOE Biden to use as re-election propaganda of a non-existent wrongdoing. Not to mention the outrageous hypocrisy of the Trump nepotism narrative - is mindboggling.
10
@Brett
Well written, thanks!
1
Trump is becoming even more lawless in the wake of the Mueller investigation, which established that he couldn't be indicted by the Justice Department.
And dOnald tRump with a permanent get out of jail free card presents a clear and present danger to democracy.
3
When Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998 we all know the Republicans lost the vote to impeach. The news media at the time said the Republican party was doomed, possibly for good. Then in 2000, only 2 years later, what happens? America elects Dubya, a Republican to be President (albeit illegitimately). And then Dubya gets relected 4 years later!
So don't buy into the premise that if the Democrats lose the impeachment vote they are somehow dimished or even doomed. Even if the Democrats lose the vote to impeach they can make a comeback just as easily. America is fickle country with a short memory.
3
Here is your reason for impeachment Brett: “One thing the conversation did for me was serve as a reminder of the fragility of our republican experiment. El-Sisi looks like he’s setting himself up as another president-for-life. Journalists are being harassed, or worse; political opponents are being imprisoned, and worse. What distinguishes us from Egypt is that our institutions have been stronger than the people who occupy them. I wonder if that’s as true today as it was, oh, three years ago.” It’s the entirety of what is happening. Threatening Schiff; intimidating all opposition; obstruction of justice. He’s called you (the press) an enemy of the people. Wake up Brett!
4
Per Mr. Stephens: "They’ll wonder how that process will do to help them in their life."
This argument has been made by both Republicans and Democrats. One wonders if the proponents of this argument, whoever they are, understand what they are really saying, which is that they, or others, are willing to accept the corruption, lawlessness, abuse of power, lying, willful ignorance, recklessness, irresponsibility, and megalomania of an aspiring authoritarian as the price to be paid for government addressing the everyday needs of the people.
If that truly is the majority view, American democracy is finished.
3
I see a number of contributors have already noted that impeachment does not require proof of a crime or actually doing anything "illegal." Hamilton and Madison discussed this extensively in The Federalist, noting that impeachment is a "political" act, not a criminal trial. Cass Sunstein's book on impeachment also makes this point. He found that Clinton's crime of trying to cover up a sexual affair, even if it included perjury and obstruction of justice, did not justify impeachment because no violation of his oath of office or actual abuse of power could be traced to his affair or the cover up. It was not an abuse of power, certainly not one that rose to the level of a "high crime and misdemeanor." Trump could indeed shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue (in self-defense, of course) and not be subject to impeachment. No violation of his oath to uphold the Constitution or abuse of power was involved. Thus Bret's concern about the lack of a legal tort is not relevant in the case of impeachment. Which is not to say Trump may not be in violation of the law on emoluments.
Bret is under the impression that a crime needs to have been committed to impeach, whereas impeachment and the criminal justice system are parallel processes. Crimes are sufficient but unnecessary to the task. Having said that, there is probable cause that a litany of crimes has, in fact, been committed, including but not limited to: (a) bribery; (b) extortion; (c) campaign finance crimes; (d) fraud of honest services; (e) witness tampering, etc....
3
If impeachment winds up helping Trump, then we have proof that democracy does not work, at least not in this country. Our system of democracy failed us once before and led to our bloodiest war. If it fails once again, we probably wind up with some flavor of theocratic fascism along with terroristic and guerrilla warfare resistance.
If too many people do not respect and value the workings of democracy and do not have one of the personalities that fits democratic debate, then democracy is impossible although the forms and trappings of democracy may still be present (as they are in Russia). The personalities that fit democracy are willing to listen to evidence and to people who disagree with them, and give these people the benefit of the doubt that they are mistaken rather than evil or crazy.
Because of the personalities necessary to defend slavery, segregation, and racial stereotyping, a large portion of the country has had personalities at odds with democracy, and this lack has persisted for centuries. If there are too many such people, democracy will wither from them and from our need to save them from themselves and the results of their bad instincts.
5
It's all about poking a stick into a city persons eye. To the rural it's the city person that makes all the crimes, pollutes the earth and makes unwanted trends that spreads thru out the country. Just watch FOX and see their version of southern strategy. FOX has been beating this drum for decades. What could go wrong?
2
The GOP has stuck to Trump like the proverbial to a blanket.
the impeachment will not get passed in the Senate. But all the GOP Senators - even moderate Susan Collins from Maine - will stand in lockstep with their Leader. Lets get them all on record one more time. The GOP will fall for it.
3
Not sure I go along with "lawfully elected" in regard to Trump: More like couldn't quite prove otherwise in a court of law.
The Democrats might as well play all their cards; the way Trump talks about "treason" and so forth he could sign an executive order tomorrow outlawing the constitution and republic, declare himself emperor and hold court with his loyal Republicans at one of his golf courses. Impeachment does not have to pass the Mueller standard for "crime." It's a congressional prerogative that could be used for lying about a sexual indiscretion, or flagrant disregard for normal behavior.
3
"I don’t think most Americans want to see the impeachment tool used except in criminal misbehavior."
That's how most Americans felt when President Clinton was impeached for lying about his philandering by a self-righteous Republican House in a party line vote, only to be acquitted by the Senate in a party line vote. The same is likely to happen to Drumpf. The difference is that Clinton's personal fooling around came nowhere close to Drumph's character assassination of America on the world stage. As for fallout, Americans see the difference between self-righteous and doing the right thing. Why do you think so many congressional Republicans are jumping ship?
5
Bret, Individual #1 committed felony election fraud. Failure to report the money spent on the fraud is the campaign finance violation.
1
Bret's main reason for not supporting impeachment is that "Many Americans will wonder why a lawfully elected president should be removed from office for no violation of the law." These folks are Trump's base, they have no interest in trying to understand whether impeachment is justified or not, Trump is their chosen one and must be supported. My question back to Bret is: Why should we care about these folks? They have given us the most venal horrific president in our history. I could care less what they think.
7
The United States of America is currently a banana republic.
It will remain a banana republic until and unless Trump is removed via impeachment or defeated electorally.
Even if he is defeated electorally, he will not leave voluntarily. It will be necessary to remove him by force from the White House.
I request information from the Republicans in Congress about what Americans should do to prepare for the Civil War referred to by Trump.
This is a dangerous time for America.
Trump is unstable and desperate.
He must be impeached and removed quickly.
4
So does the fact that "our institutions have been stronger than the people who occupy them" evince the "deep state" to Trump supporters? I knew that the use of that particular term bothered me but I hadn't realized until recently that the animus behind it was to the democratic structures of our republic and maybe to the republic itself.
If I am not mistaken, the President and every member of Congress has taken an oath to uphold, protect and defend the U.S. Constitution. Was there a disclaimer in the oath granting exceptions for occasions in which doing so would not be politically expedient? My question for the Republicans is this: If not now, when?
5
Isn't it well-settled that "misdemeanors" in Article II, section 4 does not mean "misdemeanor" in the sense used in modern criminal statutes? If so, Bret is incorrect to ask "what criminal statute Trump violated." That is not the issue.
3
Poor Gail struggled here to use humor while Bret is trying to be serious. Once Bret announced that he now had reservations about his earlier position on impeachment, the microphone should have been turned off and the column put to sleep.
My hope is that Gail makes another attempt, on her own this time. The country needs some humor now to get us focused on what’s really important—and I’ll leave it up to her to decide what that might be!
3
This is simple. Make a list of all "high crimes and misdemeanors" then scratch them out one at a time such as:
1. Start World War III - not yet. nah,
scratch
2. Shoot & kill person on Fifth Ave. - not
yet. nah, scratch
..
37. Suggest new Civil War - yep
..
61. Ask foreign gov. for oppo. research
favors, in return for aid - yep (Russia,
Ukraine)
..
97. Hire R. Giuliani for dirty work - nah
98. Keep pet cockroach in b.room - nah
I'm not sure if even Collins & Stephens would find it humorous if they saw a giant mushroom cloud (DJT pushs red button).
4
@Kenneth Fowler Funny you mentioned a cockroach. Literally funny in this column.
"A lawfully elected president" ?? It used to be legal to own slaves.
7
Brett - isn't solicitation of foreign assistance in a US election illegal? Maybe you should re-write this piece, eh?
10
Would anyone allow a child to grow up and become a person like Donald Trump. Clearly the answer is no. And the remedy is impeachment to demonstrate his behavior is not in any way acceptable.
6
@Robert Haberman - "Would anyone allow a child to grow up and become a person like Donald Trump."
Other than Ivana Trump and perhaps Melania Trump, I think the answer would be no.
1
The President withheld congressionally approved funds from Ukraine, with restoration being contingent on a personal favor. The call was stored on a server reserved for national security issues, which this was not. Then the Justice department tried to silence a whistle blower, and Trump's allies have lied about being on the call.
If this does not qualify as a standard for pursuing impeachment, then what on earth does?
14
BS:
I don't support impeachment.
I wouldn't vote for Warren.
I sound like white house talking points.
I would behave the same as any republican in congress.
Oh, but I really dislike Trump.
8
Remember Jefferson did not participate in writing the Constitution - his was Minister to France. Madison wanted him out of the way. Jefferson never wanted a powerful president. So it would be Madison, Hamilton and Jay jumping up and down.
Federalist Papers 2, 3, 4, & 5 written by Jay are very clear about the founders concerns "Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence." In defense of the Constitution Jay was concerned about foreign countries attempting to interfere in US elections and US policy. Only a strong Constitution that allows for officials to be impeached and removed from office for involving foreign influence in US policy would save the US from the dangers of foreign countries.
Anyone that states that Trump's attempt to involve a foreign country into the US political system is not an impeachable and removable offense has failed to read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the minutes of the Constitutional convention. What Trump did with Ukraine is exactly what the founding fathers were concerned about and why the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" were included in the Constitution.
13
I'm glad Mr. Stephens is just a rich, inconsequential op-ed writer for the NYT rather than an influential law professor like Laurence Tribe or a "liberal" supreme court justice like Ruth Ginsberg. We've got enough bloviators permanently sitting on the sidelines, pontificating about Trump, while he and the Republicans attempt to destroy our republic by salvaging a disgraceful huckster and his acolytes. He, Stephens, always reminds me of the gawkers stopping and staring at a fire or an auto accident and shaking their collective heads. Pure Republican Schadenfreude
6
The Trump game plan: lie, lie, lie, and attack the person holding the facts against you.
12
And the Banana Republicans with their totally bananas president, Senate Majority Leader, Attorney General, VP,, entire Trump cabinet, and president's lawyer Guiliani are rapidly turing our country into a banana republic and driving a lot of us bananas.
7
Read Susan Rice's Op Ed first before reading this...Brett has it all wrong.
1
So Stephans was for impeachment for Individual One, but now that rump has confirmed that his dalliance with Russia prior to ‘16 wasn’t a one-off, Stephans has decided that the previous crime wasn’t enough, or passed his personal statute of limitation? Stephans has become completely incoherent ever since his Twitter meltdown.
5
Now there are reports that the administration is asking foreign intelligence agencies to investigate US agencies. So much for America First. The thought that a US President would ask other countries to investigate Americans would have been inconceivable to anyone just a few years ago. I remember the screams that the IRS was investigating Some Right-leaning organizations "how dare they investigate their political opponents". That was the IRS's job to investigate groups. What the President himself has done is far far worse. What is happening now was inevitable though concerning the information being revealed by the whistle blower. I told a friend when Trump fired Comey, all of the intelligence agencies would investigate everything Trump did. He started a war with them, and they would finish it. All it took was one little crack in the dam, and now all kinds of misdeeds are being revealed.
1
Two points. First, the "what the founders intended" line of reasoning is simply intellectually lazy. It presumes a GROUP of late 18th century men had a known and common set of views on issues surfacing 220 years later. This is simply not knowable, and a cop out. Anton Scalia and his followers included.
Two, Bret Stevens needs to carefully consider the morality vs. legality arguments that he uses in his position. Law is not necessarily moral, in fact has been used to justify many abominations, including the Nazi persecution of Jews and slavery in the US. If the president or anyone does horribly wrong, it is that regardless of the legal distinctions. The central matter is moral. If it is strictly a legal matter, then America's soul has been compromised.
3
Bret wrote: “ That being said, I do have a third point! I fear impeachment will lose much of its moral stigma and political force if it ends up coming down to a party-line vote.”
Instead of lamenting the effect of a “party line vote” on impeachment’s “moral stigma”... how about lamenting THE PARTY LINE VOTE itself?... the fact that most Republicans will throw morals out the window and vote with this disgrace of a “president” is what should concern you.
6
My "favorite dictator", wasn't that an old T.V. sitcom. You know how much the President loves his T.V.
To recap: Bret: Trump has always been "bonkers, nuts, deplorable"....Why was this not a reason to remove him on day-1?
Gail: ..defeat all those Republican Senators in swing States. No, include defeating them in Red States, and just on climate change or guns.
Bret: Why did Trump hold up that $400 million? What a dumb question, and besides a shake down, also the likelihood that Putin may have directly ordered it.
1
First off, Trump is nuts. He has no grand plan. He has no coherent thought process. He's not an evil genius. He's just a selfish spoiled man with the sensibilities and intellect of a particularly dull toddler.
Second, most people aren't as bright or engaged as you think they are Mr. Stephens. They will believe what the media tells them to believe. If their brand of media tells them Trump needs to go they will adopt that position. There aren't a vast group of swing voters who think deeply about their choices. They just don't really know what party they belong to because they don't understand their platforms. So they don't choose.
And last, what's up with you today, Mr. Stephens? You are typically reasoned even if I don't necessarily agree with you. I'd have been fine if you weren't on board for impeachment because of some reason, but 'Trump doesn't seem to have done anything wrong, to me' is loony. He's done so many things wrong it's difficult to keep track. This latest is just a small sampling of his rank stupidity and cupidity.
5
I just want to go on the record with more likely, current happenings behind-the-scenes, and these predictions:
Right now Mitt and Moscow Mitch and all sorts of highly ranked Republicans are trying to figure out, in the words of the Wicked Witch of the West, "How to do it," Which is to say, who's going to be first to say it, and to tell P3 (Putin's Puppet President) that if he wants a Pence Pardon, he's Resigning, like, now.
Pompeo and Barr are trying to figure how and when to run like the Rats they are from this sinking Presidential ship,
Sasse, Mitt, and a bunch of others are furiously consulting with their families, ecclesiasticsF, and, above all, pollsters, trying to figure out when to be First to Say It (see above, Resignation).
Pense will stop talking about any of this, and start Hiding from the Media.
Bolton will be the first really prominent Republican to start putting a few Political Harpoons of his own into the Mouth.
President Mouth will not be so by Thanksgiving; say hello to President "Toadying Twerp: Pense.
Seiously, may any Gods that Be please Save The Republic from Violence and further Disunion.
2
@Michael Pollens - My money is on Karen Pence reading scriptures to Mike daily and giving him the cold shoulder. I think she is smart enough to see that Trump will throw her husband under the bus any day now.
But, for that matter, I keep wondering when it will occur to Ivanka that she is in position to drop a bombshell and have her father, her husband, and her brothers all carted off to prison while she takes over the family fortune (what's left of it) and go back to being BFFs with Chelsea Clinton.
Hey, stranger things have happened in history than a sibling taking over.
The definition of a good person is one who does the right thing even when it hurts. There are enough good people left in government trying to do the right thing and impeachment is the right thing. There is no other choice.
Let the Senate Republicans paint themselves as corrupt cowards if they so choose.
One of the greatest things about this country is you can choose to be a corrupt coward.
3
Sometimes the sanest reaction to an insane situation.... is Insanity.
1
"Impeach the sucker."
I usually read these columns and often, at the end, thank myself out loud for taking the time. This is the best of 'em.
My new motto: Impeach the sucker.
4
"...Adam Schiff, who heads the House intelligence committee, should be arrested for treason, is bonkers, nuts, deplorable and, well, very much in character for the president."
This fits Trump to a T, his MO.
3
It is so tiring to hear the NYT conservative commentTors how this is about the “elite liberals”. No, it is not.
I don’t know any highly educated liberal that has ever hated farmers, coal miners and wants to harm a section of society. Impeachment inquiry is about corruption. And it should be that simple.
5
Brett, this country needs to make an example of a president who would be unfit for ANY high position, yet President of The United States. How ignorant can people be to think that the Oval Office needs to be occupied by a racist, pathological lying malignant narcissist who is openly racist and has never been accountable to another human being at any time in his life? There’s a troubling number of White, mostly lesser educated Americans who honestly believe that ONLY Whites are entitled to be Americans and this pile of inhumanity in a red tie feeds this twisted fantasy on a daily basis. It’s simple: he has got to GO!
1
MAGA Americans make a very strong argument here and "can stand tall on this." This is just a matter of Trump being Trump." Just like John Gotti being John Gotti, Bernie Madoff being Bernie Madoff or Jeffrey Dahmer being Jeffrey Dahmer. Donald Trump may be a criminal, but he is THEIR criminal standing up for the American values they cherish. For MAGA Americans "Nobody ever got whacked who wasn't supposed to get whacked."
3
Delightful.
Asking a foreign power for help bringing down a rival is treason.
3
Democrats can't not act. The process may not succeed, but they don't have a choice. The liar-in-chief has both feet over the illegal line. As to Bret Stephens not being on the impeachment wagon - is anyone surprised? Here's a man whose been all for Israel's aggressive and illegal expansion - he's willing to look the other way when the end objective suits his needs. A true master of cognitive dissonance.
2
Stephens is in lock-step with this president while pretending to be a never-Trumper. If you like his Israel and Iran policy, his taxes and his judicial appointments, and his evisceration of the EPA, well then you're a Trumper my friend. Your only worry now is that the Republicans may lose the election.
3
Giuliani would make a wonderful fall guy for Republicans. However, do you think he's likely to fall on his sword or stick it to Trump?
1
@J. Charles - "However, do you think he's likely to fall on his sword or stick it to Trump?"
Knowing Rudy, he will manage both at the same time.
1
Bret makes good points, except he completely discounts any political downside to Democrats if they choose not to impeach.
The idea that the Democrats will not suffer politically, if they just give Trump a pass on impeachment and perhaps even stop oversight and investigation seems implausible. Bret, how does this scenario drive enthusiasm for voters to turn out for Democrats?
If you are looking for a crime he has committed, how about obstruction of justice? Read the Mueller report. It would be a mistake not to include obstruction in the articles of impeachment.
1
Mr. Stephens: The definition of a bribe: To persuade someone to act in one's favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by the gift of money or other inducement. Trump had the money Congress appropriated to Ukraine withheld until he got a promise from the president of Ukraine to act in his favor by investigating Biden's son. Sounds like bribery to me.
Brett, you're wrong that the Ukraine phone call does not rise to the level of a crime. 52 U.S.C. § 30221(b) provides that it is unlawful for for a person to SOLICIT a contribution (including money of an OTHER THING OF VALUE) from a foreign national to a federal, state, or local US campaign. If the "thing of value" is worth more than $25,000, it's a felony. So, yeah, even without the extortion (also a felony), there's been a crime committed here. This type of thing is the very stuff the framers had in mind when the adopted the impeachment language of the Constitution. Your position on this is surprising.
2
@joanieb
Yeah I think Trump very clearly did violate the law that you cite.
I don't know why Bret is saying Trump didn't, that was the first time i had heard anyone say Trump hadn't broken the law.
"If you had asked the founders, “Hey, how about somebody who gets elected with help from a foreign power and then tries to trade government favors to another foreign power for inside dirt on an opponent?” I’m betting we’d get a show of hands for impeachment. I can see Hamilton and Jefferson trying to outjump each other."
Well said! Simple, clear, fundamental, to the point. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it and no matter which political party they represent.
Still, Republicans don't appear to get it--yet--and are still on their partisan immorality train:
Evidently, wrong isn't wrong if a Republican does it, and there are all kinds of pre-prepared talking points in the GOP ranks to reinforce and overtly support Trump's abuses (plural) of power.
We are not only in a constitutional crisis; we are in a moral crisis. Or maybe we are in a constitutional crisis because we are in a moral crisis.
Partisanship is killing our core values and our once-great country. For the sake of the children, just do the right thing for our constitution and for the future of the country as a viable democracy.
"You say you love your children above all else and yet you are stealing their future in front of their very eyes." (Greta Thunberg)
2
Take the vote now for articles of impeachment.
Go on..do it now.
Also, allow the minority party in the House to have subpoena power as the Democrats allowed the minority party to do in 1974 and the Republicans granted the Democrats with Clinton.
What is Nancy Pelosi afraid of?
A vote by the House now would allow this charade to end and the serious contemplation of impeachment to begin.
She doesn't seriously think she can carry on this for another 6-8 months without forcing her members to vote, does she? Especially with Schiff head leading the show?
1
Bret Stephens seems to monopolize the conversation. Is he afraid of hearing from Gail or just running interference for his party?
But he doesn't think that impeachment is warranted nor a good idea.
Right.... as in hard right.
1
Bret is a thoughtful conservative so I appreciate his perspective but here again he gets it wrong.
Maybe the fringe left wants to impeach Trump but the rest of America does not WANT to impeach.
But as Nancy Pelosi said, Trump has impeached himself.
Beyond being corrupt, ignorant, incompetent and erratic, he just fails to learn.
Any fair reading of the Mueller report would drive a rational and objective reader to conclude that Trump and his administration were corrupt and unethical. Though the investigation was cut short by the corrupt William Barr, Mueller found clear evidence of impeachable offenses despite Whitehouse stonewalling.
While Congress had a duty to exercise oversight and complete the investigation, Pelosi would have let Trump off had he kept his nose clean.
But that was not the case. He mounted a campaign to have foreign nations influence the 2020 election as well. His efforts to get sanctions removed from Russia is bizarre - he is obsessed with it and eventually we will find out the reason.
There was no choice but to impeach. Far from weakening impeachment as Bret asserts, this strengthens the rule of law. Without that, Trump would be above the law. We would become a nation in which the wealthy and powerful operate with impunity. While that is already true to an extent this strikes back at that notion.
There was no choice. Trump is the most corrupt politician in U.S. History. How can you not impeach?
2
Sorry but I have not respect for Mr Stephens. I mean I didn't have any before but to say he needs more is ridiculous. Trump has the government looking for ways to remove Russia's sanctions for their meddling in our elections, a long important goal for putin. And Bret and Pompeo are claiming is a political bullying? And Bret has no problem with that phone call? I wonder what would he say if Obama would had done anything improper to help Hillary.
Impeachment is a political, not criminal trial, Mr Stephens, and I am confident that most Americans know that, just as I am confident that most Americans don’t like being suckered.
Do you imagine that the drip of investigation into Trump will be anything but a sludge waterfall of misdeeds?
The bill will come due.
Dem/Libs have a real problem and the rest of us will have fun watching! If the articles of imp. are too broad and reach back to obstruction, GOP will get to examine Comey/Brennen/McCabe, etc. and they would have to take the fifth. If the articles focus only on Ukraine call:
Trump had the right and duty, stemming from the Constitution and Treaty, to inquire about possible corruption by a former U.S. official.
Beyond that, a quick look at 52 USC 30121 raises many substantive questions:
1. Was there intent to solicit a thing of value or was the President just carrying out his duties?
2. Is a request, for a Head of State to "look into" allegations, a solicitation for something "of value" when such a request obviously contemplates a possible exoneration just as much as an indictment? Would an "exoneration result" have been something of value in an election?
3. What does "in connection with" an election mean? If the phone call occurred one day before Biden announced his candidacy, or one week before, would the request have been "in connection" with an election?
4. What does "election" mean? Does the statute only come into play after nominations and formal campaigns start? If not, are all 15 Dems covered so any with foreign dealings are protected from investigation by a siting President?
Let the circus/carnival begin!
@SonomaEastSide
Give me a break! The whole purpose of the call was to dig up dirt on an opponent, not to "carry out his duties." Doesn't he have any actual work to do? Besides, I think he wants his reality show to have a few impeachment episodes.
1
Voters in 2016 knew who Trump is, and voted for exactly that. To then impeach him for exactly that, is to deny their vote.
Voters didn't know that Nixon is a crook, or that Clinton is a perjurer. But they knew full well that Trump is a norm-breaker. To then impeach him for being a norm-breaker, feels like fundamental disrespect to the voters. Especially since they're about to get their say directly.
@Ilya Shlyakhter
If you are talking about "the voters" they voted for Hillary!
1
Opinion writers keep bringing up the risks of impeachment. What about the risk of doing nothing about the flagrant lawlessness of a rogue President? Standing up to Trump is imperative. Abuse of power may not have a criminal statute attached but, to me, but it is clearly a high crime. Trump challenges laws he does not like by breaking them, daring someone or some institution to stop him. Each time he gets away with it he is further emboldened to commit more outrages and lawbreaking. Courts have stopped some of his flagrancies. Now the House is opening inquiries to possibly expose more. Good for them.
I believe Bret has it wrong, impeachment is a political process not a criminal one.
When working, one of the signs I had in my office read" never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers".Crass and judgemental but highly applicable here. The most likely outcome of the Impeachment process is that the Senate trial will end in an acquittal, allowing the Excuse for a President to run with the "no collusion, no obstruction, no Impeachment". It doesn't matter much that the "no obstruction" claim is manifestly false. Similarly with the "not guilty" verdict in the Senate. Public opinion is notoriously fickle since it is informed by soundbites and is typically devoid of any "processing". To win in 2020 Democrats need to move the needle and hold it. Outrage at "UnAmerican" or "Unpresidential" behavior will not do it.
"We need to show the world our elected officials can rise to the constitutional occasion. Impeach the sucker."
Amen! Assuming the facts are as we understand them from the media.
But it's not only the world we need to show, but ourselves, that we can run our country in an honest and decent manner and back up our own agencies and allies. It's a matter of deciding and showing who we are as a country.
Impeaching Trump will be far worse for the Republican Party, I would love to be the fly on the wall when Pence or McConnell try to talk Trump into taking the 25th amendment in order to save himself and the party, this is going to get nasty.
1
To Bret's point about focusing on the Ukraine phone call, the House should look at everything. We have a self-serving, off-the-rails President using his "Justice" Dept. to re-litigate the Mueller Investigation, sending William Barr around the world to investigate our own intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
Trump is becoming more unhinged by the day, so let's open the entire seamy can of worms so everyone can see who Donald Trump really is.
Somebody please help me with this one: What in the world is Rudy Giuliani, a private citizen with no government portfolio, doing conducting foreign policy on behalf of the president, in lieu of our duly constituted State Department? Surely this is not only a rogue action, but also a criminal action, right? What am I missing?
280
@Tom
What happened to Republicans?
The answer is Trump’s 2017-18 rallies, where he made it clear he had an army of vicious followers who destroy the careers of any Republicans who opposed him.
Trump has a long history of intimidation, bullying and blackmail.
Trump made it clear; Republicans who do not get with the program are buried.
Many Republicans in Congress would love to see Trump fall, but none have the courage to oppose him publicly.
Fear is a powerful drug.
24
@Tom - you're missing nothing, and that provides the initial criminal element for the impeachment standard that Bret is searching for...
20
@Tom
You ask, "What am I missing?" The answer: not much.
18
Bret, I hope that the captive GOP members who were content to let the incumbent rant about "deep state" will remember this thing you said near the end:
"What distinguishes us from Egypt is that our institutions have been stronger than the people who occupy them. I wonder if that’s as true today as it was, oh, three years ago."
What you and I and the rest of the sensible call "institutions" is being repainted as elitist, as deep state. Why? Because they resist corruption from the current resident of the White House.
1
But is a "criminal statute" the bar for impeachment? I was under the impression that impeachment isn't strictly about legality. Any lawyers want to speak up on this?
Mr. Stevens,
I think you commentary is frankly terrifying and I think you should sincerely reexamine your logic here. You're sincerely telling me that Trump cannot be impeached for using the office of the presidency to call a foreign leader and hold up Congressionally approved aid to shakedown a vulnerable country for dirt on a political adversary because of a technicality? We're not even getting into the fact that his campaign had frequent contact with Russia to solicit dirt on Clinton and were receptive to Russian assistance, although no crimes were committed. This is NOT a censure level issue. We are heading into an election year and he has shown NO remorse, NO cognition of wrongdoing, or even a will to stop. The American people should elect a president and the President should not be soliciting foreign powers to help him get reelected by promising favors. This is the EXACT kind of thing the founders were envisioning by keeping the clause just open enough to be broadly applicable to other crimes. If John Adams had solicited British of French aid to defeat Jefferson, the other founders wouldn't be talking about technicalities! If that's your thought process that you claim lots of others share, then God help us and save us from ourselves as our Republic crumbles under the tyranny of Trump and whichever countries bribe or aid him next.
2
Bret,
All of your points are valid. And until recently, they were made eloquently by Nancy Pelosi. Now that the case for impeachment is stronger she has changed her mind. But there are clear risks.
Consider this: Trump seems to have entered an especially frantic, unstable state of mind. Don't you fear what he might do?
1
I haven't read all 500+ comments, but with respect to "high crimes and misdemeanors", during the 1787 constitutional convention, the drafters discussed and agreed that applying a purely legal standard for impeachment (i.e. - the President would have to break a law first) was insufficient. They realized that there are many ways a corrupt President could grievously harm the country without breaking an actual law. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was intended to give Congress the leeway to impeach on the basis of grossly inappropriate behavior, whether criminal or not. Whether impeachment is the correct response to today's specific situation is a different question. But the fact remains that the President does not have to break a law to be impeached.
5
Mr. Stephens: "My second point is that while I accept that the founders may have envisioned the possibility that a president could be impeached for noncriminal conduct, the language on impeachment is fairly specific: 'Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.' And I struggle to see exactly what criminal statute Trump violated with the call."
This is an example of a fairly common misunderstanding of the Framers' view of "high crimes and misdemeanors," a term long used in English common law by Parliament in removing government officials for *political* transgressions.
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #65: "A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."
Emphasis in original.
2
The average impeachment of a judge exceeds 500 days. One must conclude that this is Pelosi’s gamesmanship plan to put her finger on the scales during an election year. The House of Representatives lacking bipartisan support meddling and interfering in an election is wholly unwelcome.
The people will surely vote against any form of intimidation by the elites and media as they did in the last election cycle.
2
Guess who elected the present House and when? The American people after 2 years of Trump. The Democratic part of the House is doing what it was elected to do.
2
Don’t worry. You won’t have to wait.
1
If the House hadn't initiated the impeachment inquiry, Trump would have blithely continued to demand help from other foreign powers in securing a win in the 2020 election. He's afraid he can't win without Russia's internet warfare, as he did last time, and will do whatever he can, in the way he's always done things, which is like a mobster. We've already heard about his shakedown of Australia's PM. At least the inquiry will, I hope, show that we deserve to have our own elections AND stop Trump from demanding more favors.
1
Someone like a Bret Stephens must be really grateful they get to have a voice that is so widely public, even if it is so clearly a voice, IMHO, that is not able to see beyond it's own biased predilections. He puts on a show of doubting his leanings, but, clearly, that is to stay in so fortunate of a circumstance job wise.
1
@Restore Human Sanity
You are Exhibit A on the most pressing threat facing the Country, i.e. the condescending presumption that any view other than that held by Coastal Elite cliques, is "so fortunate of a circumstance job wise." Don't you recognize the danger of the censorship to which you refer or which you wish had occurred?
Brett has it all wrong: the whole point of impeachment is that it is a POLITICAL tool for addressing wrongdoing. The founders purposefully make it clear that committing a crime is not the criterion for impeachment (see phrase “and misdemeanors”).
When Brett says there is little chance of the Senate going along with impeachment, he pretends these bodies operate in vacuums that do not exist. Moreover, this argument ignores the role of major conservative columnists in moving opinion. By doubling down on the White House talking point that the Senate would never remove Trump, Brett actually participates in an attempt to cement this cynical view into reality. Journalists don’t operate in vacuums either.
4
If I were allotted enough characters I would respond to a number of Mr. Stephens questionable assertions, but I think I can help him to understand why impeachment (and conviction) is necessary: The Founders meant for impeachment to be invoked when a President does overtly criminal acts, AND when no specific crimes have been committed, but the President's behavior places the country at risk, or brings shame and disgrace to the office and/or the nation. These last may not rise to the level of "crimes", but were sufficient reason for the Founders to provide for them as means to hold a President accountable.
Taking all of Trump's outrageous actions and words together, including the almost certain violation of the emoluments clause, and perhaps being the subject of extortion by foreign parties, they could surpass the threshold of "High crimes and misdemeanors", even if no underlying crime by Trump can be proven. In short, the Founders did not want an embarrassment and risk to sit as President.
But Brett, if you were for impeachment before, what have you learned that changed the reason for that? As far as I know, Trump was not cleared of doing those payoffs, so presumably that reason should still stand for you. Not to mention the all-but-indicted conclusions from the Mueller Report that might well be proven if and when we ever get past his obstruction and see the evidence and witnesses he's blocked.
A President should be serving the law, not breaking it.
4
Leaving aside that the impeachment inquiry was probably unavoidable lest the Democrats be accused of not standing for the Constitution and lest Trump be emboldened to do even worse I don’t think that it will change the minds of the Never Trump Again and Trump Forever populations.
So the question is, should it not lead an impeachment vote or should it sink in the Senate, how will this all resonate with the few (?) undecided voters out there, and what will it do to get out the vote in the populations that won’t change their mind?
Somehow I don’t think it will push undecided voters in the direction of Trump, and I don’t think it will energize the Trump Forever camp more than the Never Trump Again camp, which brings us to the beginning, it had to be done just because it’s the right to do, and political calculations be famed (because likely irrelevant in any case).
And on the off chance Trump is impeached and leaves office... so long Donald, it was awful knowing you!
4
What I particularly enjoyed about this entertaining banter is that the best argument for impeachment came from Mr. Stephens when he said, "What distinguishes us from Egypt is that our institutions have been stronger than the people who occupy them."
Of course, Ms. Collins scored the friendly conclusive knock out with Bret's own words (and he seemed to acknowledge as much).
He was open to others' ideas and apparently that included a fresh interpretation of his own. From your French (Touché! ) to my Italian (Bravo!)
4
Trump did break the law.
Soliciting something of value, ie money or information, from a foreign power in order to influence an election . .
I don't know the law, but read Dana Milbank's Washington Post column from last week . . . .
And please, address this in next week's conversation with Gail, because Trump did break the law here.
4
Never interfere when your enemy is in the process of destroying themselves. If the Democrats go on record for impeachment they lose seats in Republican districts. If they don't go on the record for impeachment Trump easily gets re-elected.
1
@Peter
What's that?
Democrats hold seats in repubilcan districts?
Now that's a laugh!
1
When I read comments like this it makes me cringe to see how some people are so unconcerned with our democracy and the role of our Constitution - our Rule of Law. They see all of this a some zero-some political game, not something serious.
It is the responsibility of our Congress, I would say one of its most serious responsibilities, to keep a check on the power of the Executive. There were good reasons for it at our founding and those reasons remain to this day. There will always be unprinicipled, greedy, and corrupt individuals who seek and gain power. But a nation that is founded on the basic precept that it is a nation of Law, has a better chance of surviving, if its components provide checks on the powers of the others.
So Congress has the power to investigate those holding public office and impeach if it finds evidence of self-dealing, using the power of office and its influence for personal, political or financial benefit. That is just one of the impeachable offenses, but it covers a lot of the venal behaviors to which corrupt indivduals are prone.
It is not about Democrats or Republicans, it is about our Congress defending our nation from the corrupt and unprincipled. It is about defending the Rule of Law.
If they do not investigate these acts of the president, they are not upholding their responsibility to the people of this country nor their obligation to defend or protect our Constitution.
The question unanswered, . . . Are GOP elected officials and candidates saying it’s acceptable and legal to engage foreign intelligence to investigate them and their families at anytime in the near and distant futures?
7
@TheHowWhy
I'm afraid so.
Of course they are. It's what they do.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors cover abuse of power for which it is impossible to write criminal statutes since the power is so pervasive.
Constantly defaulting to the excuse of "show me evidence of breaking a specific law" is nothing other than a desperate attempt to look the other way.
3
There is a basic divide it seems, between those who feel the President can direct the DOJ and any government entity to do anything he wants them to do, eliminate any personnel he deems "not loyal enough," and use his office for personal reasons, including personal financial profit - - - and those who believe that this goes beyond his executive duties, and is both unconscionable, and prohibited.
By his standards George Washington was a halfwit, because he actually served in the Army, instead of selling them supplies, and failed to cash in on all the opportunities available to someone who was definitely polling 99% at the time he left office.
2
Trump is a sociopath who’s goal is to establish a dynasty. No one should even speculate whether he will accept the results of the 2020 election if he loses. He won’t. He made that clear a long time ago when he was the only candidate to refuse to accept the results of the Republican primary elections in 2016 unless he won. He did so openly, on television, in front of the whole world.
The Republicans also want a Republican dynasty in the White House. They feel entitled to it. The country is theirs. Everyone else is just visiting. Whether that Republican dynasty bears the name of Trump or Mickey Mouse, they don’t care.
These are the facts. The logical conclusion of these facts is that a) they will never impeach Trump, and b) they will turn the 2020 election into a sham. They will fabricate a victory for Trump out of thin air for the simple reason that it is easier to obfuscate a win than it is to de-legitimize a loss and create a real constitutional crisis when Trump has to be dragged out of the White House by US law enforcement.
We are witnessing in real time the end of our grand experiment. I fear for my children and grandchildren.
4
Your main point, Bret, is "impeachment [could] wind up helping Trump." In other words, you are suggesting that it is in the interest of those who badly want to see Mr. Trump out of office to wait for the 2020 election to express their views on his performance in the White House through the ballot box. But, please take a second to reflect on your own words:
"What distinguishes us from Egypt is that our institutions have been stronger than the people who occupy them. I wonder if that’s as true today as it was, oh, three years ago."
What you are implying here, Bret, is that Mr. Trump has been trying, with some success, to pull the US government away from much of the principles and norms it has been operating on for the last two centuries. So, the question is why don't you consider the possibility that in his remaining time in the office - which could include a second term - he could go even further, damaging the US government's institutions to the point of no-return?
Or, even worse, with no grown-ups left in the White House, in his remaining time he could do something truly stupid, like nuking North Korea or Iran. If you are categorically dismissing that possibility, I am afraid, you have little appreciation how the brain of a megalomaniac narcissist works!
8
I was in favor of waiting a few months and voting him out until the shenanigans with the aid to the Ukraine being held up. Mr Stephens if that is not bribery, and requesting investigation of alleged criminal deeds of Mr Biden and son by a foreign government instead of our FBI, treason, I would like an explanation of why not. That covers two of your three specific requirements. Impeach, resign, pardon, lose next election. Sound familiar?
Bret Stephens is so short-sighted it’s mind-numbing. Last week it’s let the people decide Trump’s fate in an election (the same election we won’t be able to trust if Trump is successful in his influence via multiple foreign actors), and this week it’s that paying campaign finance money to a porn star is an impeachable offense but withholding payments to a foreign country unless political favors can be secured for his re-election campaign is not. These favors amount to framing an opposing political candidate. How can you really think these things, Bret? Do better, please.
3
The space a newspaper dedicates to a story communicates to readers what the editors think about its importance. The Ukraine story is up there with the most important stories of our time. But next to no one who is politically savvy is predicting that Ukrainegate will bring Trump down.
@michjas
We have been patiently waiting for Democrats to finish investigations, to be finished making up lists of offenses, to finish getting all their i's dotted and t's crossed.
This Ukraine phone call was a shakedown. That's why the whistleblower blew the whistle. Even Bill Kristol, Uber Conservative, said as much. Let's not be ridiculous, this is a stunning example of corruption. We're done waiting for the carefully detailed laundry list of offenses to be published.
We're also tired of listening to Rudy malign Joe Biden, and make up endless conspiracy theories that he spews like an insane, unhinged, lunatic.
Finally, we know the Senate won't have the gonads to impeach. But, this is no longer about politics for many of us, this is about the reputation of United States.
We are tired of this corrupt and morally (as well as literally) bankrupt individual riding roughshod over this country.
We are taking a stand, and the Times is doing its part.
You may not think this is important....that says a lot about you.
1
Bret! President Trump should be impeached for abusing the power of his office for personal gain. Is this not obvious?!
3
Brett. You’ve set the bar way too low.
The call was not only extortionary on its face, but it was of a piece with traitorous behaviors serving the interests of Putin’s Russia for over three years now. Do you not detect a pattern of behavior that should instantly disqualify this president from holding the office? Is it your job to posit the opposite side to any and all questions no matter what? Oh. Maybe it is. Never mind.
5
Just because the Republican base can't or refuses to understand WHY Trump should be removed from office is no reason to not impeach this amoral criminal, Bret.
3
I don't understand why people aren't talking about the specific criminal law Trump violated. Section 30121 of title 52 of the US Code specifically prohibits exactly the conduct Trump, and his personal attorney, have now admitted to having committed. He (Trump) solicited a thing of value (opposition research) from a foreign national (the president of Ukraine) in connection with a US election (the 2020 US presidential election). I'm a criminal defense attorney and can think of a few creative arguments that might walk Trump in a criminal trial, where the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. But on the face of things, most prosecutors would be chomping at the bit to get a case like this in front of a jury. And that's even assuming that Trump wasn't connecting military aid to his request for assistance--if he was doing that, you're looking at possible charges of bribery. Not to mention conspiracy, given the explicit agreement he, Guiliani, and Barr all had to engage in this blatantly illegal behavior.
Why isn't this analysis a part of every discussion of the Ukraine Affair? Why does everyone seem to assume that the offense Trump committed as merely political and not criminal? Am I living in an alternate reality?
4
Bret seems oddly focused on the criminality and immorality of an action as a justification for impeachment. As far as immorality goes, it's hard to beat locking kids in cages, but that one is actually of debatable legality. Stephens is right that the hush money to porn stars was probably the most clear cut illegal behavior. The reason the Ukraine scandal forms a much stronger basis for impeachment than either of those is that it undermines the integrity of the 2020 election, and thus the functioning of all the other mechanisms of government that could act as a check on Trump. That's exactly the sort of behavior that, even if it isn't illegal, constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor."
1
My second point is that while I accept that the founders may have envisioned the possibility that a president could be impeached for noncriminal conduct, the language on impeachment is fairly specific: “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” And I struggle to see exactly what criminal statute Trump violated with the call.
Pretty obvious to me: bribery. He was trying to bribe a foreign government by withholding appropriated funds and then asking for a "favor." The "language on impeachment" does not specify who has to be doing the bribing.
6
I'm with Bret and David Brooks. It's foolhardy for the Democrats to proceed down the impeachment path, knowing that Moscow Mitch is waiting at the end to schedule a quick trial and acquittal (maybe >50% in favor, but far less than 67%).
From then on, in the heat of a presidential campaign, Trump will, a la Mueller, whip his followers into a frenzy with "Democrats tried and failed twice to get rid of me with flimsy charges, and I beat them both times. Re-elect me and other Republicans to punish them for trying to overturn the 2016 Election."
His Democratic challenger will parrot the losing impeachment and Mueller arguments, but they will ring hollow vs. Trump's much simpler exoneration soundbites.
There hasn't been much comment on the Senate trial itself, which is totally in the hands of McConnell. While he agreed there had to be a trial he was quoted as saying "How long you're at it is a whole different matter". In other words, don't expect the trial to be conducted in an unbiased and impartial manner. All the rules are set by the majority, and any rulings from the Chief Justice can be overruled by the majority. Everything will be played for political advantage with the GOP in control. Not a pleasant prospect.
2
As the coach would have said to Trump: "You have one job to do. Do it." Of course any coach would have meant "be president and presidential." To Trump it would have meant "Find those people who criticize you and lock them up."
Another President, who succeeded Nixon said "Our long national nightmare is over." Who will be our Gerald Ford?
5
"If some of our readers (lawyers and judges especially) can make the case that Trump’s behavior would get him convicted in a court of law, I’m all ears."
Hmm. But I thought the president can't be indicted. "If the president does it, it's not illegal." So on Stephens' logic, there can never be grounds to impeach the president.
8
All of these comments overlook the fact that what is going on now is an *inquiry*. Various Republicans are running around with their hair fire exclaiming "Why don't they vote! Why don't they vote!" Slow down fellows. There will be something to vote on depending on what the hearings and investigations turn up. Seems pretty likely at this point that there will be articles of impeachment brought to the floor, but we're not there yet. Mr Trump needs to spin in the wind for a while ;-)
9
Correct me if I am wrong, but soliciting "a thing of value" from a foreign government to aid your campaign is, in fact, explicitly illegal.
Also, as has been noted below, the President's behavior need to violate a specific statute to be impeachable. The President's position is so unique that most laws are not written to address it, and of course he cannot go through the usual criminal justice channels. "Abuse of presidential power" is pretty clearly what the framers had in mind when they wrote about impeachment.
Also also, how is offering US military aid in exchange for "dirt" on an opponent not bribery?
12
With the Justice Dept. rule of not indicting a sitting President for criminal wrongdoings, then impeachment is the only avenue left to instill justice for the crime committed.
Let us not forget what the Mueller report said. There was obstruction of justice. While no conspiracy with Russia and the Trump campaign was proven, he also said lies and possible destroyed documents made the investigation incomplete.
Rudy will sing like a canary when he has to appear before the Intelligence committee. He is a lawyer and know the penalty for perjury.
Another positive to an impeachment is a recorded voter by the Senate. It will be an opportunity to get the Trump enablers on record.
3
Well, the range for addressing wrong-doing for a POTUS with impeachment runs from "misdemeanor" all the way to "high crimes". You don't get criminally charged for lying about your girlfriend, Bret, but as the GOP showed Clinton, you could get impeached for soiling the office. Which Trump has done/is doing as we speak.
Trump imagining that tax-payer funded legislation like military aid to another country should be channeled through his 2020 election whim-machine to is patently unconstitutional and even with moral inflation blows past the blue dress to Nixon-level "cancer on the presidency" territory. Now we find his dirt-shopping included Australia, Italy, and the UK.
4
In his comments about el-Sissi, Brett Stephens raises another good point as to why the world would be better off without Trump as president (not that we really need more).
Despots like el-Sissi perceive Trump as a kind of kindred spirit, an aspirational figure, a person who (like themselves) can be conveniently bought off with bribes and flattery. Trump provides them with motivation and the cover of legitimacy. "If the President of the United States can be an amoral, completely corrupt, law breaking bully, why can’t !? Let's form a club! We can all golf together by our gilded palaces while the world burns!"
It’s a very sad state of affairs when so many world leaders adopt the power mad dictator as a branding model. And it doesn’t bode well for the rest of our’s future.
3
Motivations -- remember when the GOP, over the issue of hate crimes, argued that motivations for crimes don't matter -- just punish them as crimes. Whatever happened to that logic? Oh, Trump, that's right. Now, suddenly, motivations matter. Right....
3
And back home some forbidden fruit?
In mimic of Trump engaged in an underhanded Art of the Deal, Republican Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy disingenuously replaces selling a pig in a poke by trying to sell a Brooklyn Bridge that isn’t there. This following President Trump publicly stating that he asked a foreign leader to do him a favor by looking into the activities of the son of an American citizen, Joe Biden, that is exercising his right to stand for public office.
Despite Trump’s public admission, McCarthy contended on 60 Minutes that what he does not know serves as proof positive that Trump did not do what Trump said he did and what available evidence also confirms that Trump did. To wit, McCarthy said:
“I've never seen one talking point from a White House. I'm talking to you based upon the most important facts we have. The whistleblower wasn't on the call. The IG, inspector general, didn't read the call. But you and I have all the information we need. The president did nothing in this phone call that's impeachable.”
Yup, what McCarthy knows for sure he doesn’t know at all. As Irish poet of note Samuel Beckett would have it understood: “Nothing is more real than mothering.” And for sure, such is all the good and good intentions of Trump, McCarthy and their like know nothings.
Two quotes from Mr. Stephens strike me: "...I don’t think most Americans want to see the impeachment tool used except in criminal misbehavior."
"Many Americans will wonder why a lawfully elected president should be removed from office for no violation of the law. They’ll say it was just a matter of Trump being Trump."
He is way off with both of these quotes. In my opinion, the Americans he refers to in those quotes are Trump supporters, far from "most" Americans. I can just about guarantee Mr. Stephens that nearly everyone else wants to see impeachment used to remove an unfit, erratic, unstable, narcissistic, lying (there's much more) president, not just one who has explicitly committed a crime.
7
It’s “High Crimes and Misdemeanors “ Bret, not just “High Crimes.” No specific crime, provable in a court is required for impeachment. Soliciting a foreign power (or two) for dirt on your political opponent certainly qualifies as an impeachable offense. And then there’s Obstruction of Justice, violation of the emoluments act, campaign finance violations, potential tax fraud. Compared to other presidents, this one should have been impeached 5 times by now. Get on the band-wagon and stick up for your country.
4
Bret Stephens seems to think this is all political when, in fact, it is existential. The House acts, not the Democrats. Elections do have consequences, for the nation and for the those elected. Trump's Ukraine grift does not appear in a vacuum; it follows on the heels of 3 years of Presidential misconduct of infinite varieties, and a Trump-lifetime of actual, documented fraud and lies. Stephens offers a nod to the possibility of new revelations , as if there is any doubt that there may be a cornucopia of similar unconstitutional behavior in the Trump closet. Trump's actions with the Ukrainian president are black-letter unconstitutional. He will be impeached, if he lives. The Senate will vote and the nation will pick up the pieces that are left to us. The GOP will answer for their silence and their culpability for the next 50 years, assuming the nation can survive the utter devastation wrought by this ignorant and malignant administration and its enablers.
1
Much as I love our country, I could never love it as much as I hate trump -- and, if that 'sounds' unpatriotic, 'consider' this: So much of my hatred of trump is for what he has done to our country.
Moreover … trump has done so very much and so very many 'things' to 'sully,' disgrace and jeopardize our country as to far surpass in substance and number the 'good' I could identify -- now and in our history -- as 'making' the country 'lovable.'
1
Trump did commit a crime because it is illegal to accept anything of value during an election campaign-having Zelensky find dirt on Biden would be a thing of value. Trump also committed extortion by telling Zelensky that he would only get his missiles if he gave Trump the dirt he was looking for. That's just the beginning, there will be more we find out, I'm sure.
1
"And that he’s building palaces all over Egypt so he can receive Trump in a “suitable” manner."
Saddam Hussein built a lot of palaces, too, and look how he ended up.
1
"Many Americans will wonder why a lawfully elected president should be removed from office for no violation of the law."
So morality, ethics and doing what is right have no place in the United States of America. One can lie with impunity, disrespect women, bully anyone who disagrees with you, denigrate the media etc. etc. ... because any of those activities may done without breaking the law.
Such is the mark of a failed state.
1
@Cass Phoenix
His base loves him for it. Which leads one to the terrible conclusion that Trump's 40% would act that way in a nanosecond if they had the means to do so.
1
"impeachment will lose much of its moral stigma... if it ends up coming down to a party-line vote." Trump can't be impeached. The purpose of this process is to 'impeach' the many GOP Senators who lost their moral scruples a long time ago, and force them to record their immorality before history and their constituents. Regarding today's Republicans, John Harrington (member of Queen Elizabeth I's court and inventor of the flush toilet) said it best in 1580: "Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
If the Democrats go on with impeachment they might as well withdraw from the general elections.
Trump is president of the United States because Trump embodies the white American character in all its clownish egotism, nationalistic pride, and sense of racial superiority. Trump is untouchable because white Americans, who control the Electoral College, identify with him and have made him their Prophet. Attack Trump, and white Americans feel you are attacking them. Attack Trump, and you lose by an electoral landslide.
If Americans want to have a president accountable to the American People they must switch to a popular democracy.
It is part of the Trump strategy. All he really wanted/needed was there to be an investigation initiated by Ukraine so Trump could constantly harp about “Dirty Joe” throughout the entire campaign. He didn’t even need - or expect - any proof of wrongdoing, anymore than her expected someone to find Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate. For Trump its all about having a sound bite for his Fox watchers to parrot like dittoheads.
3
The entire Trump presidency, from day one, has put the excitement back into two majors, American Civics and Political Science, with minors in Propaganda and History. Over one hundred million Americans have signed up for these studies and they attend classes daily. This semester we will impeach Trump and, via the education process, we will renew our stake in who we are as a country.
Bret I have to agree with Gail on this one. We can't allow Trump and his consigliere Giuliani to use $400M to shake down the Ukrainian president in an attempt to interfere/pervert the 2020 election. The Dems have no alternative but to proceed with their impeachment inquiry.
396
@paulm and that's $400M you and I paid for out of our taxes.
35
@paulm Isn't that bribery? Using his power to withhold appropriated aid and then asking for a "favor"?
39
@paulm You sure seem eager to give Ukraine $400,000,000 of our taxpayer money.
Do you have any idea what they're going to do with that $400,000,000?
That's right, they're going to buy missiles and ammo to shoot at the Russians.
Who's national security was Trump interfering with?
Seems like he's the only one asking the right question, which is who's National Security are we more interested in protecting? Ours or Democrats?
1
The President will probably serve out his term because the Senate is unlikely remove him. The House could still make its case, but its audience will be the electorate.
An overly legalistic or ethical approach to the impeachment process won't work because the President has a unique role with a freedom to act outside the strict confines of domestic law and conventional morality. He can legally order the military to kill people or shoot nuclear missiles at an adversary, for example. And while one could disagree with the specifics or the ethical reasons of a presidential decision, it is hard to dispute that he can do things the rest of us cannot.
@George Are you trying to argue that because he's president, he can't break the law? Because that's the argument Richard "If the president does it, it's not illegal" Nixon made - erroneously, as it turned out.
2
Mr. Stephens, I think there is good evidence that the founders envisioned "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" to cover broad abuses of the public trust. This term of art, borrowed from the English, was introduced during the constitutional debates by George Mason, who worried that treason and bribery wouldn't "reach many and great offenses." The language he eventually moved to cover broader offenses was "high crimes and misdemeanors against the state."
What does this term mean? Alexander Hamilton explained it in Federalist 65, which was dedicated to the question of impeachment trials in the Senate. In speaking of the court of impeachment, he wrote that the "subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."
The idea that impeachment should address the abuse or violation of public trust was echoed by James Iredell at the North Carolina convention. This future Justice of the Supreme Court argued that if the President “be a villain, and wilfully abuses his trust, he is to be held up as a public offender, and ignominiously punished.”
The founders very clearly envisioned someone like Donald Trump, who has abused the public trust and thus caused injury to society itself.
4
Bret's ability to downplay the abuses of office while underscoring the bureaucratic hurdles, all while omitting the damning effect of putting Trumps abuses on display for the public is disgraceful.
5
Is Trump not obstructing justice in his attempts to cover up his contacts with foreign governments for his own political gain?
3
I suspect Trump is the moral and patriotic antithesis of everything the founders envisioned an American president being. I know he has none of the qualities I was taught a president should have, and he possesses just about every bad trait one should not. While I have disagreed with some presidents and actively opposed the policies of one or two, until Trump I have never doubted the loyalty of a president or feared for my country because of his intentions. Donald Trump must go, and the sooner the better.
2
Mr. Stephen's finds it necessary to describe President Trump as our "legally elected" president. A strange choice of words. I don't think that his being legally -- or illegally-- elected should have any bearing on impeachment. It certainly didn't for Nixon or Clinton.
6
We need to remember that the transcript of the phone call would have never have seen the light of day were it not for the announcement of an impeachment inquiry..
4
"I fear impeachment will lose much of its moral stigma and political force if it ends up coming down to a party-line vote. "
But, a party-line vote is a moral-line vote, and it has been for decades. When was the last time the GOP voted on the right side of morality? Furthermore -- and ironically -- moral stigma is muddled when pundits equivocate about morality, making it a political calculation rather than a clear right and wrong stance. The press needs to take a stand. Less of this hedging which enables a spin that lets immoral, unlawful behavior off the hook.
7
More amusing than useful, this chat thing. The train has left the station, Bret and Gail. It's happening. The long-term results are beside the point...a responsibility is finally being met. Step One.
Check.
4
Bret seriously understates Trump's actions as 'hunting for dirt.' What Trump is actually doing is asking Zelenskyy to *fabricate evidence*.
Read the transcript: Trump says "There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that 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."
This is clearly a reference to Trump's belief that Joe Biden was trying to squelch an investigation, when in reality he was representing the EU and US in pushing for the removal of a do-nothing prosecutor.
But Zelenskyy replies: "Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament, the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September....On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation."
There's no way to read this as Zelenskyy promising to reopen a fair investigation. This is Zelenskyy promising to appoint a prosecutor who will do as he's told and incorporate any wild charges that Trump feeds him into new charges against the Bidens.
And who does Trump say will provide this new "evidence?" "I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it."
7
Bret: You said:
"My second point is that while I accept that the founders may have envisioned the possibility that a president could be impeached for noncriminal conduct, the language on impeachment is fairly specific: “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” And I struggle to see exactly what criminal statute Trump violated with the call"
Trump was withholding military aid from the Ukraine that had been approved by Congress. He was lying about why he was doing it, saying it was inter-agency problems when the agencies themselves knew nothing about why the holdup was happening. Trump said that the Ukraine had done little for the U.S and that he needed a favor which turned out to be to talk to Gulianni about investigating Biden.
If that is not a form of bribery/extortion then I do not know what is
6
"They’ll ask why Nancy Pelosi didn’t wait for a transcript of the phone call or testimony from key officials before beginning the impeachment process." Come on, Bret. The White House has been stonewalling everything, to the extent of telling the Director of National Intelligence to ignore the law and withhold his report from Congress. "Waiting for a transcript" would be waiting for Godot. And how do you get testimony from key officials anyway? — you subpoena them to testify before Congress. That's what an "impeachment investigation" *is*. The House hasn't voted to impeach, it is investigating. Do you think it shouldn't investigate? Your position makes no sense.
6
Mr. Stephens wonder what laws Trump has broken. Two, immediately come to mind, one 52 U.S. Code § 30121 prohibition against anyone soliciting foreign contributions of anything of value for a US election, the other the bribery law 18 U.S. Code § 201 prohibition against an officeholder soliciting anything of value to influence any official act.
6
No criminal activity? Did Bret go to law school while no one was looking? No, I didn’t think so.
4
"Sitting back and letting all this slide," as Gail suggests, would constitute a gross congressional dereliction of duty, especially in light of the long string of despicable and lawless presidential acts since before the 2017 inauguration.
Saying the history of malfeasance "is just a matter of Trump being Trump," is to say that Trump being Trump is perfectly acceptable. Not only is such behavior totally unacceptable, it is renting the fabric of our country before our eyes.
At this moment, the House of Representatives is the only check against growing national degradation at the nation's disposal. There is no other option. Trump has repeatedly broken laws and violated constitutional norms. Censure does not rise to the standard of presidential depredation.
6
The light shed by the Collins-Stephens dialogues is surely one of the most scintillating features within this newspaper. My only wish is that the 'Times', with its scrupulous respect for the truth, would not falsely assert that C and S converse "every two weeks". Recently it's been more like every four weeks IF WE'RE LUCKY.
Mr. Stephens seems to parse Indictable offenses from common law criminal offenses, and that impeaching him without including criminal offenses would help Trump win re-election. Seriously? From violating the Emoluments Clause from day one, to refusing to divest himself of his holdings, to paying off some tarts, to revealing top secret information to his Russian buddies... and I could go on and on, but would run out of space, do you really think that the voting public is going pounce on such legal niceties and give The Donald a second term out of indignation? The corruption of this man and his family, the sleaze he immerses himself in almost daily, the bragging, pomposity, and egomania, to say nothing of his relentless attacks on anyone who is not an unquestioning supporter, and we have not a man, but a menace, begging to be thrown out of office. The Senate, due to spineless GOP Senators, well may not vote to remove Trump from office, but his record speaks for itself, and the public will not be fooled twice. The 2018 elections showed what the American voting public thought of him, and his name was nowhere on the ballot! This time he is front and center, and America will correct the worst electoral mistake in its history.
5
Bret's argument that Trump didn't break the law falls into the same trap that derailed the Mueller investigation. Mueller equated 'can't indict' with 'can't do much of anything else' when the Founders made impeachment not about criminality per se. They deliberately cast a wider net with the concept of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' -- phrasing that broadens the territory beyond the strict confines of legal definitions. Betraying your country [treason] and/or betraying your Presidential vows [high misdeeds] is in a distinctly different category than a narrow reading of criminality. The President of the United States is -- and should -- be held to a higher standard than the average bank robber. Nixon liked to say that he 'was not a crook' -- but this defense [not even true in his case] -- fails to comprehend the magnitude of a POTUS goine rogue. Congress needs to impeach.
3
Brett, what law did Trump violate with the phone call? You suggest there is no law.
See 52 U.S. Code § 30121 (a1A).
This ain’t rocket science.
2
I’d like to remind the “honorable” Lindsey Graham, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, of a few of his choice comments about Donald Trump:
Graham in May 2016: "If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed ... and we will deserve it."
Graham in February 2016: "Donald Trump is not a conservative Republican. He's an opportunist. He's not fit to be President of the United States."
Lindsey Graham in August 2015: "Trump has no idea what the world is actually like and is not qualified to be Commander In Chief."
7
It's all about the treason. Whether it's US intelligence services, law enforcement, the NRA, Mideast policy, Eastern Europe, Ukraine, China, North Korea, sanctions, or our stance toward anywhere else in the world, Trump is all in on advancing the geopolitical, economic and imperial interests of Russia. Follow the money.
3
Bret how can you not see withholding $394 million in Aid unless "you do me a favor" and dig up dirt on Biden as not qualifying for bribery. Trump is going down and the nation will be better for it.
5
Trumps actions were deplorable, but given the political environment, I think "censure" is the appropriate remedy. Even some Republicans might go along.
Regarding Pelosi not waiting for a transcript before beginning the impeachment investigation: the White House was stonewalling and would never have produced it without the impeachment process already in place. It was a chicken-and-egg problem. And what Trump had already said publicly at that point, along with the unexplained hold on military assistance, was more than sufficient to justify starting an investigation.
1
I'd like to know why moderate Republicans like Bret Stephens and David Brooks who so often moralize about political events, especially when it comes to the actions of the left, and appeal to a sense of ethics and philosophy to round out their critiques... yet when it comes to Trump, morality and ethics depart? For Brett and David, now only realism and practicality will do. After years of complaining that Democrats should behave in accordance with some higher standard, in effect implying we don't have ethics or morality, they're confronted with Trump's depravity and they suddenly shrink from standing up for what's right. What gives?
13
If I may rebut, point-by-point:
1. I'm surprised you only go as far as "disgraceful" and "reckless" on this. It's corruption at the very least.
2. Impeachment doesn't require criminal activity. Still, the crimes alleged by the whistleblower are clear: campaign finance fraud, obstruction of justice, misuse of classified computer systems, etc. So not only does he not have to commit a crime—he has!
3. Why is it that Democrats are so sure they cannot win over the public even though unprecedented numbers of citizens support impeachment. Only 19% of Americans supported Nixon's impeachment at first; we now may have as much as 55% in support. That indicates that support for impeachment is substantial.
4. It's kind of like arguing that you can't prosecute a dinner guest for theft because you invited him into your house to begin with. I don't understand why the fact that he was elected matters at all. *All* impeachments are against duly elected or appointed people. That's why they're impeachments.
5. It seems like you're asking people to persuade you, which indicates you've already been persuaded.
5
Every time I read that the US president is lawfully elected through a system that nullifies the majority of votes cast, I believe the US is the most stupidly dishonest nation on Earth.
13
Stephens insults both Chris Farley and Slim Pickens.
1
Andrew Johnson was impeached, and very nearly convicted, for committing the “high crime” of violating the Tenure Of Office Act. Plus, basically being a jerk, a condition Trump shares in spades.
2
"I fear impeachment will lose much of its moral stigma and political force if it ends up coming down to a party-line vote."
Bret, dontcha think that ship sailed with Bill Clinton's impeachment?
Trump is trying to rig the election using foreign influence. This goes way beyond censure.
7
Where is Bret is getting his information? Doesn't the Constitution explicitly address using public resources for public gain? Doesn't it use that as an example of "high crimes and misdemeanors?" Doesn't Ukraine include violations of the whistle blower act, and a conspiracy to violate that act?
1
Warren Buffet says you should invest in companies that can be run by idiots, because someday they will. The genius of the United States and the people who designed and nurtured it is that Buffet’s observation applies, and this is true whether there is impeachment or not (and conviction or not).
1
@Jim
Unfortunately, tis analogy doesn't apply here. The ship that is the USA is foundering, listing badly to one side, the rotten boards finally leaking water into the hold.
Ship of fools going down.
While I find it incredible that so many supposedly "learned" people cannot read context or meaning into the English language, Mr. Stephens does just that. The Founders did use the words "high crimes and misdemeanors", but that can very easily be interpreted (and should be) not as criminal acts per se but as high crimes against our political institution. The Founders never (emphasis here, please!) intended the Constitution to be a list of laws or about crime; it is a document laying out proper political structure for the country.
Secondly, Mr. Stephens obviously is not a polished debater. Even someone as 'normal' as myself sees a huge hole in his argument - he states that he's against impeachment on the Ukraine debacle alone and, "unless there’s some new damning disclosure", he can't support impeachment. And yet, his very first comment in the article states that he believed Trump committed impeachable offenses with the Stormy Daniels disaster! So this offense should be the last straw, Mr. Stephens...if we can take you at your word, that is, and not see the hypocrisy and flip-flopping you seem to have in your conservative genes as well as every GOPer.
4
So let me get this straight: Bret was more concerned about illegal payoff to a porn star than mob-handling a nation to find dirt on his opponent? The latter you're ok with, I have that correct, yeah?
8
Chris Farley as understudy to Slim Pickens in “Dr. Strangelove” as metaphor for Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani as his SecState! Great Scott! Bret is really onto something here, if only for the over-60s crowd. Don’t kill these two buffoons with impeachment, kill them with laughter!
1
we are in "who hid the strawberries" territory.
Remove the poseur in the White House before he starts a war as distraction for his criminal activities.
4
Can we get buttons and bumper stickers that say, "Impeach the Sucker!"?
2
So Bret thinks paying off a porn Star is impeachable but extorting help from a foreigner to win an election isn’t? Just silly.
9
Isn’t it against campaign finance law to solicit a thing of value to one’s political campaign from a foreign government? How is it possible that paying off porn stars is a violation, but Trump’s call with Zelenskyy on July 25 is not?
3
Winning by accepting the aid of Putin and hiding an affair with hush payments to a porn star? There ain't no wall that can distinguish this fiasco of a democracy and this "duly elected" president from those el sur de frontera.
May a golden banana be attached to our presidential seal.
2
Oh come on, Bret. Impeachment lost all of its "moral stigma and political force" when Republicans impeached Clinton for lying about a consensual affair. Honestly, that was as partisan a hit job as I've seen in my lifetime.
This is wholly different. And while I agree with you that there were reasons long before this one to impeach Trump, this one is looking pretty good.
My bet and my hope is that when the truth comes out, which only an impeachment inquiry can do what with the stone-walling this White House does, public opinion will turn, and the Republican Senators will turn with it, and there you have it: Bye bye Trump.
5
Looks like Bret doesn’t understand the nature of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” No citation to a criminal statute is required; merely the failure to uphold the oath of office is more than enough to qualify.
6
Bret, as you've already pointed out, Trump has committed several impeachable offenses already. I think this latest offense is just simpler for people to understand and easier to sell politically. I full expect the impeachment inquiry to pile on every single one of Trump's crimes as evidence that he is unfit for office, but to use this particular offense to gather political support.
As for worries about impeachment helping Trump ... no way. Democrats need to make it clear they're able to stand up for what's right. That's what will drum up support; not messing around with political games and playing it 'safe'. Americans want to see some concrete opposition to Trump and some accountability brought to his lawless administration.
3
Brett - Trump’s actions with Ukraine could have real political consequences in the US. He is asking Ukraine to fabricate a scandal involving the likely Democratic nominee while using the power of the office to apply pressure. How could that merit only a censure when the legitimacy of our elections is at stake? The House would be neglecting their own oath and duty if they did not pursue impeachment. Damn the politics.
4
Bill, I agree that it is a fantasy that voters will rise up, leading to bold ideas and responsible leadership, however, this thing needs to be done. At the very least, it is a "cards on the table process," that should thoroughly document the evidence for the future; is it abuse of office, or is it acceptable? Americans want to know. The end result may be a censure, like Clinton, but does that mean the investigation is ill-advised?
1
The idea that an impeachable offense must also be a crime doesn’t withstand scrutiny. If a President decided to unilaterally disarm, there’s nothing criminal about that, and it’s in fact squarely within the President’s powers as Commander-In-Chief. But I imagine there’d be bipartisan support for impeachment before he or she could carry out that plan.
Bret, it's clear that you're not clear on the meanings of impeachment, and what "high crimes and misdemeanors" is referring to. This is only tool the House and the Senate are given to remove an unfit individual from office that presents not indictable criminal offenses, but presents an ongoing bribery, corruption, security risk, breaking the oath of office, flaunting the rule of law willfully, and misuse of government power and money. Trump just happens to fit all categories perfectly, including criminal. Not impeaching will give a green light to future Presidents to act in the same manner with impunity. He has to go.
6
if Bret Stephens was on the impeachment wagon for Stormy Daniels payoff, then he accepts that the impeachment standard was already met even if Trump is now being investigated on a different charge - do prosecutors care which charge they get their guy ? Al Capone, anyone?
1
bret seems to be a bit confused on the difference between what he wants to all a "court of law" and your average person and the president and working with foreign powers, problems with emoluments, etc.
2
I was totally against impeachment as I felt the Democrats should be the party of doing positive things, not just reacting against Trump's perfidy. But now there is no choice but to impeach, even though he will never be removed from the office by the republicans. He has really gone beyond by trying to bribe a foreign power to dig up dirt on a political rival. And then to follow up with attempting to accuse the whistleblower and Adam Schiff of treason. No choice.
-.
8
Just for clarity (of which there is precious little in the ongoing news cycles), Trump is not being impeached at the moment.
What has happened is that sufficient evidence has come to light that warrants an investigation that may, or may not, lead to impeachment.
So impeachment is not going forward on the basis of loosely-sourced hearsay evidence.
An investigation has been initiated based on credible evidence that impeachable offenses may have been committed.
If the investigation finds solid evidence of impeachable offenses (and it does seem that more supporting evidence is appearing daily, but that may be an illusion) then impeach away.
But right now we seem to be getting an argument along the lines of "We found a dead guy and someone with a bloody knife in their hand standing over the body, but we haven't found eyewitnesses yet or looked at the security tape from the camera in the room, so we should not be investigating". I think that is a flawed viewpoint.
6
Bret speculates, "They’ll wonder how that process will do to help them in their life." Speaking strictly for me, waking up every morning with renewed pride in my country rather than a sick feeling in my stomach would really improve my life.
15
Mr. Stephens (disingenuously) says "I struggle to see exactly what criminal statute Trump violated with the call". I will resolve the struggle: "Use of public office for private gain" is explicitly prohibited to employees of the Executive Office (Trump gets a salary, and so is therefore an employee) in the Code of Federal Regulations, section 5, part 2635.704 through 705. There is much relevant in there, but this seems pretty darn disambiguous: "An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office in a manner that is intended to coerce or induce another person, including a subordinate, to provide any benefit, financial or otherwise, to himself or to friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity".
In case that's still too unclear for Mr. Stephens: abuse of power (even presidential power) is explicitly ILLEGAL.
7
@Paul S
By that logic, wouldn't the Hunter and Joe Biden situation be definitionally illegal? How else do you see Hunter receiving $600,000/y to sit on a board in an industry that he had zero experience in, in a country in which his father was running point on a corruption investigation of that very company? The Ukrainian prosecutor has a sworn statement that Biden fired him for his investigation of Burisma. If this isn't quid pro quo, the phrase has lost all meaning.
And if that's the case, are you going to now argue that Trump must be impeached for merely investigating it? Something you call ILLEGAL?
He should be removed from office because he would not be accepted for employment at any other business or institution in the land. Office of President is an honor to be earned not a refuge for the otherwise unemployable. He’s the best argument against capitalism there is-
1
@AJ
This allegation against Biden has been investigated, and Trump's advisors REPEATEDLY told Trump there was nothing there.
2
The terms of the debate over whether to initiate an impeachment investigation of the president are enough to demonstrate why our politics, our public life, our civil discourse emanate a tang of raw sewage. Nowhere do you see a discussion of the moral tenor and temperament we wish to see in our leadership or how our children/grandchildren/future generations will view us from an historical perspective. Instead it all comes down to a numbers game of will it help the [Democrats/Republicans] in the coming election cycle and vague whingeing about how a party line vote on impeachment will look. You wanna know why things are as bad as they are? Look inward.
2
Bret forgets one thing: the worst is yet to come. We have just seen the tip of the ice-berg.
3
I usually find Gail the wittiest and most sensible of columnists, but not on this. The solution to three years of partisan sniping and shrill accusations isn't more of the same. Censure the sucker. Then spend the next six months explaining how the next president will improve the lives of voters and make America sane again.
The idea that more will come out, that voters will rise up at long last in disgust at what they see, and that a new era of bold ideas and responsible leadership will emerge from the rubble, is as much sheer fantasy as Trump's wonderful health plan. So far the Democrats have come up with income redistribution and sloganeering. It's time to return to the unglamorous task of reality-based governing.
There has to be a measurable percentage of the GOP that is hoping this is the way to rid themselves of Trump. Only the blind continue to see him as an honorable man. The GOP would be smart to get a few candidates warming up in the bullpen. Romeny, Kasich, Weld, Haley - time to loosen up.
5
Clinton was not just a “philanderer in the White House” but a perjurer in court. That’s much harder to defend, even for his supporters like myself. What law did Trump break? Norms galore, but what law?
2
@Ilya Shlyakhter
Laws dealing with emoluments, conspiracies, working with foreign governments to help his re-election chances, obstructions of Justice, and the laundry list goes on.
4
@ Ilya Shlya
What law? 52 U.S. Code § 30121 (a1A).
1
On September 8, 2018 an anonymous source inside the Trump administration had an Op-Ed published right here in the Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html
In it, the source said, "The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making."
By Trumps' own admission, he used the power of the office of the President of the United States to pressure the president of a foreign country (under the wink-wink implicit threat of withholding badly needed funds and foreign diplomats to make it happen) to benefit himself in his upcoming election.
Trump has also stated he is attempting to discover the identity of the whistle blower, a clear attempt to violate the federal law specifically designed to protect the whistle blower.
These are textbook definitions of "the president's amorality", and if they aren't high crimes and misdemeanors, worthy of impeachment and removal from office, they should be.
Do our laws mean anything anymore? Does the constitution mean anything anymore?
3
So Stevens insists that impeachment be triggered by a crime? Then isn't the blatent violations of the emoluments clause of the Constitution criminal?
5
Trump's incessant depravity seems to have desensitized millions of Americans to misconduct that would have provoked lynching less than a century ago.
It has become quite clear that:
Those Americans who tolerate Trump's treasonous activities never really were patriotic;
those who tolerate Trump's sins never really were moral nor Christian,
those who tolerate Trump's rudeness never really were polite,
those who tolerate of Trump's calls for violence never really were were peaceful;
those who tolerate Trump's bigotry never really loved our neighbors.
those who tolerate Trump's maliciousness and sadism never were decent people.
In short, there are no Trump supporters who are fit to live in a civilized democracy, and those who do oppose Trump but do nothing to oppose him are criminally irresponsible citizens.
9
The country needs to understand that republicans are plain horrified that the country, and the democrats, are taking issue with them.
What part of: "republicans are entitled to rule, entitled to all the goodies, feed fat on the federal teat, make all decisions, and run their banana republic by drawing inspiration from crackpot economists and eugenics" are the democrats not getting?
What's with all the impeachment talk. How else do they think banana republicans run by a Papa Doc would be run?
Please know, the likes of Giuliani, Kevin McCarthy, and the wonderful Mr. Lindsey Graham, have told us, to lay off. They do not take kindly to uppity voters complaining about their uncomfortable chains, or about their tribal leader who mirrors the worst of Caligula, Nero, and Papa Doc.
It will remain an enduring mystery to me about why: (a) democrats largely collude to allow republicans think and function this way, and act like cloying, apologetic fools unable to act, and why most Americans vote for a republican party that promises to defraud, defund, grope, and render most people uncomfortable, disenfranchised, and subservient in the name of one icon or another.
3
What an odd column! Sisi in the mix makes me like Gail even sadder about the state of the world. There is a silver lining to this, however. We can impeach our president and are preparing for that now. Trump and his minions and actions and kids and companies and henchmen and women (that's you Kellyanne) have gone time and again beyond the appearance of morality, legality and appropriate conduct for those in the office of the president representing this country. Impeach.
4
Trump asked Australian PM Morrison to help find evidence to discredit the Mueller inquiry... how is this not reported in the front pages?
2
Why are Bret and so many commenters hung up on "high crimes and misdemeanors"?
Can we please discuss why Trump's actions and statements re: Ukraine are not TREASON and/or BRIBERY, which are the beginning of the Constitutional standard for impeachment?
Why is dangling a favor in front of Ukraine if they'll meddle in our election, not BRIBERY?
And why are Trump's efforts therein not helpful to our enemy Russia -- last time I checked, helping an enemy is TREASON - ?
Trump's actions and statements re: Ukraine are both TREASON and BRIBERY - discuss among yourselves!
7
@me Oh, and here's a news flash: ATTEMPTED BRIBERY, and ATTEMPTED TREASON, are still BRIBERY and TREASON!
1
So Bret is saying we need to basically enshrine impeachment so we don’t, what, wear it out?Republicans say it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. Okay we have a dangerous criminal with nuclear weapons at large. He has proven utterly lawless and willing to do anything to keep his super villain lair. Your position amounts to resistance is futile, America.
3
Surprise! Mr. Stephens has once again outthought himself. When FOX turns against this president, which they will do, so will his impressionable base. We already see significant support for an impeachment inquiry, and it's only just begun. Senate Republicans will follow.
2
U.S. democracy in crisis...or in tatters? Any democracy worth it's name must always be ready for dialogue; and this demands a free press to keep us informed...so the people may participate, and contribute, accordingly. Egypt's dictatorship shows a lousy prospect towards democratic values, strangely well supported by our proto-fascist president, who feels most comfortable with world's despots, and who is persistent in calling 'our press' the 'enemy of the people'. Trump remains a disgrace for these United States and, due to it's unhinged power, for the world. This vulgar bully has no place in the White House, dedicated to trampling the rule of law...as we speak.
Really, what can one say? Although I was upset she said this in public at the time and thought it was reckless, Rashida Tlaib was right. I’m gonna order me one of her t-shirts.
The time for impeachment is ripe.
2
Won't it be wonderful when Trump is removed from the White House?
Imagine waking up in the morning knowing you won't have to see him on t.v. or listen to comments about his tweets.
Imagine not having that dread about what he's going to do or say that day.
Imagine the possibility of winning back friends and allies and restoring our country's reputation.
Imagine a celebration of our heritage to heal the damage.
4
"Well, and here’s my main point: Impeachment will wind up helping Trump."
I don't buy the argument that this will affect how people will vote. Anyone who would "wonder why a lawfully elected president should be removed from office for no violation of the law" is already a Trump voter (or a non-voter).
In any case, a so-called swing voter who, by definition, doesn't get all information from Fox News will not suddenly have an epiphany and decide to vote for Trump because of this. It's a silly argument that's not backed up by a single poll.
How about Rasmussen or AP asking these two simple questions:
1, Who will you vote for?
2. Who will you vote for if the president is impeached?
Only then will we know if this argument holds any water.
1
Stephens and Collins fail to see that Trump is working to remove 2 sets of sanctions on Russia. Forcing some sort of detente on Ukraine is step 1 and "proving" that Russia did not meddle in elections is step 2. (He continues to think that the 17 US Intel Agencies are wrong and that Putin is right.) He is working off receipts held by Putin, which of course is really really bad.
4
Mr. Stephens, How close do we have to get to overt treason to find a "high crime or misdemeanor" ? In 1994 Ukraine gave up the third largest nuclear force in the world in return for security assurances from the US (the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances). Our military aid is a part of this quarter-century long bipartisan commitment. Trump has made clear that his personal interest in political dirt overrides an important US commitment that was key to stemming nuclear proliferation and ending the Cold War. Who will ever give up their nukes at the behest of the US again? (Not to speak of how the Ukrainians must weigh the chances of serious US support as they negotiate with Trump buddy Putin.) This is not just about the sanctity of US elections much more is at stake. It smells like treason to me.
4
To the argument that the most desirable way to remove the vile pretender is at the ballot box - that argument held more sway a few weeks ago. Now, with Trump AGAIN playing dirty with the help of foreign governments, a clean and fair election is not possible. Impeach, now. It is the only option.
7
Bret, on the wrong side of history (and understanding US law) in every way possible.
6
Trump was not the first Republican president and he won’t be the last. Republicans need to look at the big picture and focus on the future of their party. By working together with Democrats, they can destroy the virus infecting the G.O.P. and begin the healing. Initially, it will be painful, but as time goes by, Republicans can regain the country’s respect and the two parties can, once again, work together for the betterment of all Americans and not just for those who check off your name in the voting booth. It may sound a bit whimsical, but what’s the alternative?
3
Is it coincidence that Stephens sides with impeachment when it is clear it won’t happen, and then is against impeachment the moment it might happen?
The Never Trump conservatives seem to be making sure that they have no practical effect, either by resigning office or sayin that they would have voted against Trump but by golly the democrats nominated someone who is too far left or too Hillary.
The signal they send is that they won’t actually get in the way of Trump.
8
The House should drag out the inquiry until near the end and then possibly impeach. Why? Because we need to be very wary of a Pence presidency particularly when it comes to Iran. At least with Trump, he's wary of war with Iran. I'm very suspicious of McConnell's backing of an impeachment trial. Have some of the Republicans decided that they are done with Trump and are ready for Pence to take over?
4
I’ve been thinking the same thing, Peggy. It’s like scoring to go-ahead touchdown and leaving too much time on the clock, for you football fans.
But I don’t see Pence on the ticket. He will be washed away in the gear cleansing.
2
Bret, doesn’t offering $400M of money that someone else owns for a particular favor count as Bribery or its mirror image extortion?
10
@Wayne even though I believe that trump did exactly as you say? it has not quite been proven. I think that the very existence of this phone call and the effort to cover it up are grounds enough for removal from office.
4
Coale - I agree. As with Nixon, it wasn’t the crime, which was a bumbled break-in by some inept burglars, it was the coverup by Nixon and his staff that brought about his downfall. And it is the attempt to subvert justice by covering up his acts that will lead to Trump’s impeachment.
3
@Coale. It’s the job of the process to prove it and @ Stephen. You are right about the cover up with Nixon but really it was a series of things that made him so thoroughly disliked and Agnews resignation that made the Nixon charges go forth. Nevertheless the charge here is a specific crime enumerated in the Constitution and an excessive abuse of power immediately after he tried to discredit Mueller. The chutzpah is mind blowing. There is no limit to what he would do. He said it and continued to go forward. His is present and future history.
One thing that can be said about our President is that he has never been a disappointment to his critics or his followers. He is constantly revealing himself, an exhibitionist, a fan dancer, an onion. And each layer that is removed enthralls, excites, enrages, and has a distinct odor which can be pleasing or noxious, like some flowers , narcissus for instance.It all depends on who's doing the smelling.
4
Impeachment lost its moral power when Republicans trotted out a stained blue dress to try to topple a sitting president. This situation is ever so much worse and Btet ignores that.
12
" I fear impeachment will lose much of its moral stigma and political force if it ends up coming down to a party-line vote."
....isn't this what happened with Clinton? Moscow Mitch was leading the troops against Clinton...imagine if he was doing the same w Trump now! ha
6
Bret is one easily confused individual.
At what point did a president that committed, in Bret's mind, impeachable offenses, become immune?
Only after blackmailing an ally?
7
Republicans impeached Clinton (along party lines) for having an affair and lying about it. If we got rid of everyone in Washington who had ever done that, the place would be at least half empty. And that’s worse than bending foreign policy and shaking down foreign leaders for dirt about political rivals? Come on.
6
Maybe that’s what Trump meant by drain the swamp:-)
Trump acts like a cheap mobster because...that's the only way he knows how to do business - defrauding people. And he has taught his children well.
If you look at his fraudulent businesses and developments that failed (e.g. Trump Casinos, Trump steaks, Trump University), the "fraudster" pattern is clear. When the accountants finish going over Trump's tax returns, we will likely discover the POTUS is a serial tax cheater - just like his Dad. Impeachment is too good for the Donald - he needs to go to jail.
9
No criminal activity?
Part 1 of Mueller’s investigation/report dealt with the crime of conspiracy on the part of Trump’s associates getting help from Russia to help elect Trump. Mueller decided there was “insufficient evidence” to bring a charge of “criminal conspiracy”, which also means there “was” evidence of conspiracy.
Now we have Trump admitting that he was asking the president of Ukraine for help with his own election. Why is this not “criminal conspiracy”?
5
Gee wiz Bret, I can't read more than a few lines of that "transcript" and not hear Brando with cotton in his cheeks ... making an offer that can't be refused.
4
Bribery is a crime, whether you give or receive. Trump tried to bribe the President of Ukraine and only a child would say the quid pro quo needed to be explicit. Ask Rudy Giuliani to explain how that worked when he prosecuted the mafia....oh, wait a minute.
6
Step 1 - look for foreign leader where you have leverage and/or is corrupt
Step 2 - ask said leader to dig up dirt on your political opponents, fabricated is fine. To avoid any dirt collecting on the president use immoral fixer disguised as personal lawyer.
Step 3 - spread dirt on Fox News, speak alternatively with loud voice and hushed tones
Repeat until polls are favorable.
1
Stop guessing what people will think or what politicians will do and just speak the truth. Bret says: "Many Americans will wonder why a lawfully elected president should be removed from office for no violation of the law." No Violation of the law??? Here are three violations we know: 1) Obstruction of justice re: Mueller ( 1,000 former federal prosecutors say so). 2) The Ukraine call by itself WITHOUT quid pro quo OR the whistleblower complaint -- §30121 a-2: no person shall solicit a contribution (anything of value) from a foreign national with regard to a federal election. Just because Trump's AG Barr says 1 and 2 weren't illegal, doesn't make it so. And 3) Bret himself says Trump violated the law: "I thought the impeachment standard was met when Trump became an unindicted co-conspirator for his alleged payoffs to Stephanie Clifford (better known as Stormy Daniels) and Karen McDougal before the 2016 election, which were criminal violations of campaign-finance laws." Brett - you've been clear that you want to free the country of Trump's presidency (thank you!). Have some confidence in what's true and right -- the truth shall set you, and all of us, free!
4
"Many Americans will wonder why a lawfully elected president should be removed from office for no violation of the law."
Thank you Bret. Now we're on the same page about the reach and comprehension of many Republicans. I guess we should all be glad you didn't also OK hypocrisy as situationally acceptable as you obviously do civic ignorance.
3
Headline should have read “Bananas Republic”.
2
The madness of Donald Trump knows no bounds and still the Banana Republicans seem determined to follow him right into the loony bin. We now have a president calling for civil war; a secretary of state who is a proven liar; a presidential attorney who used to be America's Mayor and is now America's Court Jester; and an Attorney General chasing the chimera of a crazy conspiracy theory believed only by Trump and his jester, but slyly promoted by Vladimir Putin, eagerly seized upon by the GOP and publicized by Fox Pravda and other propaganda organs. The rest of the free world can only look on and wonder: "Do we really want to be friends with those nuts?"
3
Stephens doesn't understand what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means. He thinks paying off the porn star is impeachable. Perhaps it is , but is it on the same level of trying to subvert an election by asking for help from foreign allies to subvert American institutions? Paying off a porn star may be a crime but a high crime? Trump's actions involving Ukraine and now Australia (is that the other shoe?) are clearly impeachable.
3
In my version of the multi-verse it was Samantha Bee who declared "let Hillary be Hillary" but never have I heard anyone argue to "let" Trump "be" anything, with the possible exception of never ending attacks from every possible direction. If anyone really believes this kind of allegation, an anonymous 'whistle-blower' behind a wall of lawyers will grow legs they must have thought it was a good idea to smear a Innocent Man with a disgusting charge just to keep him off the Supreme Court. Remember the 2018 Senate Mid-Terms? Expect that outcome on Steroids now.
1
I’ve send some legal scholars say the president likely violated the Hobbs Act. Not sure if that’s enough for an impeachment or not tho
"Would be so happy to have a smart, sane philanderer in the White House."
I'd be happy to have a smart, sane NON-philanderer in the White House. As we did before Trump.
5
"And I struggle to see exactly what criminal statute Trump violated with the call."
Isn't extortion against the law?
2
I would respond to Bret Stephens by asking how we can protect the 2020 election from Trump’s efforts to have apparently any- and every-country interfere, in ways that will deliver Trump largesse to them during his guaranteed next term, without pulling out every big gun Americans have, including the harsh spotlight of an impeachment investigation, to defend against his determined corruption of the election process.
2
The invention of dirt on Joe Biden was at least number three on the list of things that Putin's Puppet was looking to extort from Ukraine.
Number one was a capitulation to Russia on the annexation of Crimea so that the sanctions on Russia related to the invasion of Ukraine could be lifted.
Second was for Ukraine to support Trump's specious allegations that Ukraine hacked the US 2016 election, not Russia, so that the sanctions related to that attack could also be lifted.
The continuation of the Russian kleptocracy depends on the lifting of sanctions and the laundering of rubles. Donald Trump works ceaselessly to achieve those goals, and it seems obvious that Bill Barr was expensively hired by someone to protect and aid that effort. Why else would Barr throw away a lifetime of good repute to work in a relatively low paying job compared to the one he had?
Putin is reported to control hundreds of billions of dollars and he is carrying out the new form of war, while the Republican party and Moscow Mitch shrug.
4
According to former federal prosecutors, there are potential crimes in the now-infamous telephone call, including soliciting campaign assistance from a foreign government and extortion. What the House needs to do, and seems to be doing, is a careful and thorough investigation. Most of it should be conducted behind closed doors, to avoid distracting media circuses like we saw with Corey Lewandowski. Transcripts of unclassified testimony can subsequently be released to the public, as appropriate.
5
I appreciate having a smart, articulate, person like Mr. Stephens offer me a view into the Republican mindset, but for the life of me I can't understand why he doesn't find Trump's violation of the oath of office impeachable. Is holding on to power so much more important than following the rule of law? Would Nixon be impeachable today by Bret's standards? If Trump had a fling with an intern, is there a Republican that would even blink?
8
"They’ll ask why Nancy Pelosi didn’t wait for a transcript of the phone call or testimony from key officials before beginning the impeachment process." --- because of the way this White House has obstructed testimony, thumbed their noses at subpoenas, refused to turn over evidence --- only an actual impeachment inquiry might force them to take this seriously enough to comply.
6
When the Constitution was drafted “High crimes” meant “abuses of power” of the kind that monarchs had historically done. It doesn’t mean “committing a serious crime”. In fact, when the US constitution was drafted pretty much none of our Federal criminal statutes existed at all.
6
Does the term “high crime and misdemeanors” appear anywhere else in the Constitution ... or in law? Mightn’t it refer to crimes that can be committed only by a person who occupies the office of President while occupying that office?
1
Bret Stephens remains more concerned about the process of holding Trump accountable than he is about the abhorrent conduct of the United States’ Chief Executive.
Says everything you need to know about a person when they are more concerned about how the FBI stops a terrorist than they are about the terrorist.
1
Bret, both the Oxford and Webster dictionaries define "misdemeanor" as a "minor wrongdoing" first, then legally as an "unindictable offense." I would suggest to you that the Founders used the term broadly to cover any serious malfeasance of office. I find it hard to believe that the Founders would have been in favor of a President's removal from office for a silly lie denying an adulterous affair (see WJC's trial in the Senate), even if it did technically amount to misdemeanor perjury.
On the other hand, the President is obliged under his oath to "protect and defend the Constitution." If he tries to usurp Congressional power, as is alleged in this case, his action is not a crime, per se, but it does violate his oath. Don't you agree that withholding Congressionally authorized funds for the purpose of getting a foreign leader to do his personal bidding constitutes an act the Founders contemplated? If shown to be true, this allegation also involves extortion and a threat to our national security interests.
Anyway, the benefit that the President allegedly sought from the government of Ukraine would have been a violation of our campaign finance laws, as some experts believe. So, in answer to your question, yes, if proved to be true Trump is guilty of "criminal misbehavior."
Like Gail, I was off the impeachment wagon before now because the President's "crimes" were relatively minor, even though they were grossly offensive. This is a qualitatively different matter.
4
Republicans don't have any other agenda anymore than to block the libs. That's why even states' rights don't even matter anymore to them, as their stance on California emission rights clearly showed.
The future of the GOP can therefore only lead to implosion.
Considering this, and the fact that ever more Democrats are becoming haters too due to Trump's polarization, my conclusion is that it's better to accelerate the inevitable and impeach, confront, push hard.
2
I think Mr. Stephens would feel impeachment is justified if...
Wait he does favor impeachment- but bribing Ukraine with American tax dollars for political gain while favoring Russia (our enemy)- is hardly cause.
Forgive me- I lack an understanding of the subtle underpinnings pf hypocrisy.
However, I do see permanent damage to American democracy. THAT I see clearly.
4
"If Washington had known someone like Trump would have become president of the United States of America, he might have been powerfully tempted to surrender to Cornwallis at Yorktown."
I approach this from a different perspective. My Upper Canadian, United Empire Loyalist roots tell me that not only SHOULD Washington have surrendered to Cornwallis but he that he should never have joined that collection of traitors. parvenus, hypocrites and political opportunists who largely constituted the "Founding Fathers". However, having gotten that off my chest, I have to say that this is by far the best commentary on the Trump Presidency that I have ever seen.
1
@curious
You know, I used to read the Declaration of Independence on July 4th every year. About four years ago, I read it as usual, and I found myself asking: was it really, really so bad? Isn't this soaring rhetoric perhaps a tad over the top?
Last year, while visiting the Maritimes, I learned about your 'Confederation.' One of the biggest reasons for it, apparently, was because you guys feared America would eventually invade and take you over.
Sounded about right, to me.
1
@CF: Your're right -- it was largely a response to the threat of a large and experienced Union army at the end of the Civil War, and some unpleasant incursions by Irish-American veterans who wanted to seize Canada so as to pressure the British government vis-a-vis Ireland. As a tour guide during my younger years in Ottawa, I always enjoyed the reaction of American tourists when they learned that the entire city was established and designed for the specific purpose of keeping the Yanks out.
Why does the phrase "lawfully elected president" keep coming up in conversations on the right?
Unfortunately, that does NOT appear to be a certainty, especially with all the noise coming out on a daily basis.
And based on three years of the Trump experiment, "lawful" does not appear to be a word that ever enters Mr. Trump's twisted weltanschauung.
4
Outstanding! I enjoyed this thrust-and-parry dialogue! But count me in, Gail!
4
Bret is inventing constitutional restrictions, there is nothing in the language around impeachment that suggests the actions have to be a crime under current statutes, if the Founders had intended that they could have written the article that way. In fact, it seems likely the Founders understood that a President who committed a crime would be indicted, they could not have predicted the ridiculousness of not indicting a President based on a DoJ memo. The impeachment process was explicitly designed to deal with bad behavior in office that was not a violation of criminal law.
5
Bret, impeachment was inevitable, because it's clear Trump sees it as being in his strategic interest for the 2020 election. He wants the show so he can further polarize the electorate, claim victimhood and hew his base even closer to his side. He sees no possibility of conviction, and he has no shame, so where's the downside for him?
If Nancy Pelosi hadn't decided to impeach because of Ukraine, Trump would have raised his game over and over until he left her no option. At some point, he would just have shot someone on 5th Avenue. So, on the bright side, you at least have to be glad that poor person won't have to sacrifice his or her life to further Trump's political strategy.
2
One main problem with the reasoning behind “impeaching a duly elected President”: Trump lost the popular vote by 3 1/2 million votes. Better, let’s do away with the electoral college.
1
If I may boil down Bret's cautions with which I agree; the House Democrats better make a really good case for impeachment; one that a large majority of Americans can get behind - or the ongoing damage Trump's Presidency is doing to our country will receive a shot of steroids.
This circus may very well bring down Biden and lead to Warren's nomination. She is more likely to lose the general election; after this even Biden as nominee might fail to beat Trump.
Trump's blundering antics have forced Pelosi and her caucus into these impeachment proceedings; another case of Trump debasing our politics.
It is forever amusing to me that Republicans always talk about how they WOULD support something if only the democrats had done it properly. Pelosi should have waited for what? Freely handed over materials or even subpoenaed materials that the house democrats want and need to investigate.
Oh that's right, they are being stonewalled on every single request. Please.
And Bret, you're not sure if soliciting foreign help to discredit a political opponent by using the threat of withholding tax payer aid (and not just the threat, he was withholding it) is not a crime or misdemeanor but having sex in the oval office is? Hmmmmmm.
"i would be for impeachment if only..." -- please! Republicans don't want to lose their guy no matter what he does and it would seem, Bret, that you are largely in step with them on this.
2
Being admittedly simplistic...
1. Trump's behavior towards Zelensky didn't exactly fall under the category of "asking for a friend"
2. What if Obama did it?
1
Mr. Stephens, how can you not see that the extraordinary efforts taken by people in the White House to hide, conceal, bury records of the trump-Zelensky phone calls—among who knows how many others—clearly indicate that these people realized trump committed high crimes and misdemeanors during these conversations? The mere fact that the White House put the secure secret server to this unique use is clear evidence of trump’s criminality.
2
Here is the problem. Brett Stevens says he is against impeachment inquiry over the Ukraine allegations. He claims no law was broken, so no impeachable offense occurred. I guess he did not read the Mueller report that clearly states that getting or conspiring to get something of value from a foreign government to help a campaign is illegal. That was what Part 1 was about. Please note that Don Jr. got off because Mueller thought he could not prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that all of the elements of the crime were satisfied. The main element being that Don Jr. may not have satisfied the "scienter" requirement of the statute. The Ukraine call seems to satisfy all of the elements of the crime, "conspiracy to seek something of value from a foreign government to help in the election". Since Trump was offering 400,000 million dollars in foreign aid, the information certainly had a value of over 25,000 dollars and even though it was intangible information, it is "other property", and even the ignorant President had to know that seeking such information was illegal.
1
I am so tired of people looking for political exigencies to justify no action on impeachment. Sometimes, it's black and white, good and evil. The president uses his position as a tool to stay in power, enrich himself, and generally destroy our democracy. This is a pattern that has repeated since day 1 with Trump.
Impeach, and impeach hard.
4
Gail is totally correct. What Trump did was a crime in the most basic sense of the word. He used his power as President to get something that is of no benefit to the US, but great benefit to him personally. People like Bret don’t understand what the quid pro quo is.It is anything of value to the President. In this case dirt on a political opponent.
It’s mind boggling that intelligent people don’t understand that dirt on an opponent is equal to a suitcase full of cash or any other thing which benefits Trump. It’s like they have to see the “thing of value”. Some well regarded legal commentators don’t understand. It’s not that difficult.
1
Bret underestimates the Democrats and the few sane Republicans. I believe the reason the polls haven’t yet reached a critical mass in favor of impeachment is out of fear of losing. Once that fear is overcome Trump, and his merry band of conspirators, are toast.
1
Perhaps the answer is precisely what President Trump told us early on.
"You know what else they say about my people? The polls, they say I have the most loyal people. Did you ever see that? Where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters, okay? It’s like incredible..."
The so-called conservatives and Republicans don't care. As long as President Trump continues to "own the Libs," they will continue to support him.
Either there's more of them voting come 2020 or there's not.
I have come to believe that I've been deluding myself all these decades. The conservatives and Republicans never believed what they said. And I was a fool to believe them. I wasted time debating their ideas on the merits.
President Trump isn't a Svengali who has implemented a hostile takeover. He's a salesman who saw what they truly wanted and sold it to them.
The sad, ugly truth of our country is this is exactly who we are.
4
This conversation is infuriating. Back and forth, waiting for another shoe to drop, oh I dont know, on the wagon, off the wagon, come on. Enough. Trump has to go. There is no debate. Brett. if you wanted him out during the Stormy episode, you should want him out now. The Ukraine call has added to the list. The House is capable of making a list of reasons. And Brett, you are too. Let's not isolate Ukraine and pick it apart. Look at all his deeds, add Ukraine, Trump has to go go. Wake me up before he go gos. Because I need a nap to escape the pontificating about Trump's peachmint.
3
If the President had asked for money into a Caymans account for the passage of the military aid most people would say impeach or charge criminally.. is there any difference..?
1
Who benefits from allowing Trump's criminal behavior? Who are the people getting their pockets lined to tolerate anything this guy does? Are there no Republicans with the integrity,character,and good will to stand against this on going criminal conspiracy that is our president.
2
This is a complete power grab. White privilege being flexed and completely naked and on display... Had President Obama behave in the same way as Trump we would have all wanted to impeach. Walk through all the scenarios:
1. Asks Russia to break into the Republican Party HQ Computers, 2. Make Govt Employees stay at and use the Obama Hotels,
3. Air Force suddenly stays at Obama Hotels in Northern Scotland
4. Force foreign govts. to help provide dirt on political opponents
5. Accuse the sitting Republican Chair of the House Intelligence Committee of being a traitor and suggests arrest.
I am sure the Republican Representatives in both Houses (and base) would rush to Obama's defense.
We need to push this people and their ideas back into the dark corners of the American mind.
4
I agree with Stephens (did I just say that) that the time to impeach Trump was long ago, but in addition to the illegal campaign contributions ( porn star payments) was the very clear case of obstruction of justice laid out by the coward Mueller who, while boldly laying out the evidence, meekly suggested it was then up to Congress to label it. I completely disagree with Stephens on his characterization of the Ukraine business. If conspiracy to effect the US elections with Russia by virtue of seeking and accepting Russian help is a crime and impeachable, why is it not the same with the Ukraine? Because they are a smaller and less powerful entity? Imagine if the very same phone call emerged in 2016 but was between Trump and Putin. Game over. It is illegal both to seek and accept foreign donations in a US election. Seeking a “favor”, a very clear donation in kind, is absolutely contrary to US law. I’m a Canadian Bret and even I know that!
3
Surprised there was no mention of Mr. Trump's impeachment insurance (Mr. Pence) and the deep involvement of his henchmen Mr Pompeo and "his" attorney general Mr. Barr in the concerted effort to strong-arm friend and foe into a global effort in favor of keeping Mr. Trump from leaving office in 2021. RICO was made for this kind of criminal behavior.
The swamp draining has yet to be ompleted.
1
Brett Stephens is wrong on several counts, which is why journalists need to actually investigate before blathering opinions. In 1787, there were NO criminal statutes--criminal law was based upon British common law, so the founders clearly were not talking about violating criminal statutes with "high crimes and misdemeanors". Second, treason and bribery are offenses that can result in impeachment. Trump's calling for civil war is treason. Witholding aid to a foreign country unless it investigates your political rival may be bribery. Finally, Alexander Hamilton, as Gail points out, cited enlisting the aid of a foreign power as a reason for Congress to check the power of the President. See this link for details. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/news/2019/09/26/475114/founders-impeached-trump-ukraine-related-misconduct/
Perhaps I am naive but tell me just why there was nothing wrong with Biden using his office to feather his pockets but is wrong for Trump to call him out? I quite frankly say thank you President Trump—just one more step toward draining the swamp. The only problem is the total spin being put on the issue by the Democrats and NYT. I call it disingenuousness at its finest.
2
You will get your $250 million if you do me a favor and fabricate evidence incriminating my politically rival. Sounds a lot like bribery to me.
1
I keep hearing this argument that impeachment will help trump. Will somehow get him more supporters. Will rally his base etc. I think that the majority of Americans have figured out by now who Donald trump as president is. And most are plenty sick of his teenage antics. Trump made presidency largely on poor choice. Trump and his thugs are trying to paint Biden with the same paintbrush they painted Hillary. This time it will not work. The shoe will be on the other foot. Trump will come across as a poor choice and Biden, if nominated, will come across as something of a breath of fresh air. The impeachment in the house will change nobody’s minds in the end. Republicans will fall in line and support trump to the last vote. Trump needs his comeuppance. Most Americans love to see a bully get their just desserts.
You have to love the Trojan horse that Stephens and other Neo-cons throw out about impeachment helping the president. Of course they don't want impeachment, because GOP Senators will have to vote publicly to defend obviously the most corrupt president in American history.
This is proven by the fact that Graham, McCarthy, et al have vociferously called for an impeachment vote NOW! They're in total panic mode that as more evidence gets rolled out, and especially if there's an actual Senate trial, the American public will get to see the real deep state against the United States Constitution - the Republican Party.
1
The reason he must be removed from office is simple: he cannot be trusted for even one more second to uphold the law. Should he be censured, he will immediately repeat his illegal behavior.
WHITE and MALE is no longer a Get Out Of Jail Free pass.
It's not about the crime or the criminal or even the people that look the other way. It's about the audacity to make the suggestion that Trump is dirty. Party over country for all to see. It does remind me of blind support for human injustice that the south supported in the past. Saying "That was just the way it was"
1
Bret, go down the hall to talk with David Brooks. You and David appear to look at Trump through a lens coated by "Yeah, but look at the swell judges he's given us. Look at the swell tax cut and, hey, what about her e-mails."
I don't believe you will be proud of yourself when you look back at these comments.
3
Gail won this one. Her arguments made a lot more sense than Bret's. Come into the light completely, Bret. Quit trying to cling to that sinking life raft of a a GOP. You can only drown - unless you somehow miraculously get your fellow republicans to come into the light with you and save themselves by getting rid of Trump and all his toadies. They all have to go if we are to call ourselves worthy of being Americans again, and only you and your fellow conservatives can make "the base" understand that.
2
"Would be so happy to have a smart, sane philanderer in the White House."
I think this sums up our current situation perfectly. Thank you, once again, for your insight Gail!
1
Everything you need to know about the Democrats principles, values, ethics and morals comes down to this from one of their leaders in Congress.
"If we don’t impeach Trump, he’s gonna be reelected in 2020.”
Mr. Stephens, is it not a violation of the law to solicit foreign assistance in an American election campaign? Is that not exactly what Mr. Trump did? I would refer you to 52 U.S. Code § 30121 which specifically states:
"a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national."
Did not Mr. Trump explicitly solicit the contribution of a "thing of value" (dirt on Biden) from the President of Ukraine? How is this not a plain violation of black letter law? You mislead your readers (not for the first time) by claiming there is no violation of law when there clearly is.
I don't care about your opinions, but at least be truthful in statements of fact.
4
“Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” And I struggle to see exactly what criminal statute Trump violated with the call.
Abuse of Power, Bribery, Lying about an America to help himself, Telling Lies about an American Intelligence Operation, Being a completely rude and ignorant person for no reason anyone can fathom. How about these Bret? I could list more but your attention span seems short. But not as short as Trump's.
1
For the first time in my life, I can envision an American President declaring himself POTUS for life with zero consequences from his enabling party.
I found myself thinking through how I could join the resistance and become part of the group trying to win back our nation.
My sense is that Trump is too dumb to form a plan, but if circumstances fell before him, he could indeed attempt to become America's first dictator.
This is how far we have fallen - where is our bottom? Is there an up?
2
When I remember the days when Trump and his Republicans were shouting their “Make America Great Again”, I feel sick.
2
Republican malaise. We are tired of the Whitehouse and Senate criminal drama. Can we have our government back? Please!
2
Thank you DEMS!!! Please Impeach... Biden will be taken out and Trump easily defeats Warren in 2020 :) I love it how the folks here are helping the rest of the country to fulfill this fantasy! Trump is finally draining the swamp but the only problem is that Dems didn't realize they were part of it.
1
To weaponize the impeachment process against Trump and Kavanaugh being pushed by the Democrats is a non-starter. This requires bipartisan action which does not and will not happen like with Nixon. That vote was 410 to 4.
Pelosi needs to put her slim majority on the record or shut it down now. There are even Democrats who no not have the appetite for such a disastrous undertaking. Trump and his administration have every right to investigate and ask others to investigate.
If the Democrats overplay their weak hand I fear their demise is not only needed but required by the people.
Do it in bipartisanship or don’t do it.
8
@Charlie. It will become bipartisan as soon as the polls show that a majority is in favor for impeachment and the way things are going we are at or very quickly approaching this threshold. This is what happened in the Nixon Watergate case.
64
@Charlie
You fail to consider Clinton's impeachment, which was basically along party lines; the one article that failed to pass at that time was the only one that garnered significant Republican support. And remember, the Democrats gained seats in the House in the following election.
To your point that that Trump has the right to investigate a political opponent, extorting a foreign leader is clearly beyond the pale.
93
@Charlie Trump does not have the right to investigate a political adversary unless there is probable cause to do so, and, if there is, you go through established channels to do that. There is no probable cause. What possible violation of US law did Hunter Biden commit? The Ukrainians say he did not violate Ukrainian law. I have seen no US statute cited by anyone. The established channels are not being followed either. Our presidents do not get involved with criminal investigations. Our Attorneys' General do not run investigations.
96
Instead of hiding behind the "wouldn't get convicted in a court of law" technicality, perhaps Bret Stephens ought to revisit the words of Lindsay Graham:
"You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job (as president) in this constitutional republic if this body determines your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role, ...."
“Because impeachment is not about punishment ... Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
Ah, but this was in 1999, and the president was a Democrat.
1128
@Buck Thorn
And before Trump got dirt on poor Lindsay.
75
@Buck Thorn ... "Ah, but this was in 1999, and the president was a Democrat" ... before Lindsay Graham sold his soul to the devil.
88
@Sunny
Wait, Lindsay Graham had a soul?
And, how does this guy get elected every time?
46
Bret's logic and his humor are no match for Gail's logic and humor.
The argument that there is no point in doing the right thing (impeachment, in this case) because there are too many people willing to do the wrong thing (Senate Republicans, in this case) is the logic of teenagers -- But all the kids are doing it!
11
Dear Bret, This is directly from one of the founders:
"a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants." - Hamilton, To the People of the State of New York
Now, you can say what you want about the 'compromise' statements on impeachment, which there was much debated, and strangely a desire to compromise in the spirit of forming a strong Union. But, don't think the Constitution is the only thing we have to go on regarding the founders' thoughts.
6
It’s strange that Hamilton said that, considering he wanted President’s to serve for life.
@Mike
Yes, but he also believed the electoral college, or whatever it may have been called back then, would prevent an unfit person prone to "cabal, intrigue, and corruption" from ever becoming president. Poor Hamilton. He never met modern-day Republicans.
4
The Republicans set the standard for impeachment with Bill Clinton. Trump has exceed that by about 100X.
In any case, it is necessary for the House to carry out the impeachment process. Trump will defy them at every turn and Moscow Mitch will not let the Senate vote on it. Trump's supporters are with him regardless, as has been often noted. And in any case, even if the Senate voted to remove Trump, or if the voters defeat him in November 2020, he will refuse to leave.
The country is really divided with no resolution in sight, given the dramatic split in world views, reminding me of anti-slavery vs pro-slavery before the Civil War.
4
I'm so tired of people splitting hairs. The president asked a foreign government to interfere in a U.S. election. The attorney general is asking foreign governments to discredit our own intelligence agencies. The reason so much of what Trump does is not a legally-defined "crime" is because no one foresaw having a president who would behave this way. We've always assumed at least a discernible level of human decency, maturity, and patriotism in people who run for president. (Note to conservatives: if a candidate can't act "presidential" during the campaign, there will be no "pivot" to decency, intelligence and maturity later either.)
9
"Bret Stephens: And I struggle to see exactly what criminal statute Trump violated with the call."
He withheld US Aid and offered to restore it in exchange for private gain. Here in Illinois, Rod Blagojevich offered someone a senate seat in exchange for private gain and is currently serving 14 years in federal prison.
11
Yes you need a sound byte, for the voters now mainly have very short attention spans. “Used foreign influence” to win, or try to win an election comes close but is still a little too long and complicated. I already see signs of impeachment fatigue encroaching upon our weary attention deficit media cropping up (as one Iowa farmer recently put it) too. I think the playbook is unfolding pretty much as it did in ‘16, as we wind through the maze of ongoing Trump insults and true America comes through and decides he IS really indeed kind of like like old uncle Charlie, irascible but love able, and not really deserving of that blast of birdshot in the behind that would send him packing.
@Pat How about "President is an International Crook"?
2
Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. It should not be reduced to the idea that the person somehow violated the law. It does not have to meet the same standard. The President has woefully violated his oath of office and the public trust and demonstrated his corruption for all to see. That is impeachable.
5
Trump's "perfect call" once again demonstrates the depths of depravity this man lives in. For his House and Senate supporters to defend this depravity is an act of political cowardice and a disturbing violation of their oath of office.
The House has no choice but to carry out their constitutional duties to investigate and impeach should said investigation reveal Trump engaged in High Crimes and Misdemeanors. The Senate then must hold a trial and determine guilt or innocence as per the constitution.
This is a critical element of the checks and balances our founders created to better assure the nation they created could survive unfit and/or unlawful individuals holding the highest office in the country. I see no other way congress can proceed, given what we have learned over the past 96 hours. I see no other way the founders of this country could make their beliefs understood when they created the constitutional process of impeachment and a trial.
2
Mr. Stephens bemoans the fact Pelosi did not wait for the transcript or testimony from officials before starting the impeachment inquiry. But with this president she was between the proverbial rock and hard place as Trump and his enablers are wont to raise “executive privilege” to prevent the the unearthing of evidence, especially if that evidence is unfavorable. So yes, while the impeachment route is definitely strewn with land mines she had no choice but to pull the plug.
But now that they have lobbed this hand grenade the Dems must, for their sake and that of the country, stop grandstanding and becoming hypnotized by the sound of their voices when they get the microphone and start questioning the witnesses. If they follow the path the senators took during Kavanaugh’s confirmation or their own bungling of Lewandowski’s recent hearing then Brett Stephens’ predictions may come to fruition.
3
I was in the wait and see camp regarding impeachment. I’ve seen enough. You gotta do what’s right, not what’s politically expedient. What’s right to me is impeachment.
Politically and historically, I think this will hurt anyone who sides with trump.
5
Usually there are funny lines in their conversations, but this time little humor. (I did like the remark about maybe we should have lost at Yorktown.) This is because there is no humor to be had when talking about the impeachment inquiry concerning this awful president who will probably refuse to leave office if impeached.
3
Get his tax returns and you'll have plenty of evidence of collusion with a foreign power to undermine the USA. We all know he's been financed by the Russian mob for a very long time, and I suspect it has ties to the top tier of the Russian government. The tax returns. The lynchpin.
8
he term "high Crimes" is is an old English one. The "high" does not mean 'felonious' or 'serious'. It refers to the King. Impeachments were used by Parliament to call to account the Kings ministers. And it was generally for an abuse of power, most notably self-dealing. Abuse of power, most notably self-dealing, is an impeachable offense.The idea that a legal violation is needed shows a profound misunderstanding of our government.
10
People in the GOP base are being hurt by Trump’s policies and many realize it. They admit that Trump is a deeply flawed individual. Many express disgust at his behavior.
Yet, they continue to support Trump because they are so fearful of the future they imagine - the accelerated “browning” of American in which they are second class citizens who are taxed under a socialist Democratic administration to give “free stuff” to “those people.”
I doubt any behavior by Trump exposed by the impeachment inquiry will crack the GOP base which is why nearly everybody concedes that the GOP controlled Senate will never vote to convict it articles of impeachment are sent to the Senate.
We are already reading reports and tweets about “civil war.” We know from our history that people can come to prize their ideology more than our republic. I hope we have not returned to that place once more.
3
How one could be "on the fence" about the urgent need to launch an impeachment inquiry now is beyond me. There's incontrovertible proof that Trump violated Article II, Section One, Clause 8, of the United States Constitution to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Trump's officially documented misconduct toward Ukraine includes but goes beyond campaign finance violations; he abused the constitutional powers of office for personal gain. He seized congressionally appropriated funds in furtherance of that scheme. And he exposed himself to potential blackmail.
5
" suggesting that Adam Schiff, who heads the House intelligence committee, should be arrested for treason,"
Trump still hasn't read the Consitution, or even asked that lawyer of his to explain it to him. "treason" is strictly defined, and involves disloyalty to the nation, not to the President. Unless Trump, like Louis XIV, thinks "I am the state".
I think he should have been impeached when he shut down the country as a tactic to extort money from Congress. He certainly can't deny that it happened.
5
@Charlesbalpha As I understand it, it has to be actively aiding the enemy in a time of war in order to be treason. Otherwise it's basically just being disloyal, which might be reprehensible but not illegal.
Bret underestimates the outrage over Trump's Ukraine calls AND the subsequent cover up. Furthermore, getting tired of hearing that impeachment proceedings will benefit Trump. Not this tim e. He's OTT.
3
In agreement with Gail: When half the country at least wants to both impeach and convict you, it does not bode well for re-election. Bill Clinton could tout a strong economy and trillions of dollars in surplus, hence his re-election despite house impeachment. Trump boasts of his dog whistles, support of internet trolls, and being ‘tough on China’, which has, well, put us on the edge of a recession and diminished investor confidence in our markets. Thank you, next.
3
If indictment could be an option, then this should be the path to follow. Not impeachment.
2
@Patagonia
Except it's not an option because we adhere to a memo produced by the Nixon Justice Department. And impeachment as a remedy for unfit officeholders is spelled out verbatim in our singular founding document.
What else you got?
5
@Patagonia
Impeachment and indictment are the same thing—a formal accusation. The only difference is that impeachment applies to a public official who allegedly engages in crimes while in office, whereas indictment applies to everyone else. In the current proceedings, the House functions like a grand jury. If the House finds enough evidence to indicate that trump has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, it will send the accusation (called Articles of Impeachment) to the Senate, which will then conduct a trial and vote whether to convict. In other words, a successful impeachment would not remove trump from office. Only a Senate vote to convict would.
1
@Patagonia As I understand, a legal exception that would allow for indictment of a sitting president would have to be granted by the U.S. Atty General -- yes, William Barr. So indictment is more likely something that would follow impeachment -- unless he were pardoned by President Pence.
1
I think Bret is wrong in his assumption of what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means. The phrase carries a lot of history (first appearing in English law in 1386. Without going into a long scholarly discussion of the history of the term, for purposes here I've just used the Wikipedia definition:
"The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials, such as dishonesty, negligence, perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of public funds or assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, refusal to obey a lawful order, chronic intoxication, including such offenses as tax evasion. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. The word "High" refers to the office and not the offense. Indeed the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute.See Harvard Law Review "The majority view is that a president can legally be impeached for “intentional, evil deeds” that “drastically subvert the Constitution and involve an unforgivable abuse of the presidency” — even if those deeds didn’t violate any criminal laws."
4
The founding fathers didn’t choose to define “crimes” or “misdemeanors”. What constitutes a crime or misdemeanor varies between jurisdictions and changes over time. The use of the word “misdemeanor” suggests that even an offense on the level of disorderly conduct or trespassing might be sufficient to justify removing someone who has taken an oath of office.
The founders left broad discretion to Congress to distinguish between incompetence and bad judgement on one hand (probably not impeachable), and on the other, conduct that demonstrates that an individual is corrupt or morally unfit to hold office (impeachable).
The issue isn’t whether Donald Trump violated some specific provision of the US Code. It’s whether he has misused the power of his office for his personal benefit, and especially whether he has done so in ways that are harmful to the interests of the United States.
I don't expect conviction in the Senate. What I expect is that every Senator who votes against conviction will have to defend that decision in the next election.
4
Mr Trump needs to remain in office for as long as possible to avoid facing a laundry list of criminal charges. As the Mueller report concluded, the office of president provides protection from prosecution which is not availableto ordinary citizens. Lose the office whether by impeachment or by the ballot box, and the protection is lost as well.
1
<"...why Nancy Pelosi didn’t wait for a transcript of the phone call or testimony from key officials before beginning the impeachment process. ">
Because she already knew the content of the transcript and more. Connected people like Pelosi are always a step ahead of us and, like any good lawyer, she doesn't ask questions in public that she doesn't already know the answer to.
I'm so glad she is in charge.
13
Furthermore- I believe that Pelosi held off on an impeachment decision until now because she KNEW that given time, Trump would commit more obvious impeachable acts...he can't help himself...it is his character. in his moral fiber, to act in such destructive ways...to win by any means possible.
she is very smart and savvy!
2
I think the Bard said it bette:
"Much Ado About Nothing" that we didn't already know. It's been a "Mid-Summer's Nightmare" for all of us.
1
@Lake. woebegoner
And I can't wait for this Comedy of Errors to end, hopefully well before Twelfth Night.
1
The word 'misdemeanor' has two meaning, one of which is 'misdeed.' That meaning goes back to the 18th century well before the constitution was written. So let's not kid ourselves that the constitutional language only applies to actual crimes as Bret seems to think. Rather it allow impeachment, as Jerry Ford once said, to be based on any reason the house decides.
2
I often disagree with Bret Stephens the Democrats need to absolutely and positively cross their i's and t's in this proceeding, with no grandstanding and with all seriousness. Otherwise they will be undermining the process and their cause. And Bravo to the Times, the Post, the Guardian and journalists everywhere keeping on top of this.
7
As many have pointed out, impeachment is a political process. Breaking a specific law may be grounds for impeachment, but not necessarily the only arguable one. In Clinton's case, was having an extra marital affair breaking the law? True, he lied about it publicly but Trump has told more than 1000 documented lies.
Trump has mutilated the entire mystic of American democracy and morality. He should be impeached and convicted.
8
@tagger
You left a 0 out of the documented lies, I think you meant to say “more than 10000.”
2
Mr. Stephens is dead wrong. Trump is not a legitimately-elected president. Perhaps the Mueller report was too exhausting for him to read in its entirety.
11
On Stephens' five points:
1. This is reprehensible behavior -- OK
2. Looking for reference to criminal code -- impeachment was written into the constitution before there were any federal crimes. Criminal law was nearly entirely a state-level institution until the 20th century. Clearly there need not be a criminal conviction for impeachment. But if you want a criminal law violation, there are multiple publicly documented instances of witness intimidation and obstruction of justice by Trump just in the last week alone.
3. Party line vote -- yes this will be unfortunate.
4. Democrats jumping to conclusions -- Pelosi did not declare an impeachment vote before reading the memo or complaint. She initiated an impeachment investigation, which gives her more power to request evidence (and amazingly, she almost immediately got the memo and complaint). It is Trumpist propaganda that an investigation is the same as making charges is the same as convicting.
5. Convincability - great.
17
I have been thinking that impeaching Trump is risky. If for some reason Republican Senators suddenly develop a moral compass, we have Pence as President, opening up various candidates to run against him, some who may actually win the election. I prefer defeating Trump in the election with a strong showing for Democratic candidates. Congress has work to do and the stronger the Democratic presence is in the Senate, the greater possibility that legislation will actually be enacted.
"My second point is that while I accept that the founders may have envisioned the possibility that a president could be impeached for noncriminal conduct, the language on impeachment is fairly specific: “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” And I struggle to see exactly what criminal statute Trump violated with the call. If some of our readers (lawyers and judges especially) can make the case that Trump’s behavior would get him convicted in a court of law, I’m all ears. But I don’t think most Americans want to see the impeachment tool used except in criminal misbehavior."
In his first "serious"(I'm being generous here) statement in this piece, Mr. Stephens is extremely disingenuous.
The term "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" does not refer to felonies and lesser crimes as many assume and Bret here puts forth. The crimes are high because they are committed by high ranking officials. And the misdemeanors... the Senate has removed federal judges(the only officials in 230 years that Congress has impeached and removed from office) for misdemeanors such as habitual drunkenness and dereliction of the oath of office. Neither of those will be found in any US criminal code.
11
@Julian Fernandez Great point!!!!
1
I would remind all that our tax dollars pay for everything the government should do. If you’re in office, you’re paid by us. Phone call time is paid by our tax dollars.
5
Asking for a thing of value from a foreign country to help in your election is a felony. Tying this to a country whose ability to defend itself from a Putin takeover is dependent on US arms sales is extortion.
Suggesting that the only way to get the military aid, which was approved by Congress, is to:
1. find dirt on a political rival (of which there is no evidence),
2. admit that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 election (also not true according to our own intelligence agencies) and 3. that Ukraine must make peace with the Russian invaders is hijacking US foreign policy for the interests of only two people--Trump and Putin, although they seem to be one person at this point.
11
Yours is the best comments so far in the New York Times on this issue.
1
This excellent conversation should have made clear that what Pelosi endorsed was an inquiry into the possible impeachment of Trump. She rightfully said that his behavior, culminating in the Ukraine call, was beyond the pale for what we expect from our presidents. Another point: Trump and his minions had been stonewalling the House Democrats for many months in their efforts to gather material and witnesses. Pelosi's endorsement cracked the stonewall. And finally, let's start talking about impeaching the attorney general. Isn't Barr supposed to be the nation's top lawyer and law enforcement officer - not the president's personal attorney?
9
I don't give a fig--and neither should any politician or pundit--what the political fallout may be from pursuing impeachment. It was never intended to be employed--or eschewed--to benefit any party or individual. That the potential impact on the 2020 election is even contemplated shows how warped things have become. Impeachment is a duty when there is evidence that the POTUS may be unfit for office (crime or no crime). As others have pointed out, wrongdoing is wrongdoing, regardless of how popular the wrongdoer is. Either Democrats believe this or they are no better than the Republicans who have traded principle for power.
15
Bret, impeachment should only proceed if there's support on both sides of the aisle? That presupposes the existence of people of goodwill and conscience on both sides of the aisle. But what if one party is led by a crook who has coopted his entire party to facilitate his criminality? A party of accomplices will never support prosecution for the crimes they have enabled. In this scenario, by your standard, no crime will ever qualify for impeachment.
12
@Jeff
I agree with Bret's point that impeachment as an important process could well be watered down for the future if we see a party-line vote on a this particular case, but I don't think we have a choice at this point. Holding back now against the current administration carries risks far beyond the 'carrot & stick' value of impeachment in the future.
3
@Keith
Impeachment is always a political process. Nixon’s impeachment didn’t start with bipartisan support. Clinton’s impeachment never had bipartisan support because an extramarital affair is not an impeachable offense. Trump’s impeachment is starting like Nixon’s. Let’s where it ends. I bet even Moscow Mitch will bow to mounting evidence and pressure from electorate.
1
@Keith I think impeachment is being used here in the exact reason it was given to Congress, to check the executive branch. What the founders did not envision were political parties as a whole, especially a single party that will stand by a corrupt president without hesitation nonetheless an entire media apparatus that muddies the waters of truth in partisan service (Fox News).
I say let any republicans in the senate vote to acquit if they want. They'll have that vote on record for their constituents and future generations to shame them for.
1
Bret - obstruction of justice is a crime. Moving phone records to super-secure server so they don't see daylight is just that. Did Watergate teach us nothing?
30
impeachment does not require conviction in a court of law.
17
I just long for the good old days when political corruption was just about politicians lining their own pockets and colluding with oil and railroad tycoons to expand their empires. I can understand the corrupt influence of greed. What is different and more alarming to me now is the motivation for the kind of corruption we see in the Trump administration, aside from his own pocket-lining, and the goals of his enablers and protectors. What do they seek that is worth all the attacks on our foundational institutions and civic values, the voter suppression and gerrymandering, the constant lying, the fear-mongering and race-baiting? The obvious answer is power, but power to do what? What is the end game?
13
@abigail49
I remember the same question being asked during Watergate. The answer came, I think, from an opinion column in the NYT.
That pundit said that power is desired in order "to get a higher class of dames"--dames being expressed by a somewhat cruder word, as I recall.
In other words, it's all about competition among the rich and powerful to be king of the hill.
1
@abigail49
I think it is still about money. Look at the way Trump delights in manipulating the stock market. If only his deliberate manipulation could be proven to line his pockets...
2
@mb
Correction: on reflection, I think this occurred during the Clinton impeachment proceedings.
Sorry for the mistake.
Elizabeth Drew had a wonderful column in yesterday's Times explaining why it would be a mistake to confine the impeachment inquiry simply to the matter of the Ukraine and push the inquiry through as quickly as possible. To do so gives Trump a virtual pass on everything else that the Mueller Report so boringly revealed, and also will neglect what might come up in the meantime.
A good example of the latter is that the Democrats this morning are saying they now have evidence - you know, stuff that's provable - that Trump lied to Mueller. If those lies took place under oath, then Trump is a perjurer, and perjury is a felony.
Trump isn't alone here. The cast of characters is large and awful: Barr; Giuliani; Jared; Mick Mulvaney. Who knows who else or what they did?
I'm an older American, and my attention span exceeds thirty seconds and 280 characters. I want the Democrats to take their time and do the best job possible. My country and I deserve no less.
22
@Vesuviano
I am of the opinion that we should impeach now, and impeach often, until the malignancy is gone.
I think this 'shakedown' episode finally convinced a lot of Americans that something needs to be done. I'm one of them. I don't want to see the 'shakedown' mixed in with a lot of other stuff that's certainly equally damning, but on which Mueller refused to take a stand. Mueller's silence gave Barr the opportunity to spin the report. This time, the spin-man is in the hot seat himself. Democrats need to move.
The Democrats have been investigating and coming up with lists of offenses for months now...if they're ready to include those findings today, great. If not, then I want them to set all that aside and move on this specific issue, now.
1
Would it be accurate to start referring to all Repub's as the Repubican Guard?
9
The only way out is to replace our precious bodily fluids with pure clean water, oh wait the clean water rules are being rolled back. Never mind.
5
I love these conversations, but I am so tired of many in the media wanting so hard to support Trump or at least water down their animosity against Trump that they turn themselves into pretzels, dumping logic and moral values to do so. Bret Stephens, I'm talking to you and other pundits like you--check out Ross Douthat's mishmash mess of a column in today's paper for example. It's time for many pundits and others in the media to get out of the gray area, false equivalence, and whataboutism of Trumpville and take up the standard of right and wrong again. Otherwise, like the Egyptian dictator, we will have Trump and his minions setting themselves up for life right here in DC. Game over.
9
Some people bought trump’s patter about turning America around and draining the swamp because they only knew and cared to know of him from his own portrayal of his backstory.
But what I don’t get is people who really knew who he was and still said “well, we know who he is, but let’s see where this goes, it might still turn out okay... you never know, being president might turn him around”...
That’s like boarding a plane and seeing a labradoodle siting in the pilot’s seat and saying “okay... a labradoodle... that’s not so bad, let’s see how it goes...”
It’s a labradoodle and they can’t fly commercial airliners, they don’t even have thumbs... and the same with trump, he was a conman and an incompetent fool, he couldn’t lead a nation, he doesn’t even have a conscience...
From the moment the electoral college stuck this fool in office it was clear where this was going.
13
I'm not sure what Bret is thinking. This is Trump bribing a foreign power. Bribery is on the impeachable list. Bret is just flat-out wrong about that, and he isn't called on it.
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. "
He is also collecting emoluments unimpeded, and apparently only impeachment can put a check on that because Republicans are so immoral and unprincipled they won't stop any corruption, no matter how obvious.
5
The Constitution lists "Treason, BRIBERY, and high crimes and misdemeanors" as cause for impeachment. Isn't offering hundreds of millions of tax dollars in exchange for dirt on an opponent "bribery"? Even the memorandum of the Ukraine phone call made it clear that aid was directly contingent on help: Zelenskyy said that Ukraine wanted to "buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes", and Trump immediately responded "I would like you to do us a favor though ..." and proceeded to ask for dirt on the Bidens. Of course, this is just a rough summary of the call: I cannot wait to see the verbatim text (though, since it's sequestered on a high security server, I'm not holding my breath!)
8
Bret asks "why Nancy Pelosi didn’t wait for a transcript of the phone call or testimony from key officials before beginning the impeachment process?"
But she did! I think most Americans, if they're paying attention at this level of detail—which most are not—would agree that parsing "transcript" separate from the original notes of the call is a reach, to put it mildly.
The impeachment statute avoids that very word, "statute", in favor of the "treason, high crimes and misdemeanors" language. It gives us three choices, two of them plural. To me, that's not specific at all.
If a US Army captain in his official capacity was to conspire directly with a foreign head-of-state to collect dirt on an American candidate for national office, on what charge would the court-martial be brought?
Hint: "With a capital 'T", and that rhymes with 'P', and that stands for [I'm dropping the mic right here, thankfully.].
3
@Stuart
I'm still trying to find out if there's an actual recording. An ex-intelligence official interviewed on the PBS Newshour said these conversations aren't taped, only notes are taken. It seems we've all read at least some of the notes.
1
“And I struggle to see exactly what criminal statute Trump violated with the call. “
Brett. You’ve set the barr way too high.
The call was not only extortionary on its face, but of a piece with traitorous behaviors serving the interests of Putin’s Russia for over three years now. Do you not detect a pattern of behavior that should instantly disqualify this president from holding the office? Is it your job to posit the opposite side to any and all questions no matter what? Oh. Maybe it is. Never mind.
5
Stephens goes so easy on trump’s brazenly corrupt behavior he’s likely to get a job offer from the White House. Watch that phone, Bret!
3
We have an 'affluenza' POTUS, who knows/respects no boundaries, treating rules and guardrails with disdain then treating actual laws, regulations, and black letter Constitutional prohibitions in the same manner.
Lawlessness cannot be tolerated in POTUS la-la-land, and the chutzpah of calling up Ukraine the very day after Mueller finished his testimony to Congress confirms all these worst inclinations.
Pelosi and the Dems have had the process forced upon them, if their Oaths are to mean anything at all - it is meaningful that many of the moderate Dems who have crossed over to the impeachment side are former military/former intel officials who have sworn Oaths to this country before, and are just incapable of stomaching violations of that Oath from anyone.
Bully! for them.
4
A president using the power of his office (and withholding military aid authorized by Congress) to demand personal “favors” from foreign governments is not against the law? Are you sure, Bret?
4
Tough luck, Bret. Soliciting election inference by a foreign government is a federal crime. It would serve you well to be informed about this sort of thing.
5
The impeachment wagon is getting quite full! He won't get away being lawless this time! Democrats and Republicans must all join in and without personal concerns about losing their jobs. If they do, he will either resign or be impeached.
2
“Trump will be the chief messenger in the response effort, and his allies will probably take cues from him,” said Jay Sekulow.
1
Why aren't you two running for co-president? I would vote for that at least twice.
Mr Stevens,
Please educate yourself on the origination and intent of the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” before wasting the readers valuable time.
Thank you
4
It’s a misdemeanor to lie to the American people from the bully (literally) pulpit of the Presidency.
1
One of your best conversations, you two! (And keep in mind, I use the exclamation mark judiciously.)
Apparently Mr. Stephens is apparently waiting for Trump to gun somebody down on Fifth Avenue before he will support an impeachment. Trump has been classified as an unindicted co-conspirator for paying off potential witnesses about his various affairs. He has probably violated election laws by soliciting election assistance from a foreign country. Even now, he is skirting around with whistleblower laws by talking about the possible identity of the current whistleblower who has been in all the news. Mr. Stephens is maybe setting a higher standard than does the Constitution.
5
Regarding a criminal basis for impeachment, consider the following hypothetical: a president, in the heat of a disagreement, steals a state trooper’s gun to fatally shoot someone on live TV while visiting one of the states. It is unlikely that a federal crime has been committed, and the president would have immunity from state law prosecution during her term. If Congress were to impeach because they and America as a whole had lost faith in the president’s abilities after watching her commit murder, how would they do so if they are acting purely on a criminal basis? As a federal body, they would not bring a state law action, but no federal crime has been committed. The answer is that impeachment has Congress sit not as a criminal court, but in a manner akin to a criminal court. “High crimes and misdemeanors” speaks more of wrongs great and small than it does of actual counts in an applicable criminal code.
2
"I fear impeachment will lose much of its moral stigma and political force if it ends up coming down to a party-line vote."
A party-line vote was good enough to elect Brett Kavanaugh. We're worried about the moral standing of impeachment, but not the Supreme Court?
16
Read the Federalist Papers and you see that its authors, explaining the Constitution, were students of Greek and Roman history.
Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: "The President, . . . shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
(wiki) The word crime is derived from the Latin root cernō, meaning "I decide, I give judgment". Originally the Latin word crīmen meant "charge" or "cry of distress." The Ancient Greek word κρίμα, krima, from which the Latin cognate derives, typically referred to an intellectual mistake or an offense against the community, rather than a private or moral wrong.
High crimes and misdemeanors can easily be interpreted to mean serious public wrongs, and this was left to our representatives to determine -- just as they write laws.
So, do you think the House might legitimately find that Trump should be tried for Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors? It looks like they are more than half way there to make the case.
So let them demolish that which is obstructing justice, get the unredacted Mueller Report, gather all appropriate documents, and deliberate.
Are Republican Senators so dense that they will not be able to engage in their duty? Is democracy truly doomed?
Please, Bret, discuss . . .
8
Bret,
Footnote:
Those “palaces” are being built by China moving Cairo to a modern and efficient Capital City.
www.InquiryAbraham.com
1
Mr. Stephens writes: "If some of our readers (lawyers and judges especially) can make the case that Trump’s behavior would get him convicted in a court of law, I’m all ears.” Here's the case from this lawyer:
Pursuant to 52 U.S. Code § 30121, Trump's solicitation of Zelensky to produce dirt on Biden, in order to help Trump with his re-election, constituted -- without more -- a federal crime regardless of whether Zelensky responded.
52 U.S. Code § 30121 prohibits a foreign national from directly or indirectly making a “contribution or donation of money or other thing of value” in connection with a U.S. election, and prohibits a person from soliciting, accepting or receiving such a contribution or donation from a foreign national. Federal law defines “contribution” to include “any gift … of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” And the FEC by regulation defines “solicit” to mean “to ask, request, or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.”
And that’s all the law requires. Whether or not Ukraine came through, whether or not the communications involved a quid pro quo, Trump's solicitation of a thing of value from the Ukraine President in connection with a U.S. election constitutes a federal crime.
So, Mr. Stephens, put that in your smoke and pipe it.
31
@Barry Schreibman
Right on Barry--thank you!
3
Bret, Please, Zelensky desperately needs money to defend his country against Russian aggression. Trump promises to give him $400 million or so if Zelensky makes up stuff that Trump thinks will destroy Joe Biden politically. If that's not bribery, it's extortion, and if not extortion it's an illegal campaign donation from a foreign government. Also, Trump wants Zelensky to lend a veneer of credibility to Trump's brain-infected fantasy that it was the Ukranians and not the Russians who meddled in the 2016 presidential election on behalf of (guess who) Hillary Clinton. Getting the Russians off the hook, would provide Trump and his Republican lackeys cover to lift sanctions against the Russian oligarchy, something that might just comfort and aid our enemy Putin. So Bret, you're having a hard time seeing what laws were broken here? As President Obama used to respond when someone said something obviously stupid, "C'mon man."
12
In these conversations, I'm on Gail's side 99% of the time...although I hate it when I agree with Bret as I occasionally do. One thing I bet everyone can agree on...I love that the NYTimes publishes the lighted hearted, yet serious banter between these two.
2
It's a crime of campain finance using public funds, and of bribery of an elected official using public funds.
Laws change all of the time. What constitutes a crime for a president was always unclear. But this is clearly a violation of law.
And it is treason.
6
I suspect dozens, if not hundreds of people have knowledge of crimes or potential crimes committed by and for djt.
The whistleblower, as evidenced by the written complaint, is intelligent and well prepared. There is certainly more to come. The sycophants are having night terrors.
What Putin and the alt-right and the evangelicals, and the federalists and the freedom caucus and the nra all got wrong is that the ugly truth will make America great again.
4
What does it say, Mr. Stephens, when you feel that no matter what is uncovered during an impeachment inquiry, Republican Senators will not convict the president?
Are you saying impeachment is only is available if the president takes up arms with ISIS? Or would they still find reasons to support him -- ISIS are freedom fighters striking out against the man, and Trump is just following his populist instincts?
Are you saying Senate Republicans are hollow humans?
Are you scared of Lindsey Graham?
Or do you just like to be a contrarian? It's a job I guess.
4
Here's what I don't get---actually I do, but--the Republicans went ahead an impeached a President for a sex act; but see nothing wrong with another President shaking down foreign leaders for dirt on a political opponent. We all know, that if Obama had done what Trump has already done, we would already be in the first week of the Senate Trial.
9
Stevens is cute the way he discusses a degradation of the American Constitution as if it’s a bowl of stale figgy pudding in a college cafeteria.
5
If nothing else, Trump being Trump should make everyone very, very tired of Trump. And a little bit sick. Even those Republicans who are still convinced -- dear Lord -- that he is their future. Think about THAT, folks.
4
The problem will be not just getting rid of Trump but reversing the extremist majority in the Supreme Court. I believe Trump is a Dead President Walking, and that he will be removed, but restoring some semblance of equanimity to the Supreme Court will be far more problematic, unless one of the GOP judges dies.
6
Stephens is an apologist for the Mad King, and though he is certainly a deeper thinker in many way, this situation with Trump's crimes seems to aways be in his 'blind spot'.
7
As impeachable as “I need a favor from you though” is, let’s not forget the cover up. Even that is pardonable by Pence.
My thoughts and prayers are with the New York AG. Go get ‘em, Tiger.
4
Stephens worries that our institutions may not be strong enough to survive this president, and one paragraph later asks, “How should the Democrats play this?” Does anybody else see the disconnect in his brain that I see?
4
“Hey, how about somebody who gets elected with help from a foreign power and then tries to trade (extort) government favors (from other) foreign power(s) for inside dirt on an opponent?” And then his staff goes into overdrive to conceal & obstruct access to evidence of his criminality!
3
There is a 90 year old woman in a nursing home I visit. She cannot stand Donald Trump. She shows me what she does when he comes on the TV and she even hears his voice.
She grasps her TV remote with vigor, raises it up as quick as her 90 year old arm allows her, and as she says “Click!” She either turns the TV off or switches channels - she just gets rid of Donald Trump taking up one bit of anything in her beloved space in life.
Wouldn’t it be nice if Trump was impeached, shunned out of the White House, given no more time or space on TV? My 90 year old friend would never have to be bothered by this man, an American disgrace, ever again.
Peace.
12
Threatening a whistleblower with charges of treason and hinting at his/her execution? That alone seems egregious enough to remove this awful man from office. All the rest is gravy. Nail him.
11
Bret, you ask what crime Trump committed in his phone call. The call was a shakedown (mafia style) but the provable crimes are in his cover up. He obstructed justice in multiple ways:
First, "locking down" evidence to hide it from the prosecutors.
Second, altering evidence. The released "transcript" is very likely doctored to delete blatant quid pro quo threats and promises. I can't prove it, I just know it's true (thank you for that phrase Bill Maher). And the evidence that what was released is altered will be the fact that the original locked-down transcript will never be produced.
Third, intimidating witnesses by threatening charges of treason and hanging.
Fourth, threatening the prosecutors. Trump's call for the arrest of Rep. Adam Schiff for treason is not "bonkers," it is an assault on a prosecutor. (the president is bonkers not his call)
The Senate will never convict Trump. The Republican Party is a gangster party. Except for one or two Republicans in the Senate (e.g., Romney timidly allowing that the call was "troubling") the party has rallied around Trump by attacking Democrats for having the audacity to pursue their oversight responsibilities.
Trump must be impeached. His impeachment will also impeach the character of all Republicans. As they refuse to convict and continue to lie about the impeachment, they will make it crystal clear they are The Gangster Party. In 2020 America will be seated in the jury box.
Face it Bret, you don't have a party anymore.
9
Trump has already famously pointed out that should be murder someone on Fifth Avenue, he would not be arrested. The idea that he has not committed an act worthy of impeachment and conviction is a legitimate test of the Fifth Avenue hypothesis.
6
We can at least be thankful of two things Donald Trump’s presidency has shown us. 1. How fragile our democracy or any democracy is. And 2. Thank God Donald J Trump wasn’t President on December 7, 1941.
6
If you don’t think trump deserves impeachment you support trump. Period. Everything else is just apologia.
5
Maybe today will be the day that twitter blocks trump for his violent invoking statements.
6
Jefferson's own words say it best: “Do you want to know who you are? Don't ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you.”
Yes, Brett, just let Trump be Trump, Pompeo be Pompeo, Barr be Barr, Giuliani be Giuliani, just as Trump promised. Let his team of best people keep on keeping on. Be best everyone!
3
Al Gore would have become President if Clinton had not been impeached.
Impeaching Trump will tarnish his defenders.
1
@Gerard
I agree about Gore, though he was actually elected, just not “selected” by SCOTUS. And hope you are right about the defenders.
5
Brett, are you going to believe Republican talking heads or your lying eyes? It's hard to accept that actions that would get any CEO tarred and feathered, let alone fired, get a pass when it's Trump. The sheer volume of his criminal behavior has normalized it. Pedestrians on 5th Avenue should think about wearing Kevlar vests.
4
Gail & Bret, Rome is burning, the Titanic is sinking and you are discussing definitions rather than the funeral of 243 years that is being held as we type and read.
This is Trump:
Hate
White Supremacy
Dictatorship
Crush the poor
Cage immigrants
Remove health care
Enrich oneself at taxpayers cost
Keep the 1% fat & happy
Lie every day and have no conscience
Kill the climate
Eschew family values
Assimilate the role of a mob boss
Accuse anyone that does not bow of vile and criminal acts that he did
Have no idea of what is written in our Constitution
No interest in following laws of our Country
Strip any and all of positive accomplishments of President Obama
Commit Treason and no one holds him accountable
Appoints and hires cowards and accomplices to vilify our Constitution
Isolate from the free world and allies
Emulate dictators
Has not shown an ounce of empathy
Cruel
Sides with Putin, MBS and Kim
Add to this list hourly
When?
9
@Broz Amen.
I don't know why Stephens is giving another break to trump for abusing presidential powers and comitting crimes. If trump wasn't president, he'd have been indicted long ago for for bribing Stormy Daniels to keep quiet. If he wasn't a republican president, he'd have been impeached in his first year for numerous lies, conspiracy with russians, cruelty, and starting idiotic trade wars.
His other personal attorney is in jail. He conceals and obstructs every day. He is now threatening his opponents with treason and death treats.
Stephens is stretching his morality for what? Success at the polls? Timidity? Unity? Swinishness?
Makes no sense.
3
That someone would find paying hush money to stormy daniel’s more impeachable than the flagrant “oh and one more thing, can you do me a favor and dig up some dirt on my political rival, here’s the names and contacts that you can collude with to do it”, and the three dreadful years filled with lies, threats, obstruction, insults, always stooping to new lows and breaking precedents, impossible for me to fathom how an educated person can be so blinded not to see this, unless they are on a strict diet of fox, rush, hannity, levin, trump’s idea of great people.
2
How is Bret missing the fact that if Trump was soliciting the Ukrainian president to go after Biden to enhance his reelection efforts, that's a crime.
2
All we Americans want, Bret, is for the House to stand for something and impeach this malignancy. Americans still remember Clinton--how the Republicans hounded him about Monica Lewinsky until, finally, he lied to Congress. Then, all jubilant and frothing at the mouth, they pointed to the only real crime--that he lied to Congress about sex. What an achievement in the annals of the Republican Party!
So, I'm sure most Americans join me in saying that we should keep up with the hounding, and if the hounding means drawing up Articles of Impeachment for an action you don't think violates any laws--the 'shakedown'--then I, and most Americans, say: tough. We don't care what you think. We believe the 'shakedown' is egregious, and we know that, with enough hounding, Trump will lie to Congress--and you'll have that 'real crime' you believe is so, so important.
Then, most Americans....including you, apparently....will be satisfied.
Win-Win!
2
Cmon Brett. The Constitution is a group of laws violation of which could be grounds for impeachment. More to the point the document allocates the federal power among the three branches of government. When the president oversteps his bounds, like, for example, by holding back congressional funding or diverting funds allocated to the military to the wall, he is violating the separation of powers. Congress can censure him for sure but it’s only real weapon to rein executive excess in is the impeachment process.
2
It this comes down to party-line votes, it will be because the Republicans with principles have been exiled or have quit Congress.
3
Whether people believe impeachment is the right or wrong course to take, one thing is clear. Based on the snooze-fest that was the multi-year Mueller investigation, the House needs to act expeditiously. And, I don't mean by their alternate universe time standards; I mean by the normal person-on-the-street standard time standard who has to decide things and get on with life. This is anything but business as usual for our country. Get on with it!
8
The president attempted to shakedown the leader of a foreign country.
The president solicited a foreign government to interfere in a US election.
Why is this so hard to get?
1517
@oldBassGuy
Exactly. At some point the immune system has to kick in. The antibodies of impeachment have to seek out the cancer cells. Mr. Stephens does not seem to understand (Mr. Brooks as well) that the process of impeachment is not only a political act to oust an unworthy President, it is to indicate that the executive branch is always to be held under scrutiny, for Congress to always be present - and that the mechanism embodied in our Constitution is held higher than partisanship. The Senate will probably not convict, but that does not in any way mean that the process of impeachment is for nought.
192
"Why is this so hard to get?"
Salary.
37
@oldBassGuy - it isn't hard, just lots of hard-headed people refuse to accept reality.
67
All Bret has to do is read a couple of the many articles posted by Constitutional scholars to understand that conduct amounting to a breach of the oath of office and the position of trust (particularly by seeking favor from foreign powers) constitutes impeachable offenses.
13
"I fear impeachment will lose much of its moral stigma and political force if it ends up coming down to a party-line vote. "
But whose fault is that? No one forced a steady diet of Fox News and talk radio on American conservatives, to the point where they're incapable of telling truth from fiction and right from wrong. I don't care about the people who are so far gone there's no hope. I care about the next generation that needs to see people of conscience still capable of standing up to tyrants and tribalists.
56
This is an impeachment inquiry, not a impeachment. Distinguishing between the two is critical. The attempts to conflate them should be fought back. If done smartly with professional prosecutors, this inquiry will lay bare the shenanigans of this president. Whether or not the Republicans are then shocked, horrified and scandalized by trumpy, is anyone's guess.
14
If the inquiry is without prosecution, Trump will be once again vindicated. Ms Pelosi understands this. You have to know what is under the surface before diving into the river.
I don’t understand how anybody who believes in the American idea of democracy and the Constitution can tolerate Trump’s conduct and his vituperative tweets. I feel that there is no choice but to impeach him and will be gravely disappointed with the Republicans if they don’t convict him. Trump is truly an adversary to the American constitutional system. He fails to understand that his opposition are only political opponents not enemies. Both parties are supposed to care about our country, our democratic institutions, and should be interested in working together to formulate good policies for all Americans.
18
Bret, it's just hard to take you seriously any more.
Now your argument is that impeachment requires violation of a specific criminal statute (focusing solely on 'high crimes' out of the list of 'Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors')
You asked Gail to stop you when you're totally wrong.
She did, and with a dollop of characteristic humor along with her characteristic grounding in a firm grasp of history and our institutions.
The balance of your arguments actually constitute an argument in favor of impeachment, but you can't quite follow your own logic to its conclusion because of your conviction in the highly questionable theory that this will all play to trump's benefit leading to reelection.
Way to take a stand, man. Fear. You were for it before you were against it. Why? Fear.
I read this column for Gail's insights, especially as you provoke her to further refine her points, always with grace and humor.
19
What Trump did was criminal, and serious. First, Trump was engaged in extortion: Extortion is a criminal offense that generally involves the use of force or threats to compel another person into providing money or property, or using force or threats to compel a public official to perform or neglect an official act or duty.
And from Findlaw: If any method of interstate commerce is used in the extortion, it can be a federal crime.
Extortion is a felony, a serious crime.
Trump was engaged in extortion when he asked for a favor at the same time as he was touting all the help the USA had given Ukraine and he was suggesting, in his code, that if Zelensky wanted that help to continue Ukraine had to "play ball" meaning comply with Trump's wishes.
In addition to that, Trump knew that Ukraine was desperate for help from the USA and he was putting the security of a friendly country at risk for his personal benefit.
That is utterly despicable, a violation of his oath of office, in addition to being criminal.
Not only that, he was bargaining with house (Federal funds approved by Congress), and plainly could not and never would account for (meaning file a FEC report the desired "dirt," plainly a deliberate violation of the FEC statutes). It is true that he eventually relented in regard to providing those funds, but that seems to have only been after some pressure was put on him.
I do not mean this to be a complete summary of the criminal issues. But this was all quite criminal.
12
"And I struggle to see exactly what criminal statute Trump violated with the call."
52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(2): It Shall be unlawful for a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election, from a foreign national.
The call was an unlawful solicitation.
18
trump calls the Press, “the enemy of the people”. How can we allow a person such as this be president?
trump says Kaepernick has no right to peacefully protest. How can we allow him to be president?
Many of trump’s tweets do not even reach the level of a two year old’s tantrums. How can we allow him the power of the president?
trump’s sides with the likes of Putin, Kim and MBS. When did this become unimpeachable behavior in our president?
Asking for foreign help in our election process, twice! And still we have people who are supporting him!!!
Censure is not enough, removal is the best solution. trump has not proven he can be president. But he has proven himself unfit for the office, just as the republicans have.
10
Hmmm, how about telling Russians that he is not concerned about their election meddling (which amounts to admitting that they did indeed meddle), then attempting to obstruct the investigation into Russian meddling, thereby actively harming our country? If that's not treason I don't know what is.
9
"The language on impeachment is fairly specific: “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” And I struggle to see exactly what criminal statute Trump violated with the call." Why is it not plausible to to find Trump guilty of "treason", by seeking to subvert our democratic institutions and fair elections with assistance from the Ukrainian leader, or by previously standing side by side with Putin and taking Putin's word over the findings of US intelligence forces about Russia's interference in the 2016 elections, with no evidence. Or why is not guilty of "bribery," by accepting invaluable foreign support to hobble a political rival to tip the 2020 election in his favor, in exchange for granting foreign aid? Or is that just extortion (which is a crime isn't it)? Or how about creating a national security risk by withholding significant military aid unless Ukraine grants him his personal favor -- treason again?
4
Obstruction of justice, Bret. The most recent examples being witness intimidating (threatening the whistleblower) and calling for the arrest of a sitting Congressman for treason.
I am really convinced that even if Trump shot someone point blank on fifth avenue at this point, Republican's would still find a way to justify it, or at the most, give a lukewarm rebuke as Mr. Stephens has in this piece.
10
If Trump were capable of playing chess - and his style of chess would be to charge in, dump the board, declare he won, and tweet about his beautiful, beautiful king and queen - he'd have Pelosi in check.
Whether he planned it or not, she has to start the impeachment investigation, or it is checkmate. He proves he can do anything. That might be the upshot anyway.
First, he is out and out defying the the theme of the Mueller report which condemns the interference of foreign governments in our elections, by soliciting or extorting such an effort.
Second, his administration is engaged in a cover-up and a cover-up of the cover-up, and the Attorney General and Secretary of State are involved. Both are defying Congress, which is a constitutional no-no.
He is strong-arming foreign powers left and right to get an upper hand in the election, trying to undermine everybody, and still going after Clinton, who is not running, and the FBI investigation that led to the Mueller report. He has his Justice Department soliciting foreign powers to undermine his own CIA and FBI.
Yeah, he needs to be impeached, and yeah the GOP will choke. But if we don't even try to impeach, we are stating that this is OK. Losing impeachment states that the GOP thinks this is OK, because they are spineless fearful Un-Cosntitutional obsequious self-interested toadies.
9
@Cathy I agree with you, but I wish people would stop using phrases such as "his" Justice Department. It is OUR Justice Department, not his.
1
@Richard Rettberg
All of our government is 'ours,' but the Justice Department answers to the Executive Branch, unlike most of our Justice System which culminates at the Supreme Court and does not do the direct bidding of the president...hence the giant push to pack the federal courts and the Supreme Court with conservative Justices.
That's why people say "his," to remind us that they are definitely not working for us.
3
Impeachment is a political decision not a legal one.
There does not have to be a provable violation of a criminal statute.
Though from obstruction of Congress, violation of campaign finance laws, obstruction of justice , using the AG as his personal fixer and threatening a member of Congress with a treason arrest are reasons enough.
The House Judicial committee should open impeachment proceedings against Barr. He is unfit for the office he holds.
6
Ever since #45 became #45 at his Oath of Office, he has been impeachable. That #45 had never read or understood the Constitution is irrelevant. He has never operated with the country's interests first or second or third.
7
The expression has now been amended to "let Trump be almost anyone else".
3
There is an unusual expectation in the conservative punditry that Democrats should conduct themselves like a battered spouse in a bad marriage. Democrats are expected to select a candidate who isn't so progressive and threatening that he or she won't make rural voters and the rich uncomfortable. Don't impeach Donald Trump no matter how egregious and even dangerous his behavior because that might upset rich people and rural voters. So what if Republicans pack the court with right-wing ideologues, gerrymander every district possible, and suppress the vote. By all means allow Donald Trump to strong-arm client states into doing opposition research. It all stinks of appeasement and Democrats who are sick of it will do well to remember Harry Truman's axiom given the choice between a Republican and a Republican, people will take the Republican every time.
8
I just found out something about the word "misdemeanor" by consulting the Oxford English Dictionary. The OED is the authoritative source on the meanings and etiology of words of the English language. "Misdemeanor" meant back in the mid-eighteenth century to have bad demeanor. Telling your grandmother a dirty joke would be a misdemeanor: a mis-demeanor. Any kind of behavior that ought not be done was a misdemeanor, regardless whether it was legal.
Now, "misdemeanor" has become reduced to meaning criminal acts that are not as serious as felonies. Criminal acts are divided into misdemeanors and felonies. But back in the day, a "high misdemeanor" was just something that a president really, really ought not do. Can you think of any Trump misdemeanor using this definition?
5
I was where Brett is now - I thought Trump was a stain on the Office and the country. His actions are dangerous and an embarrassment BUT like Brett (one of his reasons), I feared an impeachment would help Trump. His base doesn’t care about his most egregious acts - the media they listen to spin them into egregious acts by Democrats and they continue to cheer him as their ‘champion’ in the reality-TV world they think we inhabit.
I’ve come over to supporting Nancy Pelosi’s plan - starting the impeachment inquiry. Trump is just getting worse. The whistle-blower is a hero and we can’t ignore his/her principled action by inaction. It might bring others who have been telling the truth about Trump in private, into the open.
6
Republicans should blame Guiliani. He's probably guilty of lots of things so a little blame may catch a lot. The rest of America should vow to keep New York City residents off all ballots in the future. Let them fight each other over the Bronx and leave Findlay alone. Even Jim Jordan and his friends might like that.
I believe the Speaker's decision to begin impeachment has set up a possible "win-win". In all likelihood, Donald Trump, being the narcissist, who we know him to be, will escalate and be even more lawless, the "give him enough rope" axiom. and hasten the demise of his presidency Much less likely, he could be chastened and he would curtail doing terrible, self-serving, tyrannical acts. Either way we would be marginally better off.
It's astonishing that he has irreparably damaged the reputations of many men, purported to be smart, effective public servants. How will Rudy Giuliani, Mike Pompeo, and Bill Barr ever reclaim their reputations? They might be very lucky to escape indictments.
3
Bret: "What distinguishes us from Egypt is that our institutions have been stronger than the people who occupy them."
And that, my dear sir, is being tested to the stretching limits by the man in whom you just cannot see is worthy of impeachment. Removal from office is another matter but Congress would be derelict in its duty if it did not call him out. This is far from a partisan issue, as you must know but, as a Republican, you're really not willing to admit. You all frown and glower and point to Fifth Avenue and scream "Show me the corpse!"
The corpse is "our institutions" that you rhapsodized about in your close. We, under Donald Trump, are a bullet-riddled body. We've been assailed by our own president in broad daylight and all you Republicans can do is look for something more validating than "behavior [that] would get him convicted in a court of law."
What about the optics of this president's obvious transgressions of decency and decorum? Don't they count for anything? Again, I ask, cut and paste Donald Trump's tenure onto Barack Obama's (or Bill Clinton's, for that matter) and tell me that the Republicans in both houses wouldn't be all over impeachment like a wolf on a lamb chop.
Republicans still want it both ways. They want us to think that they are the aggrieved parties here, one hand held up in protesting innocence while the other is in their pockets.
So far, Donald Trump has not answered to the law nor to the Congress. The day is soon coming when he will.
7
Trump’s descent into madness is clipping along at an unbelievable rate. The new CBS poll out yesterday confirms that public opinion toward impeachment is moving the needle that is not in his favor and this in turn will help fuel the madness of our Toddler in Chief.
Trump needs help. He needs solid legal help and a strategy, but he also needs to be evaluated by a psychiatrist. It seems to me the writing is on the wall and doubtful he will finish this term at this pace of descending madness. The Senate has to go on record with an up or down vote and this will be a major decision on their part but if Trump continues to deteriorate into madness it won’t take much to persuade 20 GOP voters to impeach for the benefit of the republic and not the monarchy which is certainly what will result if Trump is elected a 2nd term.
His cabinet would be doing him a big favor and invoke the 25th amendment and have him legally declared insane to avoid jail. It seems the only viable defense
he has left.
7
"They’ll ask why Nancy Pelosi didn’t wait for a transcript of the phone call or testimony from key officials before beginning the impeachment process."
Wow. Shame on Bret Stephens. This is one of the talking points distributed by the White House to their surrogates (accidentally sent to Nancy Pelosi) on the Ukraine/impeachment controversy.
Is that what Stephens is relying on?
It's also lame that Stephens omits from his five reasons against impeachment the following -- "One question that obviously needs answering is what motivated Trump to delay the $400 million or so in aid to Ukraine before that phone call."
That FACT is clearly the context in which the telephone call has to be viewed. They are connected! That is what makes Trump guilty of "bribery" or some form of extortion.
Stephens is off base.
5
Mr. Stevens evidently thinks it's wrong for the Democrats to press for impeachment because he doesn't think Trump has committed a crime. Has Mr. Stevens been sleepwalking since 2016?
2
Bret Stephens should no longer hesitate to support Trump’s impeachment on the ground that Trump has committed no crime. Trump indicted himself when he threatened to subject the whistle blower to execution as a spy. Federal criminal law forbids anyone from threatening physical harm to a public official. The whistle blower not only is a federal official but also is clearly protected from any type of reprisal. Trump’s crazy threat to arrest Adam Schiff for leading the federal and constitutional inquiry into Trump’s misconduct likewise violates the ban against harming a federal official. Indeed, Trump is on an rampage of criminal misconduct that should warrant his impeachment as well as his conviction for threatening public officials and at the same time threatening our democracy.
6
I'm hoping that the American electorate will FINALLY see Trumpo for what he is and boot him out of office come November 2020.
An impeachment enquiry is good but will not remove him from office. The craven Republicans in the Senate will see to that despite what the people may want.
Without commenting on the arguments presented here, I'd like to point out that the president of the United States of America, arguably the most powerful person on earth, is going berserk only days into this process. He has hinted that the whistle blower should be killed, called a House committee head treasonous and a traitor and hinted at a civil war if he is impeached. I wonder, will White House staff be able to save Trump from himself this time? He appears quite unhinged already, with months to go in the impeachment. What will he do, and how far are aides prepared to go in protecting him?
8
@Rob
The U. S. Presidency may be the most powerful position, but Trump has squandered that at home and abroad. Every country has seen our true colors and is moving on without us.
He's not even powerful here--we all found this out last year when some 'anonymous' op-ed was published in the NYT telling Americans not to worry, that sane people in the U. S. Government were working behind the scenes to make sure he doesn't do anything too stupid.
Sigh.
While admittedly far from being on the same level as the GOP circling wagons to save Trump and their own self-interest, nonetheless, I hold the years long reluctant 'impeachers' responsible for the days, weeks and months of criminal harm that has continued with impunity-until now.
So my fury isn't about the theft of the US taxpayers' bank account-nor even of the ginned-up hatred Trump continues to spew, evil and should be cause for removal from the presidency, yes. But the de jure loss of lives -one at a time...one face at a time...one poor soul at a time, while pols of 'good will' look the other way (except for photo ops) and sadly, while the Dems had photo ops and railed eloquent-nonetheless, too many pretzel-twisted for political sobriety's sake...?!
They own it too...
2
Mr. Stephens admits that he is curious about why U.S. aid was witheld and what Rudy Giuliani was/is doing, yet struggles to see what criminal statute was violated by the call. Is this a joke?
6
Bret, like all conservatives, is twisting himself in knots to say that asking a foreign country for help in an election and extorting that country are not impeachable offenses. That they are not crimes. But even if they were crimes, Trump could not be indicted for them according to the "Justice" Department. So yet again the conservatives go for heads I win tails you lose argument. If conservatives are this against impeachment, I believe it must certainly be the right thing to do. They are desperate to not have to have their "leaders" go on record as being for or against this president. The cowardice is astonishing, but is to be expected from this craven lot who hold up legislation that a majority of Americans, D and R, want passed just to protect their cushy jobs.
4
we know why Nancy didn't wait for the transcript if Bret doesn't. Trump was blocking access. Impeachment inquiry gives more strength to congressional demands. Duh.
8
I have mastered the art of guessing the Republican talking points against impeachment. The "political risks" to the Democrats; the rush to judgment; the nation will "tire" of being subjected to months of hearings. Do we hear echoes of the Nixon apologists mantra, "a third-rate burglary?"
No Barry Goldwater or Howard Baker has emerged yet, but the White House must shiver with the fear that a few Republican Senators truly love their country more than party and have had their fill of racism, bullying, vulgar behavior, greed and abuse of power.
6
Ah! I love this facile excuse made by low-level, true believer thinking.. 'let trump be trump.' this kind of drip, drip, drip thinking sooner or later gets you to a sorry place of tolerance where there's no law, no norms, no civility , no decency left in this country. sadly, it's the place trump came from and has happily lived in the whole of his life.
4
So, Bret thought breaking campaign finance laws was worthy of impeachment but extorting a foreign leader to further your election chances isn't. Interesting viewpoint.
2
Suggesting that an actual crime is necessary for impeachment is another Republican false narrative designed to defer the inevitable. Was it the actual break in that justified an impeachment of Nixon? If that were the requirement we would next be asked by Republicans to then consider whether the crime (a bungled break in) justified the penalty (impeaching the POTUS). And in that case of course Republicans would cry that it does not! (see also William Jefferson Clinton for the hypocrisy of that one). The ship is sinking and it’s time to jump or go down with it, better get persuaded soon amigo.
6