Bret longs for a time that never was, now there is a surprising thought coming out of a conservative. He never stops to wonder why the Republican Party Hated Bill Clinton. Why they impeached his as they divorce their wives and had they affairs with women and boys. While they delved in the soft racism the remnant of Nixon's Southern Strategy their leveraged buy out and grinding the Unions and the working man to dust. The sucking of wealth out of the country closing down prosperous little business's And sprinkling Ronald Reagan Sunny vision of a City on the Hill as they consumed the country with their Greed Fear, and Hate. They have turned us form a Country that seemed to know what we were about a country of laws and a constitution , to a Nation rapidly becoming a lap dog for the Soviets, Red Chinese, and a little Monster in North Korea who murders his family with anti aircraft guns when they displease him. Nice work Mr. CONservative.
63
You lost me when you started preaching. I’m not a huge fan of Clinton. Clinton’s obsessive sexual peccadilloes were common knowledge when he was governor of Arkansas. You lost me when you compared Clinton’s hyper sexuality and debasement of women to Trump trying to sell out his own country to hostile foreign governments. Clinton’s behavior was stupid. Trump’s is treasonous .
94
Gee, yet another "Trump is bad.....but what about the Dems" false equivalency attempt by the Times conservative columnists. Getting pretty tiresome, but I guess they make for good clickbait.
59
What a tortured piece of reasoning you’ve laid out.
You are trying to equate a lie about a personal matter, something that mattered only to Clinton, his wife, and Lewinsky, with the slew of corrupt behavior exhibited by this President, behavior that you acknowledge is directly connected to the corrosion of the most essential values we hold dear. Republicans hated Clinton (and Obama) for no reason whatsoever, other than that he was a successful liberal President. We hate Trump because he is an abomination, a crook, a fool, and a disloyal American. There is no way to equate these two situations, and yet you’re trying to do just that. For shame.
84
Desperate times require desperate lies by Republicans to protect their criminal president, Trump. I guess little Bret missed all of the reports of “moral” Republicans found with hookers in their drunkenly crashed cars, found javing sex with young interns, and having years long “youthful indiscretions” with mistresses in their late thirties and early fourties, some of which produced children who had to be hidden away. But do bring up the
Republicans’ fake Clinton scandals to deflect from the real criminal activity of Trump. You can smell the Republican fear of loss of ill-gained power in every dishonest attempt to cover for Trump. If only Republican virtue was real, instead of what it is: a Potemkin village thinly hiding the evil reality behind it. Trump’s crimes warrant impeachment, conviction and removal.
42
I often enjoy Stephens' columns, but now and again he slips back to being just another RWNJ dissembler. Equating Spanky's malfeasance with Clinton? If it's a joke, it's not funny.
26
Once again, the Stephens’ holier than thou reminder that this all about democrats hatred towards Trump. No, Bret. What we hate is seeing a malignant, criminal liar in the White House. We hate having to explain our president to the world. We hate cronyism. We hate lack of leadership. We hate disrespect. We hate lack of empathy. We hate what he does, not who he is.
50
In 1998 we were still in the dark ages regarding males and the accommodations we blindly made for the ones who behaved poorly. If Stephens wants to draw a line between these two, he needs to make millions dots along the way back to 1998 and then he needs to keep going and drawing this line all the way back to the dark age itself and beyond to the prehistoric. In other words, this analysis and comparison is so simplistic as to be truly concerning. In fact, it and Stephens stand as a good example of the problem what with his access to this platform. This is not insight. These are the words and reasoning of another over coddle-d white male, over coddled to the point of being legitimately addle-brained. There are many of these poor blokes trying to adjust to the current reality; some with greater clarity and success than others. (Bruni is a good example of a columnist who once tried to grind the same axe, but was better attuned to the shift and adjusted his rhetoric accordingly.) So, yeah, sure, we shouldn't have given Clinton a pass. I've said it many times in the past few years. We shouldn't have give a whole cohort of men all kinds of passes and promotions and power and platforms--since the beginning of time. Including men with mediocre minds like this columnist. Put in another way, yes there are all kinds of parallels between Clinton and Trump as well the great plurality of me. It's breathtaking how much they cannot see themselves in this long overdue correction.
6
Watergate was a 3rd rate cover-up of a stupid political partisan opposition intelligence 2nd rate burglary by the President of the United States.
Monicagate was a cover- up of Presidential adultery, sexual assault and harassment by President of the United States.
Trumpgate is collusion, cooperation, coordination and complicity with friendly and hostile foreign nation states in order to personally profit from being President of the United States.
40
Stephens presents fancy language and slight of hand to compare apples and oranges. Clinton was a politician; Trump is a madmen. Clinton’s scandal was sexual; Trump’s is one of national security. Clinton’s lied about his own dispicable but highly personal behavior; Trump lies nearly every time he opens his mouth. Clinton, like Nixon, recognized and complied with The Constitution and Congressional authority; Trump, like a despot, does not.
Pls Stephens. Stop muddying the already cloudy waters.
51
This is one of the most absurd exercises in bothsidesism I have ever read! Clinton lied about having consensual sex with an intern, while Trump is shredding the Constitution. The day Trump shoots someone on 5th ave, are you going to make the same argument? C’mon, Bret, you can do much better!
48
Are you kidding me? There is almost no equivalence between Clinton and Trump. Trump is an evil, divisive self-interested nightmare who is solely out for himself and has divided this country against itself. Everything is us against them, winners and losers. He is milking the presidency for all he can, and he has absolutely no respect for the institutions of American government. Think of this impeachment as a sort of lifetime achievement award for him.
Clinton had sexual relations with an intern. And did a lousy job denying it. But that is really about it. This had little impact on his actual presidency. Your memory of that era is completely inaccurate. Republicans did not like Clinton, but it was nothing compared to how Democrats now feel about Trump.
You really could have achieved the ultimately admirable goal of this column (trying to get Republican Senators to actually do their job in a non-partisan manner) without spending hundreds of words on false equivalencies. You're better than that, Bret.
18
~"Clinton hatred played itself out in the interminable Whitewater investigation, which uncovered some wrongdoing and questionable dealings while inuring much of the country to murky presidential scandals. Think of it as the forerunner to the Mueller inquest."~
Have you been to "Whitewater". It is a 20 one-acre lot, unfinished housing development on the White River in Arkansas. Absolutely in the middle of Nowhere USA. The closest "town" is Flippin, AR (I am NOT making that up....Flippin, AR).....it is not the Russians hacking our 2016 Election, leading to the indictments of 20 Russians. Whitewater is in no way the "forerunner" of the Mueller investigation.
25
This comparison is wrong on so many levels. First of all, Republican hatred of Bill Clinton emerged from hubris, nothing more, the idea that only GOP led government was legitimate, that any Democrat, not just Bill Clinton, would sully and/or reverse the legacy of the man the GOP wanted to elevate to sainthood, Ronald Reagan, despite Reagan's scandals and raiding of the treasury.
Trump has earned the ire of people like me because he is a moron who cannot articulate a coherent idea and knows nothing about the world around him, who claims to support gun control and then colludes with the NRA, who has repeatedly tried to deny food stamps and housing help to the poor, who has rolled back essential environmental protections, who thumbs his nose at allies and cozies up to dictators, who wants to open national parks to drilling and mining, who calls climate change a hoax, who appoints cabinet and agency heads who are political hacks without expertise in the fields they are meant to oversee, who thinks it's ok to enrich himself when he is president, who wants foreign governments to interfere in our elections. I could go on, but I think you get the picture.
Why is it that Democrats can criticize their own when they fail to live up to professed principles but Republicans like you, Mr. Stephens, sound the same note of complaint again and again, even when the facts on the ground change, and fail to see how deeply your party has failed the people of this country.
27
Mr. Stevens:
You are comparing a past President who lied about an office affair to a current President who daily lies to the entire populace - literally about EVERYTHING, manufactures conspiracy theories, abuses the Constitution, incites violence against political adversaries, puts his personal interests and profits above those of the nation's, purposefully gins up fear and divisiveness, brags about his sexual attacks on women...
What's behind this exercise in blatant false equivalencies? Who is this written for? Why did you waste your time writing it so that New York Times readers could waste their time reading it? Seriously... what on earth are you doing?
26
Congratulations on reaching graduate level false equivalence. A knee-jerk Democrat, I cannot forgive BC for abusing a young woman and being a useful perfidiot who turned 1998 into yearlong Ginsburgian Howl of Republican vitriol and hypocrisy. To everybody-does-it BC to the beyond-Watergate crime and pusillanimity of today gets an A.
7
Conservatives are masters of conflation. First of all, what is so conservative about the so called conservative Republican Party, nothing? Second, there is no comparison between a consensual affair between two adults sensationalized by the Republican smear machine, and all of Trumps corruption including his latest violation of national security, betrayal of his oath of office and colluding with a foreign power to influence the next election.
12
Clinton's lies and obstructions were about a personal indiscretion that Ken Starr had no reason to be digging into considering he was supposed to be investigating whitewater. They never touched on our national interests or imperiled our democracy.
Trump's lies and obstructions were first about covering for (giving aid and comfort to) a hostile state that attacked the very foundation of our democracy. Now he abuses his office and lies and obstruct to cover the fact the he is soliciting foriegn interference to help steal ANOTHER election.
I'm sorry, but I find the authors conversion to the "no impeachment" side utterly insincere and too convenient. He'll be back on the impeachment bandwagon again once a democrat does something one-tenth as bad as Trump. Very disappointing to see Brett slouch his way back to the side of the cultists.
14
There’s quite a few degrees of egregiousness between Clinton and Trump, which makes this column feel like a false equivalence. And degrees matter. You can have a bad CEO who hurts or is simply not helping the company, and you can have a disastrous CEO who is bankrupting the company. They both are bad CEOs, but one is clearly, and importantly, worse and should raise more urgent alarms.
7
So I guess it’s OK to break the law and ask two countries to dig up dirt on an opponent in exchange for foreign aid or other things as long as unemployment is low? Really??
12
Bill Clinton was impeached for having extramarital sex, by a Republican party that had been investigating him for everything he'd ever done and coming up with nothing. Whitewater, filegate, travelgate, I can't remember all the gates. Finally, they got him with a sex scandal. The American people were never for impeachment, and it showed in the 1998 election.
The investigations of Trump all center on his abuse of power and obstructing lawful investigations. He is getting caught on pressuring foreign governments to dig up dirt on a rival. That's not just "breaking the rules." It's breaking the law. Trump's official position now is that he can do whatever he wants, and can neither be investigated, nor indicted. If that's true, then impeachment is the only remedy, and the majority of Americans support that.
13
Not one of your better ones, Bret. As a conservative, you should be supervigilant about false equivalence, though your "what-aboutist" argument is perfectly aligned with the conservative mentality today. I'm quite happy that Clintonism, with its mix of self-righteousness and unethical behavior, is on its last legs but to equate Clinton perjuring himself about an affair in the face of an off the rails independent prosecutor with Trump trading US national security interests for personal gain is obtuse. And the gaping chasm between Clinton's competence and Trump's utter ineptitude surely is salient.
14
Am I really supposed to take seriously a comparison between the Gingrich-led impeachment of WJC and the Pelosi-led impeachment of Trump? Are you really comparing the two?? Are you actually comparing Trump to Clinton, and Gingrich to Pelosi? That's un-serious.
14
Clinton lied about a sex act between himself and a consenting adult. It was a private personal matter between him and his wife. Newt Gingrich, himself a serial philanderer, brought up the impeachment charges. The offenses that Trump has committed, and continues to commit, attacks the foundation of our democracy. It is a public matter that involves abuse of executive power. Trump has shown no remorse and has made no apology. He would merely dismiss a vote of censure. There is no moral choice other than impeachment.
12
The common denominator here is the Republican Party’s penchant for manufactured outrage scandals as their only reliable tactic in dividing an electorate that would otherwise never vote for its policy agenda: think White Water, Lewinsky, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Benghazi, Hillary Server, and its latest creative enterprise, The Ukrainian Hunter Biden Fables. Only this time the fictions landed so brazen and corrupt so as to draw attention to itself. The curtain finally pulled back on the magicians sleight of hand techniques, we observe Giuliani and Trump caught red handed in the dark arts laboratory with their Frankenstein monster lying inert on the table, Guliani performing the resuscitation maneuvers and Trump holding the defibrillator pads; the creative enterprise revealed for what it has always been, a political propaganda machine aimed at inducing, fear, anger, and disillusionment amongst the electorate toward its representative government.
4
Most Americans believe that they can do whatever they wish because the constitution gives them permission....no matter if what they do is moral or immoral, decent or indecent, or right or wrong. With this kind of total freedom the future will have no need of prisons, law enforcement agencies, nor law books. Why? Because if the law allows you to do what you want, then there is no wrong you can do.
Blessed are those who do not see yet believe. To those who believe in His name: who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Bret strikes me as a very intelligent man
Unfortunately, Bret has a Republican core.
Or maybe it’s a Republican brain structure.
Much like David Brooks, they are uncomfortable with the level of evil exhibited by the Trump regime, but the basic evil that is the Republican mindset is ok.
Corporate oligarchy is fine.
Money is for rich people.
Exploitation of workers is fine.
Greed is good.
Vulture capitalism is good.
If I’m doing ok, there is no problem.
Republicans can’t fathom a system that works for everyone.
8
This article exemplifies for me how we are already lost. The current president stole the election, is using his power to steal another, is despised by a majority of Americans, admits openly he does not know what a moral compass is, rambles like a deranged madman and cannot actually run the government. And yet a tyranny of the minority hypocritically cling to him because some numbers are good - never mind that despite America’s unprecedented wealth most of us share less of it than any time since the robber barons of the 19th century.
However, thanks to climate change, nuclear weapons and a psychopath in the White House, none of this may matter. So there’s that silver lining.
8
I don’t share Mr. Stephens’s embrace of Mitt Romney, but I must admit that it would be soothing to hear some more stories about Shamus’s adventures-on-the-top-of-Mitt’s-car-on-his-way-to-Canada instead of having to listen to Trump’s maniac ravings every single day.
1
If a political party abandons all affinity to decency, honesty, and integrity, just for transactional gains, namely the economy, what does it become? A party with a big tax cut, but no soul, is what?.....a richer moral zombie?....(with the vast majority going to the top.) The basic silence you get from the GOP on Trump’s behavior is deafening. Along with the rule of law.....decency, honesty, and integrity are the foundation stones of a well functioning democracy. Abandon them and you’re vigorously sawing off the branch you’re sitting on.
3
This article is a long exposition on false equivalency. I am thoroughly tired of conservative pundits bleating "but Clinton!", whether it is Bill or Hillary.
The difference is simple. Bill Clinton betrayed his marriage vows, Donald Trump has betrayed his country.
11
You have lost my respect.
There is no comparison with the two whom you try to compare.
7
One effort was a fishing expedition that’s only catch was a lie about extramarital sex. The other involves a torrent of shameless public behavior including involving foreign governments in discrediting the opposition. There’s no equivalence. Nice try though, you’ve got the talking points down.
7
Sorry Bret, this is actually a lot more serious, dangerous, and impeachable than Clinton's sexual acts. What we know now about one phone call 2 and 1/2 years into Trump's reign. He has threatened a foreign country in order to gain advantage over a political rival. This is not sex with a 22 year old, One shudders at what Trump has done before his July phone call, back to before he was inaugurated. Playing footsie with the Russians on US sanctions relative to their interference in the 2016 election. Hello Mike Flynn, who he might well be pardoned after all, along with Paul et al. None of them will be if this bot on the face of American history. Not a little thing Bret, let's wait for more whistleblowers, and rid ourselves of the traitorous crooks..
5
Stephens writes that In 1998, Republicans hated Clinton as much as Democrats hate Donald Trump.
Wrong. There's no quantifying the outrage and repulsion that Democrats feel about trump. He's anathema to them in every way: he's an ignoramus; knows and cares nothing about history, geography, the law; thinks he can wing it in foreign policy or anything else; doesn't prepare, doesn't read briefings, doesn't read anything apparently.
He lies constantly, incessantly, gratuitously. His word can't be trusted. He'd rather lie or make stuff up than learn facts on whatever he's talking about and his lies are banal and stupid.
He's a fifth-rate personality, juvenile, tedious and self-centered. He has no self-discipline. He seems more than a little mentally unstable.
So, setting aside his bigotry, misogyny, and xenophobia, his destructive trade wars and unfair tax cuts, attacks on science, hatred of facts and the media, fouling the environment, lack of promised infrastructure and health care, his cruelty to refugees at the border, there's lots to hate about trump than was ever dreamt of in the Clinton saga.
11
The Clinton impeachment hurt the accusers when the double standard is exposed. The Democrats have this self deluded attitude that their feet don't stink. In Chess (as we are talking politicians -it is more like checkers) you need to look at your own pieces too.
Check out Fox to see that this line of attack is already formulated. The Democrats are exposed to Influence peddling, and using Ukraine meddling. The media counters this by saying it is not proven - but you have to be pretty dumb to think Biden Jr and Kerry the 2nd got there gigs on their CV.
Also this is a battle, but there is the larger war. The Democrats have sacrificed Biden, their best bet in the 5 key swing states and the white working class voters and African-American voters in those states, for an awkward Harvard Professor with inter-sectional baggage.
Clinton's sexual misconduct was not an attack on the separation of powers, the rule of law, the sanctity of fair elections and the functionality of the emoluments clause. Clinton is not a narcissistic sociopath and pathological liar. Nero is less falsely equivalent to Trump than is Clinton.
9
Wow! A "both sides do it" and a "whataboutism" column from Stephens?
It's inconceivable!
4
Forgetting the rest of the 2016 Republican field for now, I'd be interested in hearing from the three most reasonable of the bunch: Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal and John Kasich. Certainly they have some words of wisdom for the Republican Party!
The editorialist is right that impeachment would be a mistake. Continue to bring his malfeasance to light from now to election day and let the voters decide. It's the best chance of getting rid of him.
Republican senators were scared to be the first one to acknowledge the president is a threat to our national security. Now that the door has been opened by Romney it is their duty as upholders of the most precious tenets of the Constitution to join Romney by condemning Trump. Do they really want to protect this man or are they just paralyzed by his vindictiveness?
5
First, Mr. Stephens I enjoy your joint columns with Gail Collins. Excellent writing.
I think you are right about the politics of it. I think many people see this in the same light as the Clinton impeachment effort.
However, I think to compare President Clinton's sexual peccadillos with President Trump's many transgressions would be a bit like comparing a modern day part-time baseball player to Babe Ruth. Trump's transgressions are many, and the most obvious I think is violation of the Emoluments Clause. But, impeachment is about politics, and I fear the Democrats may be losing that battle.
One great issue in society is that we live in a complicated world, but most of us prefer black and white, which makes us easy prey to the nonsense that President Trump spouts.
Mr. Stephens suggests an equivalence where none exists. Looking only at observable departures from accepted behavioral norms, Mr. Trump is, as he never tires of reminding us, in a league of his own.
6
Interesting ideas, but the last line pulled me up short. Given the state of the nation right now, no Mormon could become president. The GLBT movement was attacked by the church and Romney led that attack. The country as a whole has become more liberal in its view of sexual behavior and there''s no rolling back from the gains for minorities that have been made.
There is also an assumption that the current economy will remain where it is. Trumps "trade war" has impoverished the reddest of the republicans living in the agricultural heartland. People without jobs, who've lost their family farms are not going to vote for the guy who caused that to happen.
Trump thinks he can bring the China issue with a little "art of the deal" maneuvering. The problem is that China is in a slump, American companies are moving business out of China due to the tariffs that have been imposed or promised by Trump. That is a snowball that is running downhill faster and faster each day.
My personal financial planning is based on the inflationary recession that we're already in coming to a peak in the summer. By election day it's going to look like 2008 all over again. I don't expect to see Mnuchin on one knee begging Pelosi for help, but I do expect the American public to know that the blame is on the republicans and the solution is on the democrats.
4
Mr. Stephens would have a point if this impeachment were about hush money to Stormy Daniels, and if President Trump were otherwise a pretty good president. But under the circumstances, this argument is entirely based on false equivalence.
After years of partisan investigations of president Clinton, Republicans could find nothing. In the end, they thought they had him because he had sex with an intern and lied about it. The impeachment failed, as it should have. Here we have dreadful president who daily debases the country in countless ways, and has managed to skate being explicitly caught in all sorts of corruption; but now he has been caught attempting to extort a foreign country into investigating his political opponents. He deserves impeachment in a way no other president I have ever heard of could have deserved it. I am not confident that Republican senators will do the right thing, but I don't think this will work out well for President Trump either way.
9
if not impeachment for strong arming a foriegn leader to interfere in our elections then what is impeacnment for? Dont impeach because unemployment is low? It was low in 1973, so Nixon's impeachment was wrong?
8
I have great faith that the people of our country will have some more concern about our leadership than if the economy is good and employment low. We are all guided by self-interest, this is true. My Self is interested in our world standing as a reliable and powerful ally that can be trusted by those who value our leadership, trade and aid. Compromising an election just to stay in office, and calling on other nations to help do it, doesn't make us trustworthy or reliable. What if the shoe were on another foot, and we called on some place like China to help overthrow, oh, the leadership of Japan, one of our trading partners? Anarchy would result world wide. And with that, trade will also be compromised, and all those other factors included in self-interest. The "economy stupid" isn't all this is about this time. The trust of the world is what causes our own economy to thrive. They can trade with us and believe what we say. Or used to.
4
You could have skipped everything (all the false equivalency stuff regarding Clinton and trump) and just published the last paragraph and the last sentence. This impeachment is not about bad behavior (even reprehensible behavior, which was what Clinton did) but it IS about a "president (trump) who cavalierly invites foreign tyrants to investigate his political opponents". This alone is impeachable even ignoring all of trumps far more reprehensible, offensive, grotesque, base behavior.
7
If you aren't being investigated for some malfeasance these days, you don't qualify as a "world leader."
Why do you continue to report the unemployment statistics out-of-context in such a misleading way?
As Sarah Chaney, economics reporter for the Wall Street Journal reported last month, "At its August level (3.7%), the jobless rate was little changed from 3.8% a year earlier. Between 2010 and 2018, by contrast, it fell on average 0.6 percentage points a year." In September, a month later, it ticked down to 3.5%, still little changed. Fair to say at that level, it unlikely to change much no matter who is president and what policies are e in place.
More relevant is this: BLS reports 136 thousand jobs were added in September, a significant deceleration from the average of 188 thousand per month over Trump's 32 months in office. By contrast, Obama averaged 224 thousand per month during his last 32 months in office (adjacent to Trump's term).
It is fair to say that Trump inherited a strong economy, at least as far as job growth is concerned, and has since presided over a marked deceleration. Moreover, Trump has attempted to trash environmental regulations, increased deficit spending to $1 trillion per year, and launched a trade war that has increased prices to American consumers for imported goods and harmed our export sector, especially our farmers.
Except for those persuaded by the 3.5% number and not willing to look any further, Trump is absolutely vulnerable on the economy.
9
Clinton's behavior was objectionable. Trump's behavior is despicable, and a violation of his oath of office, to uphold the Constitution. There is no equivalency.
Yes, the economy is doing well. It would be doing better had he not got involved in a trade war whose goals are achievable and well-defined.
Imagine you are a Senator who is up for re-election in 2022, or 2024. If you believe Trump will not be re-elected, and you understand that no one can pardon Trump's state crimes, then you might realize that voting against impeachment could be a significant problem for you during re-election. Yes, there are red-states for which this is not a consideration. But, not all states are red.
Reaching 67 votes in the Senate will be tough. Reaching 51 votes will be enough to send the message.
If Trump survives an impeachment, his behavior will become even more uncontrolled. May you live in interesting times.
6
Mr. Stephens mentions "shameful abuse of [Clinton's] foreign-policy powers for the sake of political gain." If you read the linked article, there is nothing there that has anything to do with Clinton's political gain, apart from the kind of scrambling pretty common when a controversial decision is questioned after the fact. There is no parallel at all with Trump's blatant attempts to enlist foreign powers to smear a political rival.
More false equivalency.
9
"I came of age as a conservative in an era when Republicans were keen on matters of private virtue and public probity. Then Bill Clinton became president, and his behavior exemplified neither."
No Bret, the GOP has always said and done anything for power and money. Why don't you look up Newt Gingrich's three marriages and affairs. The word naive doesn't do your first paragraph justice.
12
@Keith Dow l came of age when Republicans were keen on defending Nixon so, plus ça change.
4
People get tired of hearing of the pitch, voting for the lesser of evils but invariably that is what money in politics has created. I love this country, I served this country and appreciate the great gifts bestowed on us however, there is nothing exceptional about our government today and especially at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
9
The big difference between the Clinton crimes and misdemeanors and those of Trump is that Clinton's indiscretion was a private matter, not a public matter, and did not relate to his job as the president. I was disappointed in his behavior, but the resolution was between him and Hillary.
Trump's high crimes and misdemeanors are directly related to the presidency. Soliciting help from a foreign country in an election is far worse than the domestic failure that was Watergate.
Spin all you want, but Americans can see the difference.
13
Clinton was popular and he left office with a 73% approval rating, the highest since Truman in 1953.
trump’s approval hasn’t cracked 45% since he took office.
No comparison.The
9
I'm a Democrat and I voted for George HW Bush rather than Clinton. It was the Starr investigations that changed my mind not only about voting for Clinton, but also about the Republican party. When Starr found nothing and the conspiracies started, I could only conclude that the Gop's will to power had eroded the integrity of the party to a dangerous point. I vowed never to vote for a republican again.
Everything that has happened since then has confirmed my estimation and the result is your president today. I can only hope he's the _end_ result and that your compadres will be out of power for a long time to come. I don't anticipate trump's conviction, but his impeachment is long overdue. If we could impeach the entire republican party, I would be for it.
15
My 92 year old father voted for Nixon twice. After hearing evidence that would have led to his impeachment, he never voted for a republican again.
4
Let’s face it, Stevens and the GOP are perched on a cliff and terrified to look down. They realize that if they shove Trump over the edge then his vortex will dragged them into the abyss alongside. Privately the party is praying for a rescue helicopter (an end to the impeachment inquiry) while searching for a parachute (censure). Their hope is that they won’t have to grab at branches on the way down.
5
This column embodies Trump's classic strategy. Tu quoque. That is, because most Democrats of the time opposed Bill Clinton's impeachment, they have no right to support Trump's.
That the circumstances are so different as to be photonegatives of each other -- Clinton lying under oath about an irrefutably private matter, Trump abusing the power of his office for his perceived personal political gain, in the process inviting foreign interference in American elections -- is lost on those who, like Trump and Stephens, would prevail by inventing equivalence between 1998-99 and today.
Trump got away with this strategy in 2016, dragging Hillary Clinton down to his level. But here's the thing about the books and other information sources for which he has contempt: People generally learn from past experience. Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Schiff -- for that matter, the majority of the American people -- are thus unlikely to be deterred by Stephens's specious suggestion that (a) they are hypocrites, and (b) as such, they may not seek Trump's wholly justified removal from office.
12
Yet another Republican voice in the elite media exemplifies the most pervasive threat to democracy in 21st century media messaging; we’ve always had corruption, hypocrisy and immorality but the road to the demise of American democracy in this era is being paved with false equivalencies.
Trump subverts the sovereignty of our nation seeking foreign intervention in elections, holding taxpayer funded money hostage for his personal interests and ignores the separation of powers - but it’s all the same as Clinton and Monica. For all his experience and erudition Stephens has added no more insight to the debate than a second tier Fox contributor.
Trump is the kind of man doing the kinds of things the founders imagined when they wrote impeachment language into the constitution. His abuses of power offend the most basic principles of our Constitution articulated and agreed from the beginning - the founders, guys who hadn’t yet acknowledged the original sin of slavery had already decided courting foreign intervention in our democracy was wrong. Clinton’s immorality and dishonesty doesn’t make him equivalent to Trump, unless you’re a Trump toady or GOP toady apologist.
13
I find it remarkable that Bret Stephens finds some equivalence between the Clinton impeachment and the impending Trump impeachment.
The Ukrainian extortion scheme is fundamentally harmful to the US. Clinton lies about sex was merely distasteful, however harmful to Monica Lewinsky. The 2019 economy is stuttering--why does Stephens mention the 3.5% unemployment rate as evidence that the economy is good while ignoring the mediocre new jobs number of 136,000. The Trump impeachment lies on a background of "conservative" failure to debate any of the significant social problems from health care to immigration, while the Clinton impeachment overlaid a serious attempt to get our budget back in balance. And then, of course, there is the Trump tax breaks--don't get me started...
9
This article is about the political consequences of impeachment for Republican legislators. Stephens doesn't want them to go all the way because, why?
I can't follow his reasoning and the comparison to Clinton does not help. The country was against impeachment of Clinton proven by his popularity rising after the impeachment inquiry. Though his behavior was repugnant, I think Americans were offended and felt it was un-American that a private act had been publicly judged, especially by hypocrites like Gingrich.
Trump on the other hand is losing popularity and the support for impeachment is growing fast. He has betrayed his country not his marriage vows. I think the American people want him to be tried and judged for this behavior. Trump has violated all of us.
All of us who voted for our representatives, who approved the funding for Ukraine and wanted to push back against Russian aggression. Our whole government, including Trump's own national security team felt that Ukraine needed to be supported because it was in the national security interests of the United States. How is working to stop this support and create false propaganda against his political opponent, using our tax dollars not impeachable?
If we cannot have moral, legal, and ethical clarity on this obvious issue then we are lost.
8
Implicit in your column is the thought that this time dems are overreaching, like repubs were overreaching against Clinton.
Really? Really? Clinton and Lewinsky, consenting adults with a sexual involvement, are somehow equivalent to a president exhorting and pressuring foreign governments to produce dirt on a political opponent?
Ridiculous.
17
This is false equivalency writ large.
Trump is not Clinton. That Stephens wanted to impeach Clinton over a trivial lie to cover up an affair was ridiculous. That Stephens thinks soliciting foreign interference in our elections doesn't merit impeachment is even more ridiculous.
Republicans hated Clinton because he was a Democrat, not because he'd done anything horrible. Democrats hate Trump because he's actively destroying the country, not because he's a Republican.
A journalist like Stephens shouldn't be making excuses for a man who regularly attacks the whole idea of a free press, and recently started speculating about creating an American version of Pravda.
13
Clinton attacked the pharmaceutical factory in retaliation for the attack on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania . It may have been feckless in its effect, but it was not because of Lewinsky. Better revisit your history young man or stop twisting the facts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Infinite_Reach
10
https://www.salon.com/2002/03/22/whitewater_5/
It is interesting to know that it was William Barr, as Bush Senior's Attorney General, who corruptly drummed up the Ken Starr Whitewater Investigation.
8
Come on. There is simply no parallel between Clinton and Trump. Trump's wrongdoing is orders of magnitude worse than Clinton's. Clinton was a real political and policy genius. Trump is inept, ignorant, feckless, and a walking talking Dunning-Kruger advertisement. Pelosi's approach has been slow, steady, measured. Gingrich and Starr were as histrionic, excessive, and rabidly tribal as Trump himself is.
8
Yet another false equivalency from Mr. Stephens. Clinton was impeached for private behavior about which, stupidly, he lied under oath. Trump is being impeached for violating Federal election law at the least and quite possibly bribery, extortion, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. If Stephens can’t or won’t see the difference he really needs another job.
5
This is one of those monumentally stupid arguments that very smart people make from time to time. I was never much of a Bill Clinton fan, but come ON already.
8
I am a dyed in the wool Democrat and believe that even a bad Democrat is better than any Republican. Just like a bad Labor Union is better than no labor union. Bill Clinton was not exactly a paragon of virtue or a true Democrat. His coziness with the big banks was deplorable.(Glass/Steagall repeal). Yet,he was still able to push through some good policies. And he didn't alienate us from the world,like insulting our allies and cozying up to the Putins,Dutertes, or Kims of the world. Chelsea wasn't cutting trademark deals with the Chinese. And he didn't extort political support from foreign entities. He supported PUBLIC schools, and community policing. His cabinet was actually filled with people who upheld their obligations to the country,not to the industries that were antithetical to their responsibilities.This rubbish by Stephens just more false equivalency and bogus parallelism. Just a way to assuage his own "principles".
8
With Bret all one can say is "there he goes again." How he can equate the Clinton impeachment with Trump more should be a consideration that Clinton's lie to the grand jury was nothing like the continued corruption by Trump and his sycophants.
If Bret's GOP, the power crazy partisan party, would act like patriotic Americans then maybe they might realize that Trump has ignored the rule of law, and is consistently trying to cover up his excesses. Don't have to list them now as I would run out of the word allowance.
If Bret is to be honest about his GOP usurpers of democracy then maybe he might be viewed as a legitimate commentator. But apparently his lifelong allegiance to a party that has changed dramatically has not completely visited his continued efforts of enabling their outrages towards our democracy.
3
Thanks to Mr. Stephens for helping me balance my emotions about Trump. As an independent I thought at the time that Clinton’s transgression with Ms Lewinsky didn’t warrant kicking him out of office, comparing his behavior to say that of the French President then in office. I think differently today, perhaps being more woke, that it was a huge power imbalance leveraged against a young intern for sex performed inside the Oval Office - today that should be sufficient to get him ejected from office.
Trump’s transgressions could also warrant a pass if it were simply limited to say one abuse of administrative power for personal value. However, here we have Trump, Giuliani, Barr, Pompeo and others possibly in an organized exertion of leverage across several countries including Ukraine, China, Australia, and Italy, to pervert our next election (not to mention Russia, are you listening?). Are you saying that a slap on the wrist censure would bring all these underhand machinations to a halt? Trump is incapable of going straight. He’ll only sell us out further, as soon as he cooks up another scheme to personal benefit. Clinton learned his lesson at the time. Trump is pathologically incapable of learning from experience to go straight going forward. Just wait for the next shoes to drop.
5
I'm sorry, but I just can't take a column comparing Trump with Clinton seriously.
Trump will go down in history as the worst president to date.
Mr. Stephens knows that.
8
Comparing Clinton to Trump is ridiculous. Clinton was popular and respected but, just as Obama was, hated and hunted by Republicans to the extreme. Trump offends most Americans, who finally accept his behavior as criminal and long-running and view him as a threat to our country. Trump is better compared to Nixon, whose transgression finally were too public for Republicans to ignore. Except Nixon’s was a one-off, whereas we now confirm Trump’s are serial.
2
What a sorry example of false equivalence from a columnist I often admire. Yes, the Republicans overreached with the Clinton impeachment, but does it really follow that the Democrats are overreaching now? Clinton's misdeeds pale in comparison to the constitutional gravity, corruption, and damage wrought by Trump's. Pretending otherwise is a disservice.
4
Sorry, Mr. Stephens, but your Clinton-Trump comparison is weak. Clinton lied about sex with an intern. But his lie did not remotely endanger the nation. On the other hand, Trump not only lies with every breath he takes, he regards the Constitution as toilet paper (like the piece that got stuck to the bottom of his shoe as he boarded Air Force One a few months back) and violates his oath of office brazenly and publicly, before TV cameras and microphones, for all the world to see and hear. Clinton cared about America. Trump cares about Trump, period. And the Democratic Party survived Clinton. Will the GOP survive Trump? GOP strategist Rick Wilson (author of "Everything Trump Touches Dies") recently warned Republicans that they have attached themselves to a suicide bomber; and when the vest blows up, they will too. Let's just hope the rest of us survive the blast.
2
I read articles like this and continually feel Bret that you are either not being intellectually honest, or you are brazenly attempting to mislead. For the first, you should absolutely not have a platform as an opinion columnist. For the latter, you should just join Fox news.
To say nothing of the Whitewater investigation, millions later with no crime. Believe me, if they had found any, Clinton would have been removed from office.
And now Mueller's report is careful not to take a stance or state opinion? Where was that care when investigating Clinton?
The crimes of these two Presidents are not equivalent. Period.
This is all hogwash. Why don't you try putting the country before your team, just once, to understand how the rest of us feel.
3
Hey everybody, grab your partner and get on the dance floor. It’s time for the false equivalence tango!
4
Stephens is comparing apples and oranges here. Seriously?!! A sex scandal -- as unseemly as it was -- is simply no comparison to asking foreign governments to interfere in our elections.
4
Does sex with a consenting adult intern equate in anyway with a man whose only goal is for dictatorship that eventually provides him the wealth he so envies in the dictators he admires.
4
Equating national security, and embracing of authoritarians, to a lurid sexual romp is pretty crazy, even for Brett.
3
It’s long been my feeling that Clinton survived because it turned out his loudest haters turned out to be complete hypocrites themselves and the public disliked hypocrites more than people who lied about sex. If any Democrat had done what Trump has done the Republicans would justifiably have their hair on fire instead of this quiet fest.
4
I lost count of all the false equivalences in this column. Stephens really should be embarrassed to have written such a spurious argument.
5
There is little doubt now that the House will impeach Trump. Then, he will be acquitted by the Senate. What will all of this have accomplished? To find out that Trump is an amoral narcissist? We already knew that. To let Adam Schiff preen and prance in his moral superiority? Check. In the end, what a pathetic waste of time.
Are you kidding me? The actions under review are entirely different. And since when are you linking to James Risen columns? Who's next, Stephen Kinzer? Or Seymour Hersh? And, look, no matter how many times leftists and Republicans team up to "ask" about bombing the pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, their hinting around about Clinton's supposed motives will always be nonsense. The Chomsky-Stephens-Hitchens axis is a tough one to battle, but, sorry, their claim is bosh.
On August 7, 1998, Al Qaeda destroyed the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, wounding more than 4,000, killing 223. This was the worst attack on American civilians and employees abroad in the history of the country. After discussing his options and looking at evidence over the next two days, on the third day the President ordered retaliatory strikes on sites in Afghanistan and Sudan. Accusations that both missile strikes -- which came after his confession -- were deflections promptly followed.
If you knew anything about what Bill Clinton saw, heard, and discussed with his advisors, you would know that the accusation is codswallop. That you choose to repeat it here is an indication that you were one of those claiming "deflection!," "war crime!," and such like at the time, and you haven't changed your mind, no doubt because you don't, as a card-carrying anti-Clintonite, wish to. Would you also like to tell us how many Sudanese died as a result (even though there were 6 such factories in Khartoum)?
2
Nice try. No comparison. Trump is a malignant narcissist with a low IQ, who doesn’t even read. His only strategy has been to divide and conquer. We never questioned whether or not Reagan, Bush or Clinton cared for someone other than themselves, despite their shortcomings as men.
3
When will the media stop giving a platform to documentable lies, hoaxes & debunked conspiracy theories? The in your face corruption & criminality is more blatant by the day. This illegitimate president & his grifters will cling to power by any means. Time to stand up to the corruption, or be called out for complicity.
Former U.S. Ambassador to Estonia James Melville:
“If your moral compass is so broken that you don't see this as illegal and immoral - this idea of soliciting foreign assistance in any respect - then I don't understand how you can be a good leader or make good decisions.”
Time to call Trump’s flagrant criminality what it is, & hold Mr. Emoluments/L’etat ce moi accountable.
3
Clinton's behavior with Monica Lewinsky was morally reprehensible but one never doubted his love of country and the American people. Trump's love is for Trump alone and how the presidency can serve to enrich him personally. Clinton used "semantic prevarications" in regard to the Lewinsky affair. Trump tells boldface lies to the American people on a daily basis. What about his seeking foreign assistance to interfere in our elections? What about the profits he makes from his properties, in particular the hotel in D.C. from foreign dignitaries' stays, or from Mira Lago each time he houses the Secret Service? What about locking asylum seekers in cages and separating mothers from their children, many of whom are never returned? What about bankrupting the soybean farmers, so that he can play tough with China and show his self-proclaimed negotiating skill or pulling out of commitments America made on trade (TPP} and climate change? Lack of space allows just these few examples of his disdain for the dignity of the Presidency. Most worrisome of all is the example he is setting for our children and the hatred he has allowed to manifest itself --against Jew, Blacks, Muslims? It used to be that people who harbored these prejudices were ashamed to admit them. Not since Trump's statement that "there are good people on both sides" as well as many other nods to the White supremacist movement. Clinton may have deserved to be impeached. Trump earns it every day of his Presidency.
4
Bret, This is such a stretch. I'm going to chalk it off to having to write a column so often. Comparing apples and watermelons. Please, you are insulting our intelligence.
2
It is preposterous for Mr. Stephens to even try to compare the hatred of the two presidents, the reasons for it or the actions leading to impeachment (or possible impeachment).
No one with any common sense can believe their actions, behavior and, particularly, fitness for the presidency calls for any type of comparison. These are two completely different circumstances.
3
It makes sense to look back at previous impeachment proceedings but using history to make comparisons here is like trying to compare crossing the Atlantic today with the crossing of the Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria. Different times, different conditions.
I was not in favor of impeachment but I just don't see how the House can not. If impeachment isn't for breaking the law (and that is clearly what happened here) then what ARE the conditions for impeachment?
I think politics be damned, this is about doing the right and just thing. If Democrats suffer for it, so be it. It is often said we get the politicians we deserve and if Trump is re-elected then we have much bigger worries than a lout in office for another four years. We have an electorate that is okay with a demolished democracy and how do we recover from that?
5
President Trump didn't win in 2016 in the sense of people wanted him. They had to evaluate the options and the only other realistic choice was Mrs Clinton. It was obvious that people didn't want more of the same.
With the upcoming election cycle it might be similar. Mr. Trump, rather than breaking with past precedent in aligning with a party, has just continued in that same horrible tradition. So rather than trying to unit the country, he's been happily pitching in with the rest of the swamp to widen the chasm.
This provides a similar void as in 2016, someone whose not a chip off the old block. At this point the Democrats have just been doubling down on their shift towards more radical Socialism. When it comes to the actual election, if they present someone promoting those causes, they'll loose inspire of Mr Trump's actions and behaviors. The continued, accelerated pressure on impeachment will just make things even more difficult.
"Remember the U.S. attack on that pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, destroyed on the basis of dodgy intelligence just days after the Lewinsky admission?"
No.
And thank you for this year's finest phony equivalency:
"As with liberals and Clinton, so with conservatives and Trump: Their ethics have turned out to be purely situational. "
3
I'm Canadian and no expert on US history. But seems to me that prior to Clinton, there had been several US Presidents that had been involved in extra-marital activities. Back then, the Press didn't report on such things - discretion being the better part of valour, I suppose. There's the famous case of the Press not showing Roosevelt in a wheelchair or on crutches; everyone realizing that the man's physical difficulties had nothing whatsoever to do with his leadership abilities.
I guess that back then, most people recognize the difference between a person's private life and public office. It's for these reasons that many of us north of the border could never understand the Clinton impeachment. Trump's impeachment is another matter. His private life is ugly and an embarrassment. But probably of no matter. It's his flouting of laws and denigration of the Constitution that is the issue. To me, comparing Clinton's impeachment with Trump's (eventual)impeachment is a false equivalency.
5
Sure, nice try. But the cornerstone assumption of this argument, which is by no means original, assumes Clinton and Trump committed offenses on the same level. This is false and everyone, including you, knows it. The rest of the piece is therefore irrelevant noise that makes no logical sense.
5
Clinton vs. Trump is a false equivalency. Trump is not fit for office period. How many laws does the Don need to break before someone steps up and says enough? All of the strange contortions that conservatives have to do just to stay in power is ridiculous. With that said, Trump can still win this one and we will all be worse off for it.
4
Bret Stephens - master of whataboutism. While Clinton was no angel, none of his offenses comes close to the growing list of odious offenses by the current occupant of the White House. That Stephens, a staunch never-Trumper of the right, could stoop to this kind of lazy analysis is truly surprising. I have enjoyed reading how Stephens, Douthat, and Brooks have spend the last 3 years twisting themselves in knots trying to justify their conservatism in the face of all that has happened in the name of their ravaged party and movement, but this is just pathetic.
3
In Jamelle Bouie's recent column he reminds us of Andrew Johnson's disgraceful behavior ahead of impeachment, as characterized by a writer at the time:
"Never was a blustering demagogue led by a distempered sense of self-importance into a more fatal error."
It could hardly be better said today.
3
So what the author is saying is it is OK for the president to commit crimes endangering our national security, and we should give him a slap in the wrist. Further, comparing Trump to Clinton is a joke, not only for his transgressions, but for his capabilities in office. Trump needs to be removed not only for his obvious crimes, but for the good of the country. The man is a mentally ill sociopathic compulsive liar who is damaging our relations with the world at an alarming rate. His only accomplishment has been tax cuts for the rich which has done little to boost our economy and a lot to endanger our country's financial health with record deficits. In essence he has mortgaged our children's future to prop up the economy so he can get re-elected. There is absolutely no way one can compare this to what Clinton accomplished.
4
This is such a lazy argument. The number and scope of Trump's transgressions far outstrip those of Clinton and Stephens knows it. But even if you swallow the false equivalence, his assertion that this won't help the country or long term interests of the party is both pathetic and illuminating. In making this purely a calculation of how one party (or one person) can win the next election, Stephens further fuels the race to the bottom. I'll grant him the shifting ethics of both parties, but we can't let that be an argument against doing what is right. Winning an election will be a hollow feat if we've lost our moral compass and courage.
5
I agree. Mitt Romney is 100% different then Trump and emblematic of what the Republican Party used to be before Trump, before the phonies of the Freedom caucus, before Newt Gingrich, etc. Trump is a bottom feeder, crude, crass and corrupt. We got rid of Hillary, hopefully we will soon be rid of Trump and then we can get back to the way it used to be-civil and respectful.
I was for impeachment at the time. What a misjudgment that turned out to be.
--------
That misjudgment thing seems to be a pattern with you NYT columnists. Maybe you don't really understand the people of this country, as a whole? Plus, there is really no "punishment" in your work for getting things wrong, is there?
With true diversity, you might learn that some of us were against Clinton impeachment at the time, against invading Iraq at the time as we knew you could never impose democracy at gunpoint in a foreign land, and against the Israeli settlement policies that will one day prove to be that country's undoing.
Thanks for admitting your errors, in retrospect. Perhaps all of you have too much confidence in yourselves to ever learn from us "lowly" others who are making predictions too, but getting things right? Not that we are more intelligent necessarily, but we spend year in and year out circulating amongst our fellow people in our domestic lives here in America, and we have a better sense of the pulse of this nation? (Yes, not to brag, but I knew Trump was going to win in 2016 too based on my travels and who people are, and the fact that stable, smart Minnesota elected Jesse Ventura as governor once upon the time in a similar "oust the party bureacrats" mood.)
I'm no Nate Silver (who hedged his bets but gave enough credence to a Trump win while others didn't that he came across as your then resident genius) but you mischaracterize Trump supporters still today...
1
Mr. Trump is crossing the line of what some term "aspirational fascism". We don't have fascist institutions or ideology, but Mr. Trump certainly seems to want to bend those institutions to his personal use while trumpeting nationalism, loyalty, the mythical past (MAGA) with less than subtle invitations to violence driven by uber masculinity. We are also at that point (referring to the great Nazi legal theorist, Carl Schmitt) when legitimacy and legality are under constant attack by Mr. Trump and his followers. The building blocks are there. At the very least there is a possibility of a "state of exception" in which the ruler may attempt to transcend the law, but somehow that all escapes Mr. Stephens' eye. It's shocking really. I just don't believe that Mr. Stephens is a very sophisticated commentator.
There is a massive level of false equivalency that runs thru this. Clinton was not remotely like Trump. And the right wing rage was knee deep in hypocrisy (see Gingrich, Newt) while the left (and middle) is truly afraid for the future of democracy if Trump gets 4 more years.
Trump is literally trying to break the core institutions of democracy and turn the country into his fiefdom. Colluding with adversaries to advance your political interests and destroy your rivals is not the same as oral sex with a consenting adult.
3
Romney, or any other republican for that matter, isn't going to do anything except express how "deeply troubled" they are. The fact that you believe that he might do something "heroic" betrays your self delusion about your party and how they see the world.
Their impeachment of Clinton was a unadulterated sham, proven by the very fact that the GOP made a man like Trump their nominee for president despite all of his sordid baggage.
If Fox news and the modern media machinery of today had existed during Nixon's presidency, it's likely if not almost certain that Nixon would not have felt compelled to resign.
Of course, we were in a much different moment, as WWII, Korea and Vietnam, "real" wars, if you will, were still tangible memories. For all of Nixon's fatal flaws, he still was a man of his time, and participating in those events imbued everybody with a seriousness of purpose and an understanding of how tenuous our place on this planet could be. For a brief moment, they actually bought into, at least partially, the consequences of tearing down our system of government.
Trump and the "modern" GOP have no such weighty mental baggage to lug around. They are all in with the idea of the promise of the 'quasi-authoritarianism" that Trump is ushering in. Constitution, Schmonstitution.
You're much more likely to see aliens land on Fifth avenue asking somebody to "take me to your leader" before you see Romney save your party.
4
I'm not a conservative, nor can I honestly say I can remember a time when the G.O.P. was "keen on matters of private virtue and public probity".
Especially now with a Republican Party and president that seems far more keen on privatization and unbridled indecency....at taxpayer's expense.
That is probably the main reason why it's difficult to make any kind of an analogy between the Clinton impeachment and the impeachment inquiry that's happening now -- and the sheer hypocrisy of trying to connect the two in any way is simply mind-boggling.
For all his salacious behavior and "questionable dealings", at least Clinton never went so far as publicly solicit help from a foreign (and adversarial) country for help in being elected, and then repeat the same entreaty only a few years later to not only one -- but TWO other nations.
And for all those willing to point to the U.S. economy as a way of pardoning Trump's improprieties, just remember when Clinton left the White House we didn't have anything near the federal deficit this country will be facing after this president.
It doesn't take an economist or a rocket scientist to figure out what's going on, but it does take common sense.
Which at the moment seems to be in short supply.
8
It amazes me that people think the impeachment of Clinton was a political mistake, when in fact the Republicans won the presidential race a few years later.
2
@Andrew Dabrowski Cl inton's policies were republican light - it was not the impeachment, it was the takeover by the 1%, that Greenspan and others promoted - I will never forgive clinton for his deep-sixing of Glass Steagall, a terrific law that saved us from the 1% takeover for decades..
1
@grace thorsen I agree with you, but this doesn't alter the fact that impeachment was not a political failure for the Republicans.
@Andrew Dabrowski: Right. They didn't get him out of office, but they certainly inconvenienced the administration a lot, and they suffered no political harm. Some individuals, like Newt Gingrich, might have been disappointed, but Newt is still doing far better than he ever deserved.
2
"I came of age as a conservative in an era when Republicans were keen on matters of private virtue and public probity. "
Sorry, I had a really hard time getting past the first sentence. Was this the Nixon/Agnew era of private virtue? Abscam, watergate?
Or was it the Reagan years of Iran/Contra and arms for hostages?
I'm just wondering how to calibrate my hypocrisy outrage meter.
12
@Mark: I think he means, when probity and virtue were what Republicans were claiming as their pubic image, rather than whatever combination of wealth, cruelty and wrath they are trying to project for their fans nowadays...
3
How about comparing the alleged offenses and assuming them to be true.
1. Clinton lied to the FBI and The People over a sexual encounter with an intern. HE DID NOT ADMIT IT.
2. Trump is using his office and the power of the US State to get a foreign country to destroy a political rival. HE HAS ADMITTED IT.
The question is whether The People and The Congress thinks a) whether these are "high crimes and misdemeanors" and b) whether these should result in dismissal from office.
Lying about sex is what all/most adults do and this is why the Clinton case got nowhere. Not really a Constitutional issue more a Comedy of Manners!
The Trump case on the other hand is a Constitutional issue. Is there any constraint on Presidential power? Nixon and Trump (and the US AG) think not. Secondly, if there is, has Trump in this case gone too far in the exercise of Presidential Power?
The comparison should be with the Nixon case and not with the Clinton case.
5
Where did you come up with such false equivalency, Brett?
What's the point comparing Trump to Clinton any way?
Just look at what Trump is doing in a vacuum and that is all you need to know how terrible he is to our nation, our values, and our Constitution.
5
Pelosi may be doing the Republicans a favor. If Pence is a sitting president in 2020 there will be a viable non-controversial candidate for Republicans to vote for. If not, I fear that many moderate Republicans will sit out the election and we will have Democratic President (whomever that may be).
The future of the Republican party is at stake and tjere is more than the Senate election to worry about.
Sorry, but there's a bit of a difference between lying about a consensual affair, and shady dealings with a foreign power for political gain.
Also, Clinton won both his elections. Trump lost his by 3 million votes. Yes, sure, Electoral College. It still stinks.
3
I thought the Lewinsky-Clinton affair was a tawdry scandal, but did not support impeachment. It wasn't because the economy was good, it was that I did not think that fibbing under oath about an affair was a sufficiently high crime. I did not know about Juanita Broaddrick's accusations at the time; that might have pushed me over the impeachment edge.
I did not vote for Trump; was worried from day one about how his constant lies and tantrums would damage the country; and have watched in sadness and anger as all of these fears have been borne out.
So now we have the Ukraine scandal. Shaking down Ukraine for dirt to discredit the Mueller investigation and dirt to discredit Joe Biden goes so far beyond what Clinton did--this is deep, fundamental corruption. Illegal? You bet--look at election law. But it is worse than just illegal--it is deeply wrong and deeply injurious to the country.
It may or may not be politically beneficial in the long run, but kudos to Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats for standing up for the rule of law and against this shameful chapter in US history.
9
To compare the Trump impeachment to the Clinton impeachment is ludicrous. Yes, Clinton was guilty of a private and personal consensual sexual encounter that he then lied about. But, oh yeh, there's Trump's sexual adventures with Stormy and McDougal and many others (including a possible rape), and violation of campaign finance laws. Clinton lied but he wasn't a pathologic liar. Clinton wasn't guilty of soliciting foreign countries to help him get re-elected. He didn't concoct conspiracy theories about his opponent(s). He didn't increase the deficit to a trillion dollars. He didn't separate children from their parents and put them in cages where they will suffer for the remainder of their lives. He did uphold the oath of the office, and I would like to think that if a foreign country interfered in the election, he would have done something about it. He wasn't destroying the environment with decreased regulations and tax breaks for corporations. His supporters and those who voted were him were not the delusional hypocrites who currently support the current president. The only way DJT will leave office is not just for Mitt Romney to stand up to the task of getting rid of him. No, it's going to take a conviction vote of 100-0 in the Senate to get him out, otherwise, get ready of another 4 years (maybe more), because I don't think we can count on a fair election in 2020. The is one comparison though, unrelated to impeachment - they both cheat at golf.
4
Bret you offer good talking points but much of what you present is cherry picked. The "Me Too" movement is about coerced sex. The Clinton-Lewinsky affair was consensual, until she realized it could never be positive or egalitarian for her. Clinton was a hound dog but was also intelligent, articulate, and more caring than Trump by a million miles. Yes there are similarities and there is hatred but there are differences. Nevertheless, Trump's behaviors are widely corrupt, continuing, and much worse than anything Clinton ever did, in my opinion. If 2020 does not go well for the Democrats, so be it. We cannot ignore the trashing of our laws and our Constitution simply because we cannot predict what will happen in 2020. If Trump is not put on notice that his behavior is illegal and an abuse of power he will just do more and worse.
4
The impeachment of a president as you seen with Nixon that was the tip of the iceberg, not only Watergate there was others criminal activities that the public never saw, he would've been the first president to be impeach for his actions. But to take the easy road out he quit. And Pres. Ford gave him a pardon in his criminal activities.
Pres. Bill Clinton the intern in his office in which she had sexual activities. And the other activity his businesses Whitewater real estate,died in that one. There was other presidents of that year involve real estate deals like president George Bush Junior . The only equity he had in that bank the Silverado bank was $5000 he pulled off a $50 million scheme that nobody talks about today.
Is there a true litmus test to be president of the United States looking our previous presidents no.
And then there was President Donald Trump he would probably go down in history, was bad for America is a lies that got him into the presidency and is reality show deceiving the American public. There is a list that goes on so long of his criminal activity that I cannot believe that the American people ever voted for him but they did.
Every time he's talks Pres. Donald Trump you cannot believe a word he says 10,000 lies to the American people. The only thing I could ask for my brothers and sisters of America do not vote for this president again,
1
Lewinsky was a 22 year-old women who has repeatedly stated she willingly engaged with Clinton. As stupid or disgusting as it was, when does that raise to the level of a felony?
Is an affair the criminal equivalent of violating the Constitution?
Since it is virtually impossible to convict DT in the Senate, the impeachment process is full of dangerous risks.
We would be better served by developing solutions to our ongoing problems and passing laws to implement those solutions/programs, perhaps including restrictions on Presidential powers.
Your solution would be a fine one I agree, but with a stacked Senate and Supreme Court of know-nothings policy making is at a standstill. Which is just what this President wants - ripe to take on “emergency powers”. His plan is plain as day.
1
I'm with LT below. Simply not comparable. Trump is destroying our fundamental system of government undermining and undermining our, values, norms, and law (Germany 1933?). Clinton had an affair and a pretty lame one that didn't even involve porn stars, bribery, and tax fraud.
3
All impeachments are not the same. Polls show that most Americans favor an impeachment inquiry. Yes, Democrats hate Trump, but so do most Americans, which includes some Republicans and independents. If asking a foreign government to interfere in our elections isn't a high crime, then what is? I'm asking seriously, just so when the President inevitably commits the said crime, I know what the breaking point is.
2
You lost me sir. Had been enjoying your commentary the last few months. Dragging the Clinton impeachment out again, over lying about consensual sex, and your using it for a ridiculous analogy about a man who lies every day, divided the country and has abused the power of his office for personal gain, won’t win the day. And if this behavior of abusing the office of President does not warrant impeachment, then nothing does. Of course, until a Democrat is president.
2
You lost me when you equated the Whitewater fishing expedition with the Mueller investigation. Grab some perspective.
1
I cannot remember when Clinton stole children from parents and put them in cages. I cannot remember when Clinton signed on to Authoritarian regimes. I cannot remember Clinton inciting violence and threatening a free press. I must have been tuned out at the time?
3
George W. Bush, the moment could also be yours.
djt served Romney frog legs for lunch when Romney was begging to be secretary of something in the administration. I know djt and his minions had a good laugh about that. Romney's boat has sailed.
false. equivalence.
3
If you really can’t see the difference between a cover up about sex in the Oval Office vs. cover up involving election fraud and threats to national security, you are way far beyond help.
4
When the conservative response is “Help us Mitt Romney, you’re our only hope”... You know thing’s have gotten bad.
236
The mother of all false equivalencies
3
Impeaching Clinton was a mistake politically. But despite what people in these comments are saying, he didn’t just “lie about sex”. He was the chief law enforcement official of the country and committed Perjury. Despite that, and despite how silly the Steinhams is the world look in the metoo hypocrisy... it was the wrong thing to do.
Same with Trump.
For better or worse I never saw Clinton as an impetuous, mindless, narcissistic, hate-filled autocrat who threatened to become president-for-life, or who also threatened life on earth with with his finges on the nuclear trigger.
1
Flimsy evidence? Khartoum was al-Qaeda. And Clinton could have done more if not hamstrung by the pretextial impeachment process.
A censure vote,...you've got to be kidding. Come on, Bret, you can do better than that.
2
This is a ridiculous comparison. Stephens is comparing having sex with an intern with soliciting the involvement of foreign countries in our elections. Sure both are wrong but only one threatens our country’s democracy. Clinton’s was an individual problem. Trump’s is a danger for our democracy. There is no equivalency.
4
Stephens was wrong then and he remains wrong now. Romney is a spineless impotent coward as is the rest of the GOP. These people cannot see beyond their personal interests and will remain complicit in their silence.
4
There is no comparison.
We are dealing with American fascism. Trump is our very own quasi-Mussolini per my 95 year old grandma who lived through it.
3
Romney? ROMNEY?
3
"Right-wing radio was then about as influential as left-wing Twitter is today, and it generated the same kind of visceral and obsessive passion."
This is an objectively false comparison. Right-wing radio -- Rush Limbaugh and the like -- was massively more influential in the late 1990s than "left wing twitter" is today. Talkers magazine estimated Limbaugh's audience alone at more than 14 million listeners age 12 and older at the end of Clinton's term. Who has that influence today among "left-wing Twitter?" Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas has 177,000 followers. Arianna Huffington has 2.95 million, and AOC has 5 million followers, but Trump of course has 65 million, while non-left-wing Barack Obama has 109 million. "Left-wing Twitter" is massively outweighed not only by Rush Limbaugh by himself back in the 1990s, but also by angry right-wing Twitter right now, not to mention massively outweighed by moderate Democratic Twitter now.
4
Along with the similarities--both Clinton and Trump are supreme narcissists--come many differences. Clinton was a lawyer, a Rhodes scholar, and a long-time governor of Arkansas. In short, he was really smart and understood the country's history. Trump has no idea what's in the Constitution. He is a real estate developer, and a reality TV star. He has understanding of, or interest in, the history of the United States, or the role a president plays in the running of it. Impeaching Clinton over a sexual relationship was ridiculous--even though he behaved really badly. Impeaching Trump because he's run roughshod over the Constitution is the right thing to do.
10
Stephen's argument that Democrats tolerated behavior from Clinton that they never would have accepted from a Republican intentionally misses the whole point.
It's not that Clinton wasn't a dog. He was and still is. But did anyone think that Newt Gingrich was a paragon of virtue? Or that conservatives really cared about women, beyond their reproductive function?
And Ken Starr was recently complicit in covering up the rape of several women by Baylor football players.
The impeachment of Clinton failed because the GOP was appealing to a generation of voters who had ceased believing that their politicians had any virtue at all.
Trump is being impeached because he has tampered with the strategic power arrangements of the 1%. Of course the Biden appointment to the Ukrainian energy board was a quid pro quo. Yes, it was corrupt. But corruption in service of the 1% is tolerated, at least up to a point.
But if Trump started unraveling the Biden affair it will lead to an examination of the whole nefarious business of our fomenting a coup, manipulating the Ukrainian elections and tying the country into a strangling web of debt.
All this simply to set the stage for putting the final strategic block in place to threaten Russia. And even there the real goal is blocking a Russian/Chinese economic alliance that might challenge Western hegemony.
Trump's other crimes, like Clinton's will be forgiven. But tampering with the strategic chessboard will not.
2
Mitt Romney is a devout Mormon. So is Jeff flake who was the sole Republican stirred by evidence against Bret kavanaugh. So he spoke up.
I have many friends who are Mormons who live here and are exemplary human beings. Hard working non alcoholic non caffeinated (except chocolates) very religious very ethical in their dealings. Yet Mitt Romney enabled the culture of vulture capitalism. He and his sons also took full advantage of off shore parking of wealth, plenty leftover after 10% tithe they donate generously to the church of the LDS.
Still, Mitt has bits and ounces of decency courage faith left in his cells. Unlike Trump who is totally devoid of these qualities. The more scared trump gets the more he bellows. Guess what, Donald, your papa and mamma are not here to bail you out anymore. Now it’s you alone, to face the world of decency. If Republicans are still going to hitch their horse to Trump wagon, they better be prepared to answer to whoever they claim they answer to.
3
Puppet? No puppet!
Bret Stephens lays bare the core of modern conservative “thinking”.
Can we even call this thinking?
5
Trumps behavior is corrupt on so many levels. To be mealy mouthed about punishment for his actions, is a tepid buy in to "Trump is gonna do what Trump is gonna do", despite your protestations to the contrary. Trump is leading a government that is frequently driven in it's decision making to enrich Trump. He lies with impunity and has, I suspect, done things even worse than have been exposed up to this time. To not perform an impeachment inquiry is nothing less than a dereliction of duty. National Republicans are doing the same type of thing that California Republicans did 20 years ago. They demonized Latinos, coddled racist thinking in the interest of maintaining power and now are irrelevant.
You can't compare Clinton to Trump. Period.
One betrayed his wife. The other his country.
Impeach DJT.
6
Mr. Stephens is fantasizing a better G.O.P. than now exists.
Almost all modern Republicans are too morally depraved, treasonous, hateful and cowardly to disagree with Trump, much less turn against him.
Trump will be impeached by the House of Representatives because it remains loyal to Constitutional rule of law and American democracy.
Trump will not be convicted and removed by the Senate because its Republican majority are mostly traitors who fear pluralistic Constitutional democracy and prefer to live in a Putin style white supremacist tyranny.
The only realistic hope for decent, loyal Americans is that the Trump and his Russian-Republicans can be prevented from rigging another presidential election.
Once a modern Republican, NEVER AGAIN a patriotic American, good Christian, or decent person.
5
My opposition to everything Mr. Stephens writes is pretty much total, but I refrain from debate here because the Republic is mired in a terminal crisis The situation demands fast action and compromise.
Here is my proposal: Democrats cut a deal with Romney who organizes 20 Republican colleagues to assure a Senate conviction. No pardons for Trump. Pence appoints Romney as VP. Pence resigns in exchange for a pardon for himself. Romney runs as the GOP incumbent in 2020.
Compared to the alternatives, a synthetic center solves the Trump problem, buys time for everyone to catch their breath. The center is crumbling everywhere, the USA is the only power with the capacity to revive it.
Next: whoever wins the 2020 election convenes a Constitutional Convention. The agenda includes amending the Constitution to include equal rights (universal healthcare, women's right to chose; electronic privacy rights; natural resources preservation rights), voting rights for all citizens, election reform (repeal of Ciitzen's United), abolishing the electoral college, and reformation of the Senate and House (adding more sears to reflect the country's true demographics), reaffirmation of the separation of powers and Congressional oversight.
The Democrats might have to forfeit the White House in 2020 but that would be a small price to pay for saving democracy in the United States.
3
Good grief. Clinton doesn’t come close. Nixon is more relevant, especially now that we are beginning to see the involvement of other high-level officials. Let the floodgates open and those people privy to wrongdoing step forward so we can learn the extent of the carnage. To me, the withholding of the military aid smacks of a bigger issue; like the revised plank of the platform at the convention, who did this benefit the most? I’m waiting for the read-out of that Putin call a few days after the Zelensky call. How on earth was Trump able to hold those private conversations with Putin? I hope his ties were wired.
3
The American public will have their turn in Nov 2020. What we will be witnessing is a landslide victory for Trump over Elizabeth Warren, which will be a greater spectacle than Trump’s win in 2016.
If you believe America is divided now...
Mr. Stephens,
As a matter of course I usually find your pieces well thought, with good arguments. Here though your attempt to draw parallels between presidents and where we stand in juxtaposition disturbing. Furthermore, if Trump's recent deeds don't meet the criteria for impeachment, in fact cry out for it, what exactly does? How corrupt will State Department and DOJ have to become in order to get rid of this man? Do we have to get embroiled in a regional battle with China because they are emboldened by his international corruption to make impeachment a solution? And seriously, do you honestly think a stand by Mitt Romney is going to a) bring Republicans around, and b) alter Trump's behavior?
2
Yet another republican desperately (and vainly) hoping for a return to the golden years. Sorry, pal. Newt Gingrich killed your party and Moscow Mitch buried it. You want to start a new Conservative Party? Great! I'll applaud your efforts even while voting against you. We need small government fiscal conservatives who love the country and honor their immigrant ancestors to balance people like me. Good luck to you, but give up the notion that you can rescue your party from Trump, Giuliani, Barr, Miller and the rest.
5
There is only one way to remove Trump from office. The Democrats must nominate a viable center left candidate.
Seriously?
This is a column comparing Clinton to Trump?
This is just shows how much is wrong with the Republican Party.
5
Bret Stephens' failure to rise to the occasion, proposing the toothless alternative of censure in the face of Trump's flagrant abuse of the powers of his office, should follow and mark him for the rest of his life. It is a ultimately cowardly gesture, attempting to be half-right and excusable regardless the outcome. Republican members of the House and Senate should beware. Their moment of truth is coming.
7
Mr. Stephens, would you please acknowledge that Trump will go down as one of the worst, if not the worst, president in history?
4
Mitt Romney should forcefully speak up and announce his candidacy for the GOP nomination. He should say enough is enough. Get a few of his buddies to endorse him. That might just salvage what is left of the morally threadbare Republican party. Otherwise, when Trump goes down in flames (and I believe he will go down in flames and hopefully not take the country with him) you will have a bunch of weak-in-the-knee sniveling men and women of Congress asking what, oh, what happened to their party. I would have to swallow hard before ever voting Republican these days but perhaps others wouldn't.
As for Clinton and Trump, I think Mr. Stephens gives our current president a big pass on so many of his transgressions. I was no fan of Clinton, but Trump has so debased the office and so abused his powers, not to mention embarrassed the country with his flagrant self-dealing (including blatant nepotism) and lying, that Clinton looks like the most dignified statesman ever in retrospect. The one big thing Clinton had against him was Newt Gingrich, the lying infidel, who clearly became a role model for Donald Trump and his class of morally bankrupt and self-dealing hypocrites.
3
"Republicans didn’t merely oppose Clinton and his policies. They hated him, every bit as much as Democrats hate Donald Trump" -- but why? Democrats (and #NeverTrumpers) hate Trump for the clear reason that he trashes core things we thought we shared no matter our politics. What was Republicans' reason for hating Clinton "every bit as much"?
5
I’ve always wondered why Clinton was so hated. I think it was because he was not a racist. He was so middle of the road, That is the only thing that makes sense to me.
So now we have Trump. And why is he so hated? Because he lies continuously. He‘s a bully. He has no respect for anyone. He is lazy and opportunistic. And did I mention that he has resurrected extreme racism. That too.
There can be no comparison of Clinton to Trump. To do so is to betray extreme partisanship and irrationality.
6
The situations may be tactically similar but the stakes and strategic importance of a Trump impeachment to our future are substantially higher. Clinton’s transgression did not embody an existential threat to our nation as Trump’s does. The Republicans of 1998 got called out for their cynical pursuit of Clinton; the Democrats — by relying on a Pelosi’s shrewd restraint — have been able to demonstrate a higher level of seriousness in upholding the Constitution.
(And are you really putting your hopes in Mr. Tepid to be the one who seizes this moment?)
3
The continual need to try and analogize the Clinton impeachment to these circumstances makes little sense. This opinion piece, in an attempt to analogize the two, suggests that Clinton bombed the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory to take attention away from the scandal. If true, of course, that would have warranted his removal from office. The problem with this argument is that there is no evidence to support it. The 9/11 Commission found that there was no basis to support this theory.
The Republicans did overreach in 1998 and it cost them mightily. That having been said, the two issues are very different and attempts to analogize them must be rejected. Clinton was much more popular and the public -- rightly or wrongly -- viewed it as Clinton lying about his private sex life.
It is possible that the Democrats will overreach and pay a price next fall. The facts, while they seem to be developing quickly, are still not entirely known. One thing that is clear, the two scandals are completely different and attempting to compare the two is a distraction.
4
There is big difference between this case and the Clinton impeachment. Clinton already was in his second term and did not have to face the voters again. However, one could argue that Al Gore lose in the following elections as a result of the Clinton episode.
If Democrats had removed Clinton, they could have gotten 10 years of Gore instead of 8 years of Dubya.
I wrote that to my Democratic Senator at the time. Partisanship was short sighted then.
Is it now? That depends on who and what the Republicans could get instead of Trump.
I see Pence as less a real Presidential alternative and more as impeachment insurance. What if like Agnew he went first, for his own part in the same nonsense that Trump pulled?
Then who could Republicans install as replacement VP and POTUS 46? Do they really have anyone?
The Whitewater investigation was about Clinton's personal finances before he was president.
It went on for 4-1/2 years at a cost of $100 Million in today's dollars.
I'd go for the same thing for Trump.
4
Clinton's approval rating throughout 1998, from the time the Lewinsky affair was revealed in January to his impeachment in December, remained almost entirely above 60 percent, sometimes well above that: https://news.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx
Trump has had a net negative approval rating his entire term.
Support for his impeachment keeps rising.
There is no comparison at all between the two situations.
4
The purpose of impeachment is not to remove an unpopular president, such that the House and Senate ought weigh the public "mood" as Stephens' would have it. Quite the reverse. In our founders' thinking, built into our Constitution, the purpose of impeachment is to remove a dangerous yet popular president willing to flout the law and the Constitution, abuse the powers of his office, ally himself with foreign powers, and prey upon the ignorance and passions of the populace to secure and exercise despotic, self-serving power. Trump fits the bill to a T. The moment calls for the House and Senate to use the fail-safe tool the founders provided for just such an occasion. Reasoning in terms of the public mood is definitionally out of bounds, cravenly political rather than politically principled. The purpose of impeachment is to save the "Republic" the founders gave us from what they well-understood to be the intrinsic weakness of democratic governance against an unscrupulous, lawless demagogue. Trump is the demagogic tyrant they feared.
4
Mitt Romney vs Joe Biden would be Bush III vs Clinton II all over again.
American voters didn't go for it then, and would not now.
Look what happened last time you tried that.
I’m 57. I didn’t come of age during a conservative era of “public virtue and private probity.” It was public piety and private plunder
6
Exactly! I came of age politically in the era of the “Moral Majority” (who were neither moral nor a majority) who’s ideas broke the unions, created mass incarceration for minorities, and stiffed the middle class. But, hey, at least they pretended piety: today’s voters see rampant abuse of power and just don’t care. The onus, then, is on us. Remember Pogo’s most famous quote?
3
This is the standard false equivalence that Republicans almost always offer. The Constitution gives the grounds for impeachment as "bribery, treason or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Not "crimes" Mr Stephens - "high crimes" - crimes on the order of bribery and treason. Not lying about a personal affair - which is a crime but not a crime against the office or the country - but colluding with a foreign power to undermine an election, which surely IS a "high crime" - a crime against the office and the country. Shame on you Mr Stephens.
3
To compare Clinton's peccadillo to Trump's publicly admitting to an impeachable offense by inviting foreign governments to interfere in our election campaign is conflated Limabaughese nonsense. It is like the defense attorney for the teenager who murders his parents then asks the jury for mercy because his client is now an orphan.
2
The numbers present a stark contract: Clinton's approval rating during the 1998 impeachment process ranged from the mid-sixties to the low seventies. Trump's approval ratings are in the low forties, with more than half the nation both disapproving of his performance and saying the country is heading in the wrong direction.
Roughly two thirds of the public disapproved of impeaching Clinton, whereas today roughly half the public supports impeaching Trump and support for impeachment is rising quickly.
https://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/21/us/impeachment-polls-public-support-for-president-for-closure-emerges-unshaken.html
1
What?! Clinton lied about a consensual affair with an adult. Who cares and why is it even relevant to the performance of his office? Trump abused the powers of his office to, in all likelihood violate election law, commit extortion or bribery and cover it all up. Clinton's impeachment is irrelevant to #metoo, which is not about lying or consensual sex, nor did Khartoum have anything to do with his alleged offence. I can't think of a more extreme example of false moral equivalency. [PS I didn't like Clinton's politics either].
1
It would be interesting to compare the Republican hatred of Clinton with the Democratic hatred of Trump. Stephens doesn't make a comparison, he treats them as if they were mirror images: he hated Clinton, and similarly, we hate Trump. That's all; "Why?" is irrelevant. Well, it may be irrelevant to him...
1
Clinton couldn’t keep his pants zipped, nor Trump his repugnant mouth. In no way equivalent. Time for Trump to be swept to the dustbin of history.
1
“Mitt Romney, the moment could yet be yours.” You mean leveraged buyout (hostile takeover) Mitt? The guy who got rich by taking over companies in trouble and drastically cutting costs (laying people off) and then selling the company for a profit - getting rich off someone’s failure and sticking it to the employees. That Mitt? He is the kind of “Republican leader who hasn’t yet lost a sense of honor and duty”?
If putting people out of work and getting rich off of it is Stephens’ definition of honor and duty – God help us all. It sounds eerily like Donald Trump. Trump’s and Romney’s business ethics sound very similar. And the only difference between Trump and Romney may be that Romney doesn’t swear in public.
186
You’re making Trump look better by not seeing the difference.
9
@Wayne
Vive La Difference!
Mitt:
-doesn't grope women he's not married to
-doesn't stiff his contractors
-doesn't lie every time he opens his mouth
-doesn't have extra-marital affairs with porn starts and Playboy bunnies
-doesn't sell out his country's interests to further his and his family's interests
-et.al.
He's not my preferred candidate for any office but Trump makes him so much more palatable. I'd even welcome Dubya given the choice between the 2.
Here's my main point. Any of the other Republican contenders in '16 would have signed the tax bill, nominated solid right wing judges, pushed deregulations and all the other conservative wish list items without alienating our allies or soft-glove our adversaries, starting not-so-easy-to-win trade wars, etc.
But they had to pick and stand behind this sad example as their standard bearer. Sigh.
31
The title of this op/ed piece should have been, "Apples and Oranges."
4
It's time to seriously discuss Trump, so ... Clinton! Clinton! Clinton!
2
Bret, you were wrong then, and you are wrong again now.
We must impeach, for the good of the country. It’s a moral imperative.
Why can’t you and Brooks see that ?!?
1
While I liked a lot about Bill Clinton, his treatment of women...ugh.
Credit to Wally McNamee/Corbis for capturing the epitome of louche in this photo - and credit to the copy editor for digging it out of Getty images!
Clinton was known as a sexual predator and a bad liar. I can't imagine a single Democratic nominee asking for his endorsement. I think one reason (besides Trump and Russia) Hillary Clinton lost had to do with the fact that Bill would be back in the White House. Trump is also known as a sexual predator but he brags about it. He has also destroyed and continues to erode life as we know it in this country. He should be behind bars.
2
Good Heavens! You place your hope in Mitt Romney?
The Susan Collins of Utah will disappoint.
1
Bret, this false equivalency is typical of you and absurd. Yes, Republicans detested Clinton but the. "crimes" they went after him for were small potatoes in contrast to Trump's conversion of our democracy into his private slush fund and authoritarian power base. And our economy is nothing like what it was under Clinton, nor has Trump kept a single one of his other "signature" campaign promises (not that we'd want him to, since most of them seem generated straight out of his narcissistic, authoritarian, racist unconscious). Why do you write this nonsense?
3
God help the USA if Romney becomes President
The best support for your false equivalency is the reported Ukrainian newspaper moniker for their new President: "Monica Zelensky."
2
Oh please. False equivalence.
4
Ah yes, the leader of the Clinton impeachment drive and model of Republican private virtue Newt Gingrich, who was carrying on his own extra-marital affair at the time. Followed by Dennis Hastert, who went to prison for making hush money payments to boys he sexually molested.
5
Mr. Stephens: And yet you seem so intelligent.
Maybe don't believe everything you think.
2
False equivalence
2
Bret, I usually enjoy your columns and TV appearances. But this one is one of your worst. Total lazy journalism. Clinton did many positive things, such as a balanced budget and a healthy surplus. And he never attempted to use the institutions of government for personal gain. Sorry Bret, this one was a turkey. Shana Tovah.
1
There is a huge difference between impeachment based on a lie about possible adultery and asking a foreign leader to trade aid for poop about your competition. Adults know that many men when cornered will lie about cheating on a spouse. That's human nature. Trump's misdeeds are bordering on treason. Big difference.
3
Wow. This column might yet be the most blatant example of the doctrine of false equivalency. Mr. Stephens' attempts to equate the events of '98 with today's reality defies the facts. Just another attempt to "normalize" our president's behaviors.
6
@RP yes, and as proof lets see how the actors in the 1998 impeachment lasted - Ken Starr was kicked out of Baylor University after stonewalling womens complaints of sexual harassment against the football team for years (decades?) and Clinton is STILL married to his one and ONLY wife, who stayed by her man in the defense of the institution of marriage!! How many repubs can count that as one of their trust fulfillments - NOT Trump, for sure...Denis Hastert was outed as a pederast..Hilary Clinton ran for president..So the only hopeful parallel we can take from the 1998 impeachment is that Gore was taken down as well. I fully expect Pelosi to be the first woman prez, and Warren to be the second..You are living in some kind of weird bubble, Bret..Find the light!!
1
Stephens makes a false equivalency in trying to compare Clinton's bombing of the pharmaceutical factory in Sudan with Trump's extortion of Ukraine. What Stephens leaves out: the target of the Sudan attack was Osama bin Laden. The intelligence may have been faulty, and the timing might have been intentionally convenient to distract attention from the Lewinski scandal, but the object of the attack was legitimate.
Trump, by contrast, attempted to extort a desperate and defenseless ally, not based on faulty intelligence, but based on a lie from right-wing media. And he did it not in the pursuit of a legitimate U.S. policy aim, but for his own personal political gain.
1
As a conservative in the 90s I felt the same of Clinton and his moral inadequacies. I also started listening to the new right-wing radio, while driving; this started my journey away from the Republican party. I asked silently to Mr. Limbaugh ...is Clinton wrong on everything?
I think there is a chasm in your comparison with Trump, which you are trying to point out while remaining true to yourself. Trump is an attack on almost all ethical and moral norms of society, both here and globally, he must be destroyed.
2
You can compare Trump and Clinton impeachment processes, but the persons and the crimes are very different.
Clinton was not trying to rig elections and bombing some far away place to distract is surly not something exclusive to Clinton.
Attacking the democratic process by a sitting president must be met with swift removal from office. We can't rely on a vote in an election that may be so influenced by foreign players that Trump, if he was to become the winner would not be a legitimate president. He would be the boss of an international corrupt gang using the power of the US for racketeering.
The other issue is Trump is incapable of discharging is oath of office, the guy is clearly sick with the attention span of a fruit fly. He also lacks any moral compass and his willing to destroy the country if this could protect is ego. He is unable to retain talent that may cast a shadow on him, do any serious research on anything,..., the list of his shortcoming is a mile long.
His only success is in demolishing stuff. Show one new deal he was able to set up that has any lasting value creating for the country. The tax cut was self serving and will cost us far more than any of its short lived economic stimulus.
I think the 25th amendment is starting to look good to the VP as an out. Pence what are you waiting for ? The alternative of all the corruption coming out in plain site might be much more painful to you and other Trump enablers.
Mr. Stephens, are you really trying to equate lying about an extramarital affair (are there even five people in this country not guilty of that?) with extorting a foreign country to manufacture dirt on a political foe?
1
In which Stephens elbows Brooks and Doubtit aside to reclaim the title of King of False Equivalence.
3
Apples and oranges.
Clinton did not seek to undermine and erode the federal government. Trump threatens the very foundation of American democracy.
Clinton lied about one thing. Trump lies about everything. (What's the count now? Has he hit ten thousand?)
Clinton had foibles best left to his wife to judge. Trump has those same foibles, (in spades,) and a list of others that add up to psychosis.
Lastly, Clinton knew how to read.
4
I did not want the Democrats to go the impeachment route for all of these reasons. However, there is not equivalency between lying about a sexual affair and asking for election interference from a foreign country. Stephens does not address the fact that Clinton’s transgressions were stupid and immoral but did not undermine the election process, were not directed at internal rivals and did not extend to trying to destroy the credibility of the US intelligence agencies. There is no option when you are confronted with these issues. By ignoring this Stephens is trying to create equivalency where none exists
2
Really, Bret? There was a time when Republicans were keen on private virtue and public probity?
How about private hypocrisy and public cover up!
Republicans in the time of Clinton were cheerleaders for segregation, prejudice, and civil strife. Remember ol' Newt's cruel infidelity to his terminally-ill second wife while he was charging Clinton with the high crime and misdemeanor of consensual hanky-panky?
3
Clinton deserved Impeachment, not because of moral terpitude but because he perjured himself. However, what Clinton did pales by comparison to what a vengeful, petulant occupant of the White House is doing to our National Security with his corrupt Secretary of State and Attorney General. Enough of the false equivalency.
1
"I came of age as a conservative in an era when Republicans were keen on matters of private virtue and public probity." What a joke. Newt Gingrich was having an extramarital affair while he was leading the impeachment of Clinton. This author has yet to come of age. Congratulations on more "conservative" obfuscation.
2
Your facile analogy, Bret Stephens, fails to note that Clinton's misbehavior was sexual and limited. DJT has been undermining our institutions, rejecting science and endangering our public lands, waters and air. He has invited and encouraged foreign governments to influence our elections. Further he and his family are using the Presidency like a personal piggy bank. He has traumatized families and their children for the sake of his ego. Whatever grounds are used for impeachment, the sum of his governance is nothing short of endangering not only our country but our role in the world. Nothing Mitt Romney could or would say will change any of these facts.
2
Brett is much more shallow than i thought. His examples are sophomoric. So thoughtless. His influence will wane with these types of articles.
4
I am wondering about your wandering around Clinton history, looking for a legitimate comparison. If you watch Morning Joe, then you'll see one of the Republicans who hated Bill Clinton, Joe Scarborough, strain to avoid mentioning the Clintons on every single show. It's the only things about MJ that I can't stand. Now you. There is no comparison, Bret. There is NO comparison. Bill Clinton was a good president, and brilliant political tactician, who had a sordid affair and then lied about it. Donald Trump's multiple affairs during three marriages were well known before election day and are in the minor concern category of his pathetic behavior and his utter incompetency. Trump's corrupt adult life in both family and business, phony flip from Democrat to Republican, his collective lack of intellect, and inability to perform even basic management activities, have imperiled this nation in a way not even remotely comparable to the Clinton presidency. Stop and think for a minute, about how these silly comparisons cause Americans to accept Trump with the "all politicians are terrible people" mentality.
2
Equating lying about sex and asking corrupt countries to dig up dirt on your political opponents isn't worthy of a NY Times columnist. Especially one who keeps telling us that even if he is a republican he is appalled by Trump. And that was all they could pin on Clinton after years of investigations. Trump has a life history of un-American activity if not outright illegal activity - equal housing charges, financial fraud to get his dad's money, litigation to cheat his building partners, lies, self promotion, sexual abuse, and tax evasion. And then he became president and he lies every day, embraces conspiracy theories to shore himself up, embraces dictators, shuns democratic leaders, promotes hate crimes, uses public employees like they are his minions, and then tries to cover it all up. Then we have a concerted effort by Trump and Republicans to deny healthcare, income equality, clean air, sustainable earth and basic human rights.
I would say you haven't learned much since Clinton was in office.
1
Evangelicals could not abide a man who lied about sex. Now, lying about sex is excused because the liar is a president and not a saint. And crimes of extortion, abuse of power and cover-ups are excused for the same reason.
Lesson learned: Crimes don't count when you are a Republican.
Lesson not learned: Beware of false prophets.
2
This whole thing was just a slug for Mitt? And by the way, I remember watching Liberman on TV when he made his speech about Clinton's guilt and consequence; he caved like a cheap camera. It was disgusting.
Bret you fail to talk about Trump’s greatest threat. He is a threat to our national security. Clinton never even came close so that.
Clinton’s high crime was perjury under oath and his misdemeanor was sex in the Oval Office. Neither of these alleged “crimes” comes close to what Trump is doing to our country.
Trump is trashing the Constitution, running roughshod over the rule of law and systematically destroying our democracy. He is corrupt and a criminal. He is using the Office of the Presidency to enrich himself and his family.
To sum Trump up in one word he is EVIL.
2
I draw a stark distinction between a President having an illicit sex event in the WH and a President who consorts with a foreign power to influence a American election. Personally, I could care less what individuals do in their bedrooms---although being spanked with a magazine--well...but, I as a citizen, knowing my vote may be erased by some hacker in the Ukraine...that's an entirely different matter.
1
Comparing Clinton's behavior as president to Trump's is comparing apples to pumpkins. Bill Clinton was a "slick" president. Trump is an "unhinged" president. Clinton lied about his sexual escapade with Monica Lewinsky. Trump routinely lies about immoral actions and scientific facts of enormously greater import. To paraphrase a Democrat, Senator Daniel Moynihan, who Stephens admires for appropriately criticizing certain Clinton behaviors--Trump has defined deviancy way, way down. And yet the current Republican party remains almost entirely silent.
2
Hahahahaha ... ya gotta love Bret Stephens .... "I came of age as a conservative in an era when Republicans were keen on matters of private virtue and public probity."
Newt Gingrich? Sorry Bret but what you "remember" was never true - it was all invented.
2
I have acquaintances who never forgave Muhammad Ali for his stance on the Viet Nam war, and most of these individuals BLAME Woodward and Bernstein for Nixon's downfall.
Stephens...I swear your work is weak stuff, man. Really weak.
2
Another big difference: today's Democrats, agree with their political decisions about Trump or not, are behaving honorably & honestly. The Republican politicians and media opposing Clinton were dishonest & unethical.
2
I agree, it could be Mitt Romney’s time. The current situation is scary. There must be a Republican adult in the room?!?! They all need to grow spines!
At the end of any long day what truly was the national threat of the Lewinsky affair?
What could she have demanded? What could anyone who knew of their pranks, and the subsequent marriage and self-preserving lie under oath have demanded? That would have put the nation at risk?
Russia; no more NATO or we out you on your cigar-play?
Iran; look the other way on our procurement of nuclear enrichment supplies, or we mention the dirty dress?
Lewinsky; appoint me National Director of Fashion...or I tell your wife!
Meanwhile...Trump is self-dealing, his children and son-in-law are all self-dealing. Its likely we'll learn most of his inner circle of deplorable sycophants are also self-dealing, in prep for their post WH life. Miller has to be outfitting his own private Fortress of Solitude somewhere...like a real life version, where he puts on the red bloomers and cape...
Trump commits his crimes in public. Then when pointed out, the Repubs say there's nothing there there. While there is a very big THERE...right there! All due to their fear of a nasty Tweet, and the Trumplodites.
Then there's Giuliani, his troll bringing back his own fake dossier on an Ambassador of all people!
Now there's the China request. If they dont do what I want, there are things I will do...if they dont' give me trumped up materials on Biden..."
Then claims he's not in it for political gain, but is worried corruption! Trump is concerned about corruption!
Which way is up, as there's no more down!
2
Mr. Stephens, Did your misjudgment of the Clinton impeachment turn out to be a real mistake because you now believe the process was wrong and undeserved or do you merely regret your expression of the judgment because the shoe is now on the your party’s foot?
2
Still expecting a hero to emerge from the GOP, Bret? Perhaps it would be instructive for you to contemplate the words of a previously highly-esteemed GOP member of Congress:
"If wishes were fishes, we'd all take a swim." ~ John Boehner
Eventually the sharks pulled him under.
1
False equivalency in the extreme....
1
Bret Stephens, can you seriously believe this? Clinton, caught in a lie from embarrassment is equivalent to Trump, a crook selling out the U.S. to its adversaries for personal gain, and corrupting every institution by installing compromised corrupt cronies in every position? If you do, there is really no dialogue to be had here.
2
Spare us the specious comparisons. There is literally no comparison between Clinton and Trump or between their supporters.
Republicans have elected and continue to support an ignorant and unmoored nihilist to whose rampant Illegalities they choose to turn a blind eye. Democrats elected a competent centrist with a wandering eye.
2
"Republicans didn’t merely oppose Clinton and his policies. They hated him, every bit as much as Democrats hate Donald Trump."
Sorry, Bret but I'm a Republican and I hate Donald Trump more than I ever hated Bill Clinton. I'd take 10 years of Clinton over 1 more year of Trump. This entire piece is a false equivalency.
3
I used to look forward to reading Bret Stephens for serious, thoughtful conservative perspectives. This piece is not by a serious, thoughtful person. It was written with blinders on or simply to be provocative. It is silly and ridiculous in its attempts at false equivalency. So, Bret Stephens, you will no longer be worth my time. Good-bye.
2
Gee Brett, it is convenient that you now think impeaching Clinton for a tawdry affair was a mistake when you were all in in 1998. It is curious you now use your "mistake" in 1998 to be against impeaching Trump. Comparing Trump to Clinton is a ridiculous comparison and I think you know it.
This is ridiculous. The attempt by this editorialist to compare the Clinton presidency and Trump's shows how out of touch the Republicans are with reality. The Republicans have developed an alternative universe to justify their grubbing, self serving existence. I saw the attacks on Clinton as the right-wing payback for the Watergate/Nixon scandal. The Trump scandal takes the Republican party to new heights of hypocrisy.
Trump’s actions represent the most deceitful and egregious violation of the oath of office by a president in American history.
Clinton’s lying about an affair with an adult woman, while loathsome to his wife, never impacted on his oath of office, your snide insinuations about the response to the bombing attack the USS Cole not withstanding.
There is simply NO comparison. The GOP’s relentless pursuit of Clinton was only the opening salvo in a quarter century of baseless and politicized abuse that gave us climate change, a phony war, the destruction of New Orleans, the worst terrorist attack in US history and the destruction of the world economy.
Now the GOP puts alunatic in office.
Trump is a criminal, traitor and clearly insane. Democrats cannot do too much to taken him down and force him from the political stage,
There is no overreaching here, only underperformance.
2
I thought you were comparing Clinton and the current Liar in Chief--only toward the end did you bring in Trump at all. And you are using a false equivalency. Trump is doing nothing for the economy--except for the tax breaks for the rich--Clinton did not call on foreign countries and despots to help him win an election. He didn't enrich himself while president etc. I do not see hatred of Trump by Democrats to begin with. I saw concern for someone who was totally unqualified and unfit to be president as an adulterer, liar, racist, repeated business failure, and a cheat. Now we can add traitor to that list. Something no one could ever call either Clinton.
2
For an intelligent man, Bret, your opinions are consistently myopic. Clinton was impeached for lying over a consensual sex act. Trump is guilty of using foreign policy to bring down his most popular electoral opponent. Do you not see the difference?
2
FYI: There are actually Republicans that loath DJT and not all Democrats loved Bill. What Bill did was stupid what DJT has done is criminal. Democrats actually voted for DJT. I don't think nearly as many Republicans voted for Bill. I think the difference is that Bill played less golf and was actually a pretty smart guy.
1
@Tom: if he were not President he’d have been indicted, tried and convicted of ..... well actually what, since his misdeeds are all “Presidential” ? Fraud definitely would be warranted....yet his frauds escaped prosecution, because he was too big to fail!
Tax evasion, except the investigation into his taxes only occurred because he was President.
I know impersonating a human being!
How right you are and how poorly we liberals understand that Trump is just working off Bill Clinton's playbook and for that matter Nixon’s and Johnson’s, if you look back far enough. They all lied and cheated and were moral monsters, but very effective. Perhaps we underestimate that to be president you almost have to be sociopathic, and the Obama and Carter types really are the exception not the rule. This has always been obvious to me and my one and only republican vote was for Dole because of it.
What about... "left-wing Twitter"... as influential as Right-wing radio? Where?
1
The comparison between the prurient base of Clinton’s impeachment and the explicit and repeated crime of soliciting help from foreign nations is disgraceful and a misleading false equivalence by a skilled propagandist. As Dale Bumpers said at Clinton’s impeachment When you hear somebody say, 'This is not about money' -- it's about money." And when you hear somebody say, "This is not about sex" -- it's about sex.” In Trump’s case, when a President says to Zelensky “Can you do me a favor?” It’s about a criminal solicitation in exchange for aid.
Bombing al Shifa in Khartoum was not a distraction:"The report of the 9/11 Commission notes that the National Security staff reviewed the intelligence in April 2000 and concluded that the CIA's assessment of its intelligence on bin Laden and al-Shifa had been valid; the memo to Clinton on this was cosigned by Richard Clarke and Mary McCarthy, the NSC senior director for intelligence programs, who opposed the bombing of al-Shifa in 1998. The report also notes that in their testimony before the commission, Al Gore, Sandy Berger, George Tenet, and Richard Clarke all stood by the decision to bomb al-Shifa."... The question is, what will Trump do if he escapes accountability again.
Bret:
First of all, nice to see you writing about something other than defending Israel or knocking Iran.
Now, on to the tendency of Never-Trumpers such as yourself to keep on knocking the Dems, even though you now agree with us.
"And his supporters could be remarkably creative or brazen (when they weren’t simply mute) in excusing behavior they would never have tolerated from a Republican."
Let's get it straight, Bret. Clinton was impeached for lying about consensual sex. Ken Starr laid a legal honey trap for him and Clinton couldn't play it straight. Who could have, in a society where moral worth is defined in great part by monogamy?
Bret, you have been a lifelong Republican. You are partly responsible for the moral stain your party has made on American political life. And you state that we Dems would not have tolerated such behavior from a Republican? That we would have impeached a Republican on a trumped-up perjury charge for lying about consensual extramarital sex?
Do you really think we are that hung up? And that devious? Must be the Republican in your blood.
Have you no decency, sir?
1
Mr Stephens, you say your were wrong about the impeachment of President Clinton, but you don't say why.
Were you wrong on the merits? Were you wrong on strategy? Is it simply that you you have been proven wrong by history?
What have you learned that we should believe you now?
Bret, President Clinton misstepped, injuring only himself, his family and the young woman involved. What saved President Clinton was the complete and utter hypocrisy of Congressional Republicans hounding him--Bob Barr, Livingstone, Hyde, Hutchinson, Gingrich, Insign, et. al., who were guilty of far more egregious marital infidelity. Turns out Ken Starr was no choirboy either.
Trump is in a league of his own. His flaunting of the emoluments
clause, his flagrant abuses of power, his ignorance that borders on stupidity, his arrogance, and his total lack of morality elevate Presidents Clinton and especially President Obama to the level of Churchill, Roosevelt, Gandhi, and Mandela.
Just how much more Trump crime will you excuse?
Oh, come on! Clinton having sex with a consenting adult who was treated like a criminal by republican prosecutors (who treated Lewinsky worse, Starr or Clinton? I vote for Starr!), her MOTHER was kept in a locked hotel room and interrogated without a lawyer by FBI republcan thugs for hours, Ken Starr wrote a report that can only be considered lascivious in it's detail, and that disgusted all of us for it's intrusion into private acts, (and made Starr seem like the real pervert), and aside from that, Whitewater, the start of Ken Starr, had nothing to do with the final indictment, nothing was ever found in the Whitewater actions, and Susan McDougal languished in jail because she didn't want to speak the script the republicans had written. Clinton survived that because it was a truly bogus republican witch hunt. And as with this scandal today, the republican bad behavior was obvious to all. Lets stop comparing Clinton to what Trump is doing, please - or, if you must compare and contrast, the impeachment of Clinton was just was more very obvious republican tricky moves and dastardly deeds, that is the only point of comparison that I see as valid. OJur best hope is how the Clinton impeachment damaged Gore substantially - I fully expect Pence to be taken down with this impeachment, as well as Barr, and expect Pelosi to be our first female prez, and Warren our second.
1
Baloney. Clinton’s crime was private and unrelated to presidential powers. Looks like one of my favorRepublicans has forgotten important distinctions.
Sorry but you are out of your mind to compare this to Clinton. This is worse than Nixon. And if you think this behavior is OK then I cannot wait for president Warren to ask China to investigate you and all conservative dissenters for your treasonous behavior. Because thats were we are headed if we dont stop this now.
There is always this attempt at equivalence, and it doesn't fly.
Clinton, whatever his faults, was a competent and well-informed president who delighted in the details. In Trump we have a con man who has neither the competence nor the interest in his job, his sole purpose from the outset being to achieve alpha-male status. He has soiled our discourse, actually promoted our division for his benefit, and appalled allies all over the world.
The difficulty with Clinton was in deciding where to draw the line, since his suitability for the office -- beyond his sexual dalliances -- was not in question. Trump has no upside whatsoever.
Talk about false equivalencies! To equate Clinton’s slime with Trump’s efforts to destroy American democracy is downright pitiful.
There are numerous false comparisons here. This is irresponsible writing. Especially the quote about Gloria Steinham’s view sitting “ awkwardly “ with the Me Too movement. Not at all true or accurate!
Bret, if you try to understand why conservatives hate democrats, turn to Fox. I did few weeks ago to Carlson who repeatedly ask the question: “why democrats hate America?” Disgusting!
Then turn to MSNBC and try to find a comparable “beauty” statement.
Democrats don’t hate conservatives, they just are appalled, shocked by visceral hatred on the other side, baffled and unable to see why. They may hate individual conservative politicians because of their criminal and unethical conduct.
Trump will and should prevail. Trump 2020.
More whatabout-ism from the right.
Donald Trump's defense: "What about Joe Biden?"
Brett Stephens' defense of Trump: "What about Bill Clinton?"
1
To put it in motoring terms, Bill Clinton was driving 60 mph in a 50 mph zone.
Trump is driving 100 mph in a school zone while the lights are flashing.
1
The author is trying to compare apples and oranges here.
Clinton was impeached for lying about sex with an intern. Shocking, eh?
Trump is being investigated for trying to coerce an foreign power to interfere in a US election campaign. Not QUITE the same as a politician having sex with a woman who is not his wife.
Really? You really think lying about extramarital sex with a consenting adult is in any way as egregious as enlisting a foreign power to interfere with a US election?
Does anyone?
Trump has already altered the 2020 election: the dems turned on Biden late this afternoon, he'll be gone by the next debate, before or after.
Plus it's getting little note but he asked the Chinese for them to "investigate" Warren, which means make something up as she's almost squeaky clean. As soon as Biden is gone the whole right wing echo chamber will take it's direction from the liar-in-chief and there will be a torrent of sexual accusations and financial accusations - check out Fox's website, they were starting stories about Adam Schiff and the RT Calif OAN was doing a hit on Pelosi just like the one on Biden, her son had gained financially from her fame. It won't end as long as Trump is at the table.
Rebecka Mercer will pour money to Schweizer and Bannon and the far right fringe will dream something up they can pour money on and Rush and company will set it on fire. I seriously doubt we'll ever have another fair and free election. Thank you Donald Trump and Republicans, I guess you win the cinders of our democracy. You've already got most of the money and power.
Teddy Roosevelt understood the difference. He said, “A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight car; but if he has a university education, he may steal the whole railroad.” While both Clinton and Trump went to school, one tried to make America great, the other just had a slogan. Clinton stole the reputation of an intern. Trump has stolen everything else.
Bob Bork couldn’t find a reason in the Constitution for serving blacks in restaurants. The only one slouching toward Gomorrah was Bork.
Oh Bret, apples and oranges. Most of us didn't support Clinton's impeachment because we realized ultimately it was about an issue that was between him and his wife.
Yeah, I get the part about lying under oath. But we also recognize that was a technicality. And he should not have had a daliance with a subordinate; but that is not impeachable conduct. Finally, not a small percentage of Americans cheat on their spouses or significant others. Many of us saw Clinton in ourselves, in our parents: flawed but not doomed.
But, most of us cannot imagine compromising our country's principles and interests to get dirt on an opponent. Most of us cannot imagine choosing our interests at the expense of our country's well-being. That is behavior that is indecent in the public and private sphere and concerns all Americans
1
This article only makes sense if you think lying about adultery is morally equivalent to a President using the power of the presidency to force an ally to develop dirt on a political opponent, by withholding aid the Congress approved to help them defend their country against Russia (but no collusion).
5
When you go in the voting booth you take your wallet and purse with you. They are quite full now and likely to remain so. Trump may even get the popular vote this time. Electoral College is a ground ball.
@Norwichman
These wallets and purses are quite full for whom? Ain't it great that running up annual trillion dollar deficits are of no concern or consequence when there's a Republican in the WH?
1
Your vote doesn't count, neither does mine.
"I came of age as a conservative in an era when Republicans were keen on matters of private virtue and public probity." When was that, exactly? Reagan was a divorcee; he sold US arms to Iran in contravention of US law and elevated the "Southern strategy" to an art form with his Philadelphia, MS speech and talk of welfare queens. Then there's the Clinton impeachment...led by the Republicans getting rid of the first "special counsel" and putting in Ken Starr who managed to go from Whitewater (please read Fool for Scandal) to Lewinsky, followed by that paragon of marital virtue, Newt Gingrich, who ultimately resigned as Speaker, followed by Livingston, who also had to resign due to multiple marital affairs, and in that rather disgusting mix was Henry Hyde and his "youthful indiscretions" when he was in his 40's. Now we have Trump and his silent Republicans.
Bret, you are simply clueless. There is no comparison between Clinton and that impeachment and Trump and his flagrant violations of our Constitution.
7
Were Clinton President today he'd have resigned over Lewinsky. We've developed higher standards in that regard. The rest in this article is absurd false equivalency.
1
That Bret Stephens could equate an extramarital sexual relationship with a presidential candidate and his aides conspiring with foreign entities to sway an election shows just how partisan he is. Ditto equating the Whitewater investigation to the Mueller investigation, as if the Mueller investigation was initiated entirely by hatred of Trump. Mr. Stephens seems to have forgotten that Mueller was appointed by Trump's own justice department on information from our own intelligence agencies. Not to excuse Clinton, but at least he and his administration had the decency to conduct themselves like adults and cooperate with congress. If Mr. Stephens is looking for a relevant comparison, I'd suggest Nixon.
5
Stephens says he was wrong in 1998. He's wrong again. If he thinks this is another belle epoque, he's living in a privileged, white, Christian, carbon burning bubble. The "economy" is good, but how the average American feels about their future in it is dismal. We're in a war on immigrants and the free press. Racial and religious minorities are targeted at the highest level. People are being gunned down while the President supports the suppliers of future hot metal death. Clinton was a charming creep trying hard to make things better (what were his approval numbers in 1998?). Trump is a hateful, vindictive creep trying hard to destroy any consensus on Constitutional norms and American values (approval numbers dropping daily).
1
Clinton was competent, knowledgable and persuasive. He was also a philanderer and lied about it.
Trump is none of the above excepting the philanderer part.
In any event again we have Stephens giving advice to Democrats with just a sentence or two for Republicans. They are the ones that need not only advice but a spine transplant. They have allowed Trump to rule as a king and have endangered the constitutional safeguards of Congress being a co equal to the President.
Pelosi and Schiff are smarter and far more competent than Newt who engineered the Clinton impeachment.
3
Keep reaching, Brett. Your desperate love for the Republican Party that keeps failing you is not going to absolve Republicans from their shameless continued support of Trump, his minions in the administration, or McConnell.
3
President Trump can only have one term. His antics are an embarrassment to all Americans. The Republican Party needs to find the courage to nominate a Real Republican. Would Mitt Romney want to take Trump on?
The Democrats also need to get real as to who is the best candidate with the best policies for ALL Americans.
Andrew Yang has a message that is resounding with our young voters and it would be wise for both parties to heed his message.
@Thucydides:
I was also around in the ‘90s but unlike you I felt that Clinton’s crime was not worthy of impeachment. Why?First, whether we like it or not, in tens of thousands of criminal cases and civil lawsuits each year, one or both parties commit perjury. How many are prosecuted? Virtually none.
Second, the hypocrisy of it. How many Republican members of Congress had adulterous affairs? And how many would admit it, even under oath? Yeah, that many...none!
Thirdly, the Starr inquiry, which lasted, incidentally, twice as long as Mueller’s without a single “Witch Hunt” Tweet ( to be fair Twitter was not invented!) and concerned questionable land deals in Arkansas was allowed way out of its remit in an attempt to find anything at all on Clinton.
That was a case for a Congressional vote of Censure.
I was also around for the Nixon impeachment (OMG, I’m old, really,really old! Not that old, Bernie and Joe are way older!). That , like this, involved crimes lying at the heart of our democracy. That, like this, demanded impeachment. What is yet to be seen is whether there are Senior Republicans who will be willing to tell Trump that he should go.
Sadly, with these invertebrates I doubt it!
PS: I did condemn Clinton’s actions at the time
1
Trump´s behavior is always the same. Imagine a great scheme, play fast and loose with the variables and levers, and then double down when the mess begins to pile up.
His saving grace was always having his father, or his cabal of terrifying lawyers, always ready and able to fix the mess. His father is gone, and the lawyers have to watch their own backs now, yet Trump feels he is covered by his Base and the Republicans elected to high office that s
To add to the others' comments about Bret's deeply flawed false equivalency: the first and biggest beneficiary of Trump's malfeasance is Russia. Russia wants Ukraine back. The US withholding Ukraine's defense funding has to be a sweet reward for Russian interference in the US election of 2016. Let's hear more about this from the NYT, and Bret - is this really the same as what Clinton did?
2
I could never get myself to vote for Bill Clinton. I have this thing against adulterers and sexual predators. There was a time when politicians had a sense of shame (Gary Hart) and withdrew when faced with claims of adultery. Bill Clinton set the precedent that we should ignore these character lapses, as long as the man is on our side. Thanks a lot Bill.
Whether it is the resident “conservatives” Stephens or Brooks in the NYT, they cannot help themselves from falling off the cliff in drawing false equivalencies with the current occupant in the White House and any past or present Democrat or their policies.
This is a ludicrous attempt by Stephens to address what is really underfoot in this impeachment inquiry.
1
I'd love to hear the hosts of the Sunday morning political programs ask the Trump defenders being interviewed if Clinton's impeachment was a coup.
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about an extramarital affair with a very willing adult woman, which even was arranged by Ken Starr.
The offense for which Clinton was impeached would never have happened if not for Starr's endless investigations!
Trump, OTOH, commits impeachable offenses left and right aided only by his willing minions.
Conservatives didn't hate Bill Clinton nearly as much as they *hate* the idea that government can deliver value for people and they *love* the idea of turning the USA into a fascist theocracy where laws are simply tools to be used towards that end or ignored when they don't help.
"Conservatives" aren't about conserving anything; they are about destruction.
1
Here we go again with trying to find equivalence and middle ground where they don’t exist. Consider this: Trump was attempting to get dirt on a political rival from a foreign government to affect the outcome of a future American election. Do you seriously think that a censure will stop the man who just publicly asked China to investigate Joe Biden? Clinton’s private bad behavior was tawdry and stupid, but wasn’t even close to what Trump is still doing. Yes, partisan hypocrisy exits. Get over it. A president who is trying to solicit foreign interference in our elections is beyond anything deserving censure. He deserves to be removed from office.
There is little to no comparison between the two men. There is little to no comparison between the two proceedings. I believe you are intelligent enough to see that. Why compromise yourself so publicly? Stop being part of the phalanx of madness, Md. Stephens. Stop.
2
Had Bill Clinton been censured, it would have been appropriate. Lying about sex with an intern is actually pretty small potatoes, especially compared to this and emoluments and Trump’s many other flagrant disregards of American laws.
And, I have always been amazed by Republican animus of a president who was extremely conservative!
Another false equivalency by a conservative. Yes, Clinton took advantage of a young intern, abusive behavior by a president to be sure even though it was clearly consensual. Yes, he lied about it. At no time did his behavior threaten the security of the country or the integrity of the Constitution.
Trump has repeatedly abused the nation, desecrated the Constitution and thumbed his nose at just about every norm of presidential behavior. He has repeatedly sacrificed the security of the country for his own benefit while lying just about every time he opens his mouth.
Many Democrats were appalled at Clinton’s behavior and spoke out critically about it. Republicans’ justification for trump’s behavior is deafening.
2
It is truly not the same. Both men had been caught in real sexual misbehavior. One was impeached because of it, the other one was elected president despite of it.
1
Lying about sex with an intern is not the equivalent of coercing a foreign leader to interfere, on your behalf, in a US Presidential election, AND lying about it.
Ridiculous comparison of course.
The only potentially similar comparison would be Bret's insinuation that the Khartoum attack was a deliberate distraction. With the investigation frenzy that the GOP had toward Clinton at the time, I'm sure they would have found proof of that theory if there was anything of substance to it. I certainly would have cheered them on if they had done so.
Comparing the characters of Bill Clinton to Donald Trump before, during, and, I'm sure, after their terms in office is absurd.
1
We can't even begin to guess what he has said in private conversations with Putin. I have never seen him look as joyful as he did in that Oval office meeting with those Russian thugs, it was horrifying.
Shocking to read Stephen's false equivalence between Monica-gate/Clinton's cover up lie about their private consensual sexual tryst with Monica as predator and no abuse of power, quid pro quo nor harassment- and Trump's utter betrayal of significant national security interests and his pattern of consistently serving Putin's strategic aims over US , NATO or democratic principles.
The hate the country club Republicans had for Bill is not really equivalent to anti-Trump sentiment which has been bipartisan and substantive- not made up or trivial smears like Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster's death, etc. Trump has earned seriousd alarm on the most basic criteria: incompetence, incoherence, ignorance and a vulgar thug style of bravado, bullying and Big Lies. Clinton was charming and popular; Trump is a dangerous demagogue con man.
That the Republicans in Congress are hiding from the problem oif trump's violation of law, obstruction and apparent pandering to Putin's strategic agenda - including the central motive for Ukraine-bait (both to smear the Bidens and too 'exonerate' Russia's attacks on the 2016 election).
The corruption that Biden stood against with market and security priorities of IMF, NATO & new democratic officials in Ukraine (who threw out Putin's surrogate king of corruption-Yanukovych) offended Putin. Trump & Rudy seem to have been fed Putin talking points.
1
Mr. Stephens, I very much admire your writing and, on occasion, your point of view. As you admit your judgment failed you during the Clinton impeachment, your judgment now about impeaching this President is equally misguided.
Trump should not have been given a pass for paying hush money to a Playboy Playmate and a porn star, lying about it and violating campaign finance laws. He should not have been given a pass for obstructing justice over and over again. These crimes he committed are indisputable facts. But now he has used and is using the entire apparatus of the American government for personal political gain in the most outrageous acts ever documented of any President in our history. And as the President threatens a Civil War if he is impeached, you are calling for a censure?
I can't wait to read your column in twenty years when you admit that your judgment failed you again and you were mistaken about only censuring Trump.
1
"I was for impeachment at the time. What a misjudgment that turned out to be."
Yep, I never trust your judgement. For someone who thinks he's way smarter than everybody else,you're not that astute
1
Clinton lied about having a consensual affair. He shouldn't have. He was impeached. Trump committed treason and admitted it many times over. And republicans are howling about his impeachment. What say you Bret? It seems like false equivalences come in very handy for scribes like Stevens.
2
Great things are going on at the NYT now. This column has nothing to do with that great and hard work, that stellar reporting and analysis.
2
Why are you so afraid of impeachment? Clinton was impeached and acquitted and his party lost the Presidency in the next election and control of Congress thereafter. If GOP Senators look to 1998 as a guide, they will vote to convict and remove Trump paving the way for President Pence. Had the Democrats impeached Clinton, President Gore may well have been reelected in 2000 and we would likely have been spared (1) George W. Bush, (2) 9-11; (3) the great recession, (3) and possibly even the Obama presidency, at least in 2008.
mitt romney to the rescue? you surely jest, mr stephens.
The moral equivalency here is astonishing.
Bill Clinton was a philandering used car salesman, to be sure, but show me where Clinton ever even approached the suggestion that his '2nd Amendment' people might instigate a civil war if he was removed from office.
Someone recently observed that "not all Trump supporters are racist, but all racists are Trump supporters".
That's the difference. Clinton was a sometimes-awful human being who ironically had the capacity to bring out the best in people. Trump is an always-awful human being who always brings out the worst in people. He literally soils everything he touches.
1
The use of false equivalency here is astounding! I don't have enough characters allotted here to pick apart all the instances where you torture the comparisons to justify your argument. But that's okay Brett, because I know you're smart, and so I know that you know how disingenuous this article is.
Trump has trampled any boundaries of decency and integrity, beginning with his open invitation to Russia to interfere in our election on his behalf. The only reason that he wasn't charged with a crime was the specious DOJ memo asserting that a sitting President can't be indicted. You know this Brett, even if you can't bring yourself to admit it. But I guarantee, if Trump were a Democrat, you would've been screaming for impeachment just like you accuse Democrats of doing.
What angers so many of those who want to see Trump removed is based on American's belief in the idea of fair play. Trump violated that standard, and now he's trying to do so again. He's always broken the rules and his promises, and then says "Sue me!". Why should running for President make him behave any differently?
Clinton sullied the office with his behavior, but Trump has stomped it into the sewer and dragged it through the slime. There is NO equivalency there Brett.
In the end it had to be a Clinton's fault--unless it was Obama's of course. Can't even say "nice try," Stephens.
It is bothsiderism like the kind Stephens espouses that has landed us in the position of having a manifestly unfit, dangerous president.
Trump stood next to Putin in Helsinki and sided with him over his nation. That is all you need to know about the man.
Let's see...Clinton has empathy, felt shame, asked for forgiveness, governed as a conservative Democrat, did not try to destroy the republic.
Trump is a psychopathic ten-year old who cannot tolerate being told no.
A censure would have been appropriate for Clinton's lamentable lapse of judgment and me-too moment(s).
Only impeachment, conviction, removal from office, then prosecution, conviction and incarceration are appropriate for Trump's violations of the Constitution, and damage to civility, society, our moral norms, democracy, the republic and US security.
A very sophisticated example of whataboutism.
“Trump-is-gonna-do-what-Trump-is-gonna-do.”
Maybe so but this isn't baseball and trump doesn't play left field for the Red Sox
A ridiculous comparison. Farcical and specious. It's mind boggling that anyone can compare Clinton's "high crime" with this. It was hypocritical in "98 - the idea that dissembling over that incident (by the way, we could have stopped asking) was harming the country. The GOP hated Clinton because they had moved so far right over the previous 3 decades. Now we have a crazy and wilful lunatic, placing himself well above the country and calling on a foreign government influence his campaign. A better comparison, by far, is the Andrew Johnson impeachment, which hasd and article that included similarly unhinged outbursts. This madman is so out of touch that he's publically doing the equivalent of Nixon saying he ordered the break-in.
1
Clinton looks like a boy scout next to Trump. It's not that the Republicans are overlooking one flaw or a pair of crimes; they are ignoring that this President has crook, fraudster and miscreant written all over him. If the Republicans don't convict him, they will own our country's corruption.
1
Many of us knew that Trump was deranged when he came down the escalator. As expected his mental problems have produced actions that threaten our Democracy. The contry should not have to abide that. Clinton committed perjury over a sexual affair, offending the morals of some, but not threatening the country.
You’re wrong in this one Bret.
A complete and total false analogy....Clinton got caught doing what numerous politicians have done and will always do,.have illicit affairs. I personally think for the good of the country and the party he should have resigned, but to put him and his supporters in the same boat with Trump and the, “lock her up/build that wall’ crowd, is one of the most tortured bits of reasoning I’ve ever heard. Trump is deliberately debasing his office and every part of the executive branch, and his supporters in congress are complicit..
Et tu Brete?
"[Bill Clinton's] supporters could be remarkably creative or brazen ... in excusing behavior they would never have tolerated from a Republican"
You mean like how Democrats were OK with Obama's American mother giving birth to him in Kenya, but prevented McCain and Goldwater from running for president because they weren't born on American soil?
1
Mellon-Scaife Arkansas Project; Enemies/Republican funded civil suit which was thrown out for having no merit; ten year old land deal; ending with impeachment over a fib about a private, consensual affair. Yes, thank God the GOP saved America from a sex lie (before putting a perjuring judge onto the US Supreme Court).
Clinton testified under oath; Trump's lawyers have moved heaven and earth to prevent the same, because even they know he can't not lie. But then, Kavanaugh perjured himself, and we've seen how concerned and outraged by "impeachable perjury" Republicans really are. "On to the US Supreme Court with you, Judge! Perjury? Pshaw!"
V.
2016 attack on our democracy by a foreign adversary; US President defends him and the attack, not the country; US President instead vilifies the FBI and CIA and orders corrupt AG to investigate them and the investigation of an attack the US; US president uses taxpayer money and his power as president, not to mention Ukrainian lives, to extort further election interference for himself from two foreign countries (no doubt sure Russia will be there for him again as well). This president has actually gone after Americans - the CIA, FBI, the Bidens, while defending an attack, the attacker, and asking for more. Can we stop with the false equivalencies for one and for all.
If Stephens were looking for comparisons to Trump, it would be more apt for him to focus on Richard Nixon's impeachment. Or on the Iran Contra scandal, which should have led to impeachment.
The long, painful slide of the Republican Party into the arms of "movement conservatism" got a foothold with Nixon, then picked up speed through the Reagan years. Eventually, Republicans engineered the impeachment of Bill Clinton, which led to the Bush/Cheney administration, with its disastrous Iraq War and financial melt-down. Ultimately, despite all the moral posturing and claims of "principle" the GOP installed Donald Trump as its standard-bearer. The Republican Party has a lot to answer for over the past fifty years. Perhaps this column is an early attempt to deflect blame.
5
This op-ed is rife with false analogies and assumptions that do not jibe with reality. First of all Clinton's popularity was at 50% before impeachment proceedings that the public largely deemed as a political stunt by the GOP and it rose to 75% by the time the trial ended.
Trump's popularity which Stephens seems to consider an established fact is simply not so: he has never even attained the 50% Clinton had and is apparently going down as the inquiry proceeds.
3
One recurring point seems to be that people are reluctant to overturn a democratic election with impeachment. Let’s remember Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million votes.
5
Trump's actions are so blatantly criminal that the Congress needs to act to avoid setting precedents for future behavior. There's a reason the July 25th phone call was the day after Comey testified. Trump felt he could act with impunity. He and his administration obstructed the Comey investigation and they are obstructing Congressional investigations. If Congress does not impeach, this will be the standard for future presidents.
3
I was a conservative then and support Trump now. I was dead set against impeachment of Clinton as to me, it was an overreaction to Clinton's superior political skills and nothing else. Today, the Dems are severely frustrated as Trump breaks all the rules they expect a President to follow and are choosing the wrong path to attack him. Trump wins in 2020.
26
@Douglas Former U.S. Ambassador to Estonia James Melville:
“If your moral compass is so broken that you don't see this as illegal and immoral - this idea of soliciting foreign assistance in any respect - then I don't understand how you can be a good leader or make good decisions.”
Time to call the flagrant criminality what it is, & hold Mr. Emoluments/L'Etat ce moi accountable.
81
@Douglas / Well, DT doesn't seem to just "break the rules" of good manners. He also seems to seriously violate the constitution.
84
@Douglas
As the Constitution stipulates, if a president breaks all the rules of the presidency, he's supposed to be impeached, remember?
77
Mr. Stephens offers a glaring example of the use of false equivalence, equating Clinton's sexual pecadillo and lying about it with Trump's efforts to pressure a foreign government, accompanied by numerous fabrications and efforts at coverup, into initiating a dubious investigation against a possible opponent in the next presidential election. Clinton's sin was in the realm of sexual morality. Trump's goes to the heart of democratic government.
Why is it that Stephens and other conservative pundits are so prone to sophistry? Is it that they can't support their positions with objective reasoning?
8
This column is a study in false equivalence. While I understand that impeachment compared to impeachment sounds fair, it is also a set of 3 instances. That small set of circumstances have little to do with each other. A moral failing that puts Bill Clinton into a category of say, every French president ever, vs a man who was placed into office by a foreign enemy and has demonstrated his fealty to said enemy every day since is just not honestly comparable.
Yes, you can stick with the narrow facts of the Zelinsky extortion, but we all know that this Ukraine thing is simply the latest and most provable of a long string of actions by this president pointing up Kremlin command and control.
Let's stop tiptoeing around this. We all know what's going on here, it's playing out in overt ways. This carnival of corruption has to end. If Trump succeeds there will be many more and weirder Trumps at all levels of politics, and political dirt will come in from every corner of the world to support whatever freak is best positioned to bring our country down.
4
Trump on TV invited Russia to meddle in the 2016 election. He has pressured the Ukraine to undermine Biden, and just this week again on TV invited China to do the same. His attorney general has been traveling the world putting pressure on other governments to get involved in our election. And just this week we learned that Iran is trying to put its thumb on the 2020 scales. What’s to stop Saudi Arabia from dumping a few billion dollars into the mix to assist their favorite candidates? Our elections, our security, and our very democracy are threatened by Trump’s actions. But Brett thinks all this is comparable to Clinton lying about sex. Whether conservatives are Trump supporters or never Trumpers, this column is evidence that they have lost all sense of perspective.
4
Perhaps there will be some new amendments to the Constitution for the oath of office for our Legislative, Executive and Judicial officials:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend [replace "the Constitution of the United States" with "myself"]."
and for non-presidential officials:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the [replace "Constitution" with "President"] of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Stephens writes that given the low unemployment rate, "Americans are unlikely to unite in a vengeful mood against the president who presides over them."
Yes we are. It's sad and insulting to suggest we'll be bribed into abetting the erosion of fundamental Constitutional and democratic pillars, resigning ourselves to rampant criminality, thanks to a temporary oversupply of low-paying, stagnant-wage, dead-end jobs. The economy looks sluggish, not great; the president looks venal, not fit. Resigning ourselves to Trump as the price of economic survival is a fool's deal, and itself an abrogation of our own responsibility to the nation.
4
Another difference is that the impeachment of Bill Clinton was the end result of along and meandering process that looked at many areas of his life. Nothing criminal in Whitewater, go on to the next thing until you find something.
Today the House leadership under Nancy Pelosi has resisted impeachment, despite lots of terrible behavior from the president. She wants to focus only on the Ukraine incident, which is a national security issue, and she wants this to move quickly. She also tried to work with Trump on a number of issues, which he derailed. The politicians who have hated Donald Trump from Day 1 are not driving this train.
3
I expect that you don’t want Trump impeached and convicted because of the damage it would do to the Republican Party. It’s too late. The GOP has already sold its soul, and it will never become respectable unless it escapes from Trump’s boot. Actually, you should be happy if Trump is impeached because you’ll have the Democrats giving the GOP a chance to gain some respectability. They are incapable of that while Trump pulls their strings.
You suggest possible censure as an appropriate remedy for Trump’s latest offense of extorting an ally needing weaponry to withstand attack from Putin. Seriously, give us an example of what you believe Trump would need to do to be removed from office. Enquiring minds want to know.
7
Trenchant and wise.
Despite being a wild-eyed leftie, I am forced to concede that Stephens is spot-on; hats off to him. He need not establish equivalence between Clinton and Trump to validate his keen observations about the (approximate) equivalence in the political climate then and now, or the similarity and symmetry or the partisanship surrounding both incidents.
Which is why, from the start, I have shelved my righteous indignation over the ugliest of Trump's actions; if he were the most well-behaved President in history, I would still detest him, because his policies are so very, very bad.
Nonetheless, I am grateful for Stephens and his smarts, even while I disagree with his positions. Mostly.
1
Over and over, the Don resorts to "I know you are but what am I," because he has nothing better (and his intellectual and psychological development never made it past the 5th Grade).
Bret Stephens now stoops to the same level.
There is no moral equivalence between Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. Clinton lied about his sex life. Trump (like Nixon before him) has, and continues to, undermine our democracy and jeopardize our national security.
Prosecuting Clinton was really about the Republicans trying to redeem themselves from their Nixonian sins. But that's impossible, and so it will be with Trump. Because those sins are in the very nature of the Republican Party.
4
Censure is a weak tea response to Trump's actions. Our election laws clearly state that an individual cannot accept assistance from a foreign government that would impact a US election. Daily developments in the whistleblower investigation give incontrovertible evidence that this is exactly what Trump did. Impeachment is the only remedy if the punishment is to fit the crime. Stephens, for all his brilliance, has this wrong. It is Clinton who should have been censured and Trump impeached.
2
Conservatives in the 1990s weren’t slow to see the economy doing well. They were simply determined to deny it to the rest of us.
Liberals weren’t living a lie supporting Clinton during his impeachment. Many of us failed to see how his peccadilloes amounted to affairs of state. Did Monica Lewinsky affect policy? No one has ever tried to prove that.
Meanwhile, Trump. In plain sight he is perverting policy for his own political gain. The man who claims to be concerned about corruption wants an investigation into a disproved debunked nonscandal himself refuses to disclose his own financial records despite ample evidence he and his kin are profiting from his office.
Republican politicians have a lousy record for patriotism. We have seen them almost unanimously out party before country more than once, not least with Gorsuch. How much farther will they go allowing Trump to abuse his office.
3
Trump’s actions are clearly risking the future of our democracy. This is not hyperbole. Yet, writers like Mr. Stephens continue to pretend that this is just another “presidential scandal” on par with cheating on your spouse and lying about it when asked and, since the economy is good and the public doesn’t want their TV shows interrupted, well, let’s just ignore it and let the (compromised) election solve it for us.
Way to take a stand, Brett.
2
It is arguable that personal morality is a questionable basis for impeachment. It is not arguable that selling out the country to foreign adversaries is. Once again Brett has raised the battered flag of equivalency. It won't wash Brett. But in addition, Republican treason did not begin with Trump, it just became more flagrant. Nixon undermined LBJ's peace initiatives in Vietnam for personal political gain. He inflamed racial hatred in the south for the same reason. Virtually all of our GOP administrations have been puppets of gun manufacturers, big pharma, the oil and gas industry, the Pentagon industrial complex and Mitt's investment banking thieves. We don't need Mitt and we don't need the GOP. We need a real conservative party that represents the real needs of real Americans.
1
If Romney is to give a speech on Trumpian behavior that is unacceptable, he better get to writing. It's gonna be one long speech. Stephens doesn't consider that Republicans are in a bind because their voting base loves Trump's malevolence. The appeal of the "build a wall and Mexico's gonna pay for it" wasn't so much that Trump was going to get serious about border security, it was that he was going to humiliate Mexico. The state of the Republican base became very clear to me, and convinced me that I no longer had a home there, when during the 2016 primaries not one of a stage full of candidates thought it good politics to attack Trump for the birtherism nonsense. Republican voters were clearly in a mood to commit vandalism.
The electoral college as originally designed was to be a body of elites who would select a president on the theory that this would prevent the elevation of an unfit person to the office. In modern times, if this function is to be filled by anyone, it must be filled by the leadership of the two parties. Republican leadership fully understood that Trump was an unfit candidate and could have stopped him early by simply not letting on the debate stage on the grounds that he is as vile a human being as David Duke. But Republican leadership feared Trump would mount a third party challenge, siphoning off right wing votes. So they put party above country and refused to expel Trump.
2
Never Trumpers and Democrats hate Trump because he is unfit for office and is degrading the nation's norms and institutions, not to mention that he didn't even have the most votes. The Republicans hated Clinton because he ended the glorious and golden era of Reagan-Bush that was supposed to continue indefinitely, even as Clinton compromised with Gingrich on many things.
1
Mr Stephens, if you want to have a comparison of the reaction, overreaction, or under reaction to president’s conduct, the more apt comparison would be between Bill Clinton and GW Bush. Republicans clearly overreacted with the impeachment over the laughably trivial lie of president Clinton. On the other side, with clear evidence of making the phony evidence, undermining national security and putting our country in unnecessary danger, Democrats have elected to not re-investigate the process of producing false evidence about Saddam, and decided to let it go in 2007. Democrats simply under-reacted to clear evidence of crime of lying about reasons to go to war.
If Democrats were even half as hateful as Conservatives, they would surely initiated proceedings of impeachment of president Bush. I have no doubt that’s what conservatives would do if the shoe was on the other side. Benghazi was re-investigated 9 times for NO reason. That is the level of HATE I am talking about!
Democrats are not as hateful Mr Stephens, not even close when compared with conservatives.
2
Bret Stephens makes a few points in his newly developed opposition to impeachment, but his comparison of Donald Trump’s conduct to that of Bill Clinton ignores basic history.
People were aware of the Clinton rumors, some of which were true, about his womanizing back in the Arkansas. They also knew George H.W. Bush had some lesser sexual indiscretions, as did Ronald Reagan before Nancy. The Republican hatred for Clinton came for other reasons.
As the Monica Lewinsky episode arose, Republicans seized the opportunity, though they knew that Lewinsky was the aggressor, perhaps sincerely thinking that she was in love with a charismatic leader.
An overly zealous Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr looked at everything, and help was offered by a young Bill Barr. The consensus of Democrats was that Bill Clinton did lie about his activity with Lewinsky and that Hillary Clinton was stubbornly true to her man, but that is was not a Constitutional tort or a “high crime” for purposes of impeachment.
Donald Trump was more of a womanizer than Clinton, but this impeachment is not about that. Trump struck deals with foreign leaders to enrich himself, he damaged American security by choosing Vladimir Putin, Russian oligarchs and Russian mafia over the American intelligence community. Trump wooed and inspired white supremacists, and he urged that Latino parents be separated from their kids.
Now Trump has brazenly bribed foreign leaders to interfere in our 2020 election for him.
"...an era when Republicans were keen on matters of private virtue and public probity" Come on, Mr. Stephens. Republican leaders were keen on creating that perception. The truth is, some of those leading the charge on the Clinton impeachment (e.g. Gingrich, Livingston) were known adulterers. Livingston even admitted it and resigned. Gingrich cheated on two wives. And what about George H.W. Bush, whose long-term extramarital affair was kept quiet by the press? Maybe you were too young at the time to remember, or maybe prefer not to sully the image of your beloved Republican party, the party now actively colluding in efforts to destroy our democracy.
2
A close relative of mine attended a synagogue to say Kaddish after his father died. It was a synagogue where very powerful politicians and wealthy businessmen and wealthy people in general attended. They did what they always do, network, do business, make deals. My relative was young, naive and ambitious. He went to the rabbi and asked how he could parlay his daily attendance into making business contacts so he could start making real money. The rabbi seriously offended said "You are here to to pray not do business."
Trump in many ways is doing exactly what presidents and politicians and businesspeople have always done. He is cruder, more vulgar, has very little sense of how to hide it. One part of him must be totally bewildered at the response to him. He is just doing what they all do. To the real extent that that is true it would be good for people not to lose sight of deeper systemic realities of this miserable country that are being exposed by him being so brazen about it. This might be his great gift to the country. It should not be lost sight of as move forward in dealing with the extreme immediate danger his presidency poses.
2
@Robert Roth Sorry, but while it may be true that most businessmen and politicians all network, make deals, and do business, they don't all sell out their country for personal gain.
I'm not the only one who thinks Mitt Romney is eyeing a post-Trump presidential run.
Pablum.
I applaud the other commenters for giving reasonable responses to the obviously flawed equivalences in your editorial. There is no comparison between Clinton and Trump, nor will there be between the Clinton and Trump impeachments, and you know it.
Clinton was a competent, seasoned leader. I won't waste words on how execrable, in contrast, is our current President.
1
Wrong again, Mr. Stephens. Clinton was a popular President and he was in office during a time of economic well being for just about everyone top to bottom of the economic ladder. And finally, most people at that time found his sexual behavior deplorable but essentially private business.
The Republicans took their vendetta a step too far by trying to impeach and convict him because he was slimey on the meaning of the word, “is,” which made them look like really spiteful people — not the high minded patriots they made themselves out to be.
There is no comparison between Clinton and Trump. Trump has been irresponsible from day one with respect to national policy and our allies, with respect to the rules spelled out by the Constitution like the Emoluments Clause and in having all his appointments obstruct the cause of justice by refusing to testify to Congress on just about anything. If nastiness and bullying were in the Constitution Trump would have been out months ago.
So now the question is: what’s with Stephens that he doesn’t see the vast difference between betraying your wife and trying to hide it and betraying your nation, violating the rules of the Constitution, and doing it brazenly out in the open and on more than one occasion!
2
Brett,
Please consider you are comparing a flawed but sane man leading this country with a sensibility for fairness and the rule of law. The outrage of 1998 was deserved, yet you go on like we have seen this before. What Trump is doing is pulling the democracy right out from under the republic in plain sight. While you're party you now disavow gives him cover. There is a comparison, buy it is very weak one as you must know. Trump is dragging this country into fascism and nobody believes it can happen. Your old moorings of outrage from the Clinton era are completely irrelevant now. We have a clear and present danger to the United States existence. And your former party seems to see an advantage in the cold heartlessness that will come from it if Trump prevails.
1
Seems to me the impeachment of Bill Clinton was cold Republican revenge for the impeachment of Richard Nixon.
But can anyone just ask President Trump why, if he feels there is evidence of wrongdoing, he doesn't ask his obeisant Justice Department to investigate?
Why does he trust foreigners more than he trusts his own government?
1
A false equivalency at its finest, Mr Stephens.
1
A subtle analysis, except the cases are not comparable. No was convicted and sent to prison as part of the meandering Whitewater investigation. The Clinton impeachment was triggered over lies about oral sex. The hypocrisy of Clinton supporters was fueled in part by the feeling that such charges did not reach the level of an impeachment trial when a vote for censure would have been more appropriate. Unlike the leadership of current House Democrats, Speaker Gingrich and Chairman Hyde were eager to impeach. One could go on, but there’s no need. Obviously Trump is a reviled figure among Democrats, but perhaps that feeling and their fears are justified in light of his behavior with regard to Constitutional limits. This not a matter of norms, but laws. You don’t want to see that, so you find a clever way not to.
1
There is no comparison between the sins of Bill Clinton and the high crimes, corruption and serious harm to the US going on under Trump. I notice a few conservatives of some consciousness like Bret now find themselves without a political home and tend to make this false equivocation.
The frivolous persecution of Clinton began the toxic cynical partisan 'take no prisoners, ends justifies any means politics begun under Newt Gingrich and metastasized through the Tea Party to Donald Trump.
Beyond wide scale voter suppression, and cheating in every possible way to maintain power the current GOP and its defense of Trump has lost its moral soul. That is what the fight is really about, not a messy sexual affair of no consequence. Trump is systematically gutting the institutions of US Government, its standing in the world and ultimately the economy itself with a foolish ego driven trade war. This is not a cultural fight between tone deaf coastal elites and the forgotten middle as some would have it.
This is a fight for the heart and soul of the nation, for right and wrong, for democracy itself and the repudiation of an evil nihilistic personality cult that has gripped a large portion of the land. This is not a political calculation as Bret portrays it but an essential battle we must fight and win no matter the political cost.
1
The Democrats hate Trump? Compared to Trump’s hatred towards Democrats, Republicans with a consciousness, the Law, the Environment, women, persons richer than him, Science, Truth... All that is like comparing a breeze to a class 5 hurricane.
If something is to celebrate—because we should celebrate when Truth comes over falsehood—is that the Party that claimed Principle and Integrity has been revealed as a lie.
Considering how Stephens writes, he probably does not realize how preposterous and how disgraced his ideology seems now —if Republicans will ever be treated seriously, they rather pronto need to add some “hate” towards the Trump corruption and sleaze they are acquiescing today.
2
Although you mention it as a parenthetical aside, yes, I do remember the missiles shot at the pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum. I also remember it wasn’t an isolated event. It occured on or about the same day missiles were shot into Usama bin Ladin’s training camps in Afghanistan. Were the missiles sent to Kartoum an attempt to deflect from the Lewinsky issue? Imperfect intelligence? A little of both? I don’t know. I do know that bin Ladin had had substantial ties to Khartoum. I do know that as the missiles hit Khartoum and Afghanistan I was standing near the ruins of the US Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya which - along with the US Embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania - were attcked with massive truck bombs two weeks prior, on 7 August 1998, by bin Ladin’s al Qaida. More than 220 people were killed, some 5000 injured. I was incredulous at the time, and remained so, that the GOP believed the more concerning issue was the Clinton/Lewinsky matter. Al Qaida remained the lesser issue, despite the efforts of many, an issue barely (ever?) addressed in the run-up to the 2000 presidential election, despite the al Qaida attack on the USS Cole on 10/12/2000 (just about three weeks before the election) and continued that way for another year, until 9/11/2001. Are politics going to “win” again over legitimate concerns? As you stated, situational ethics do us no favors as a country.
1
Trump has orchestrated Joe's demise and the Dem's progressives are accomplices in this endeavor. As a result we are going to end up with "Single Payer E. Warren" which won't fly with the majority of Independents and Blue Collar voters. Hopefully, by some miracle, Amy Klobuchar or Pete Buttigieg will turn the tables on Oct. 15 otherwise we are going to end up another four years of Putin's Puppet.
In Bill Clinton’s case, the special prosecutor laid out specific crimes the President committed in his brief, including lying to a Federal judge multiple times during a deposition. Mueller declined to charge Trump with crimes. This is simply the third prong of a three year effort to take down the President, starting with the phony Russia collusion saga, continuing which the attempt by the Obama era FBI and DOJ senior leadership to remove him using the 25th amendment, to this...using Obama acolytes within the CIA and State Dept. to take him out without firing a shot.
@J House
Cute...
I actually read the Starr report, and the "multiple lies" laid out were:
1. Monica Lewinski said that their relationship started in November, Clinton said he believed it began in December.
2. On a particular date Lewinski said that Clinton touched her breast, Clinton said he did not remember doing so.
3. Clinton claimed that he did not believe that the Jones' lawyer's definition of "sex" included oral sex (it took six pages of convoluted legal reasoning on the part of Ken Starr for him to conclude that he (Ken Starr) believed that it did include oral sex... and it should be noted that nowhere in the report did is ever present ANY evidence that Clinton ever told anyone that he "really" didn't believe that the definition included oral sex).
That's the sum total of the "multiple lies" listed in the Starr report. And it should be noted that EVERY SINGLE QUESTION that Clinton was asked during the GJ testimony involved Monica Lewinski, who it must be pointed out was declared a non-material witness by the judge presiding over the Jones case (a ruling that has never been challenged much less overturned)... meaning that Monica legally had no connection to any legal case whatsoever at the time Clinton was questioned about her.
@James Constantino
You must not have watched President Clinton’s video testimony under oath. I did. He lied multiple times, under oath. A sitting President with a law degree from Yale. Need I say more?
Bret,
Looking back, it's indeed amazing to see all those parallels between Trump and the Clintons -- parallels that are weak to nonexistent.
Perhaps most telling is your "some wrongdoing" link, a very short article exclusively about Susan McDougal, and mostly about her refusal to testify. Huh?
Yes, you're correct; most Americans did indeed understand Clinton's crime: lying under oath about a private consensual sexual affair. The horrors. Many probably thought, "I'd have lied too!"
Will Americans likewise understand Trump's crime? Because using the institutions of government to solicit dirt on a political opponent IS a crime -- an actual one -- that threatens democratic institutions and much else. It just so happens THIS crime involved institutions such as, oh, the Department of State and U.S. diplomats, the vice presidency, other cabinet secretaries, foreign aid to a government under military attack, and so forth.
And it comes after Trump was designated "Individual 1" -- an unindicted co-conspirator in a campaign finance crime that sent his fixer to prison.
Against your "questionable dealings" by the Clintons that somehow inured "much of the country to murky presidential scandals," we have an immense succession of real and substantial crimes by Trump documented in excruciating detail by the national media (such as the NYT's 13,000-word expose on tax fraud) and the Special Counsel's litany on obstruction of justice.
Even if you can't differentiate, can the country?
3
Ok, let me get this straight. Ethically, it is just hunky dory to ignore the Constitution, case law and precedent because the economy is doing well? Interesting position! What does Douthat say? How about Brooks?
Clinton is a false equivalency. His was a personal moral failure. Trump is inducing foreign powers to intervene in our election. Sorry, not the same.
But his supporters really don't care about this because their moral compasses got burned out by the fire of all that white grievance.
2
Well, Mr. Stephens.
We all know--
--that Bill Clinton and Donald J. Trump are fish of a different order of magnitude. (Sorry for the mixed metaphor.)
I would submit to you, Mr. Stephens, that compared with our forty fifth President--
--our forty second President was a Trappist monk.
In any other election year--in any other country--
--the Billy Bush tape would have blown Mr. Donald J. Trump out of the water.
This plus the man's private life. . but why go there. I would need hip boots--and I don't know where mine are.
I switched parties a month ago. After living out five earlier decades as a Republican.
I am convinced--as things stand right now--there can be no conversation with these guys. I am convinced--along with millions of others--there is NOTHING the GOP will not stoop to as they seek to--
(1) --perpetuate their own quasi-oligarchical power.
(2) --dish the Democrats.
I am sorry to sound like an embittered crank. I am sorry politics in our country has come to such a pass.
I do think the GOP regarded Mr. Clinton with malignant hatred the moment he took office. AND--of course--
--they had tons of vitriol left over for the man's WIFE.
We saw this IN SPADES during the '90's.
We saw even more of it during the '16 election.
So--what answer am I proposing? Well, sir--sorry about this.
But I say--turn 'em out of office.
Lock stock and barrel.
Maybe things will get better.
They could hardly get worse.
3
Thank you, Mr. Stephens for addressing a similarity that has been hovering just above my conscious concerns. I'm a life-long liberal and currently an anti- Trumper. I was not not enamored with Clinton's womanizing. In fact I found it repulsive at the time, still I was firmly against impeachment specifically because I was personally enjoying the longest, best golden period of my life. I do think Trump is worse, much worse, and yet I have some sympathy for Republicans and am concerned for how this will play out in the next Presidential election. Naturally this is politics, yet for Republicans is it so different from art we admire created by artists we detest?
Yes, Romney - as well as Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio— are hoping this is their moment. However instead of standing up courageously for the US Constitution against the would-be dictator, they are waiting in the wings to see when the moment’s right to pounce and denounce. Paul Ryan is whispering to Lachlan Murdoch about how Fox News can extricate itself from full-on Trump bullhorn I.e., Ryan himself). Romney is “ troubled.” Rubio wishes Trump hadn’t gone down “that road.” Watching the would-be sharks circling is a big part of the fun. By comparison, Pelosi, Scheff and Schumer seem genuinely concerned about the state and fate of the nation, not just eager for the throne,
199
@Jazzmandel Our country, in particular the Senate, continues to generate material for volumes and volumes of studies for "Profiles in Spinelessness".
19
As Mr. Stephens knows quite well, moral failings regarding someone's behavior may personally disgust us, but oftentimes do not result in any discernable punishment. That was the case with Clinton, and with Trump, up to this point. Where this latest example of Trump's behavior differs from Clinton's is his willingness to use the Presidency to extort favors from foreign powers to benefit himself personally. This is an actual crime, and it must be treated differently by our elected representatives in Congress.
A much better precedent for comparison is the case against Richard Nixon, another Republican who criminally tried to use the powers of his office to stay in power. Conservatives, such as Mr. Stephens, seem to have a bit of collective amnesia concerning him, but the rest of us remember.
4
The republicans had the majority in the house and senate from 1995 to 2007. George Bush won in 2001. So, what was the downside to the republicans for impeaching Clinton?
I think the republicans are very afraid of the attention they're getting during this impeachment process.
2
Here's a key difference, and should be remembered every time someone says impeachment is an effort to overturn the results of the election: the majority of voters voted for Trump's opponent, and that count wasn't even close. No one now is trying to overturn the voters' preference. Contrast Bill Clinton, elected twice by actual majorities.
3
@J P Pluralities, in fact, not majorities. Remember Ross Perot?
1
@Edward Thanks for pointing this out. Clinton had a plurality in 1992 and a majority in 1996. In 1992, Clinton had the most votes among the 3 major candidates, but fewer than GHWBush and Perot put together. In 1996, Clinton had more votes than Perot and Dole put together. (Source: Wikipedia.) In 2016, HRClinton had nearly 3 million more votes then Trump. I would modify my first comment (if I could) to say that in the late 1990s, impeachment was an effort to remove the winner of the popular vote from office; in contrast, one should remember that an impeachment now would remove the loser of the popular vote from office.
@Bartlett: while I applaud the sentiment of the Judge, I would bet the farm her own practice did not follow her words. That she must have regularly heard statements that were proven lies, how many perjury charges did she recommend to the prosecution? I’m guessing none!
Every day in Courthouses across this country in both Criminal and Civil litigation there are multiple instances of perjury. How many result in perjury indictments, virtually none!
Did I criticize Clinton’s behavior and lies? Yup!
Did I find they reached the level required for impeachment? No.
I cannot recall whether a Censure motion was ever proposed, but if it was that would have been the appropriate punishment.
As usual Mr. Stephens makes some lucid and thought provoking points in his opinion piece. One beef I have, however, is how he cherry picks data on the state of the economy. True the unemployment rate is the lowest in decades; but he ignores the more important wage data that clearly indicate a deceleration over the past several months. Nice to work but hard to live on wages that are far too low. Also he has not commented lately on the GDP that never reached 3 percent (even after the tax giveaway to the rich and the massive spending increase) and now looks to be locked in to the 2% range similar to the Obama years.
Since when does oral sex and high crimes and misdemeanors have the same equivalence?
4
The Democrats have accepted lying from a multitude of Republicans and their appointees. The fact is that Clinton’s lying did not seem to rise to the level of an impeachable offense. It was certainly not a high crime - and quite frankly was largely focused on his personal activities. It was wrong, and he should have been censored, but not impeached.
President Trump has so abused his office, flouted the constitution, acted against the interests of this country (if our desire to promote basic decency in the world and maintain relationships with our allies has any meaning anymore) and has taken action that is exactly what the framers has in mind when they worried about having an independent president (falling prey to foreign influence) that it is hard to see how an impeachment inquiry is not demanded.
And let’s remember that if he is impeached, we would have President Pence, who would not only continue the domestic policies many of us find abhorrent but possibly intensify them. I can’t say that prospect thrills me, but we cannot overlook the Donald’s breathtakingly un-American activities.
3
False equivalence and you know it, right?
4
What Democrats and Republicans should learn from is the mistakes of 2016. Both parties should read Jane Mayer's piece in the New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-invention-of-the-conspiracy-theory-on-biden-and-ukraine
It details not only those responsible for the Biden hoax but also the equally fictitious uranium hoax about HRC in the last election. The true villains here, unsurprisingly, are Steve Bannon and a disinformation outlet called the "Government Accountability Office" which is funded by the Mercers and headed by Peter Schweizer.
2
I can't know with any certainty whether Trump will be convicted by the Senate or whether an acquittal in the Senate will be good or bad for the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, or for the nation as a whole.
But I do know with certainty that a recession is coming. I don't know if it will come before or after 2020, but I know it's coming, sooner or later. Is Donald Trump up for dealing with a global recession? With that prospect in mind, Mr. Stephens, you shouldn't be so sanguine about the state of the economy.
2
Impeachment usurps and invalidates elections, the bedrock of our democracy. That is why it has historically been rarely used.
In the first approximately 200 years of our country, it was used once. In the last approximately 45 years, including the current effort, it will have been used three times, or about every 15 years.
Impeachment is now a cheap political stunt. The Republican lowered the standard in the Clinton impeachment. The Democrats are lowering it even further now.
And rest assured, it will be used again by Republicans in the next 10-15 years. And by Democrats within 10 years after that.
In Washington D.C., memories are long and revenge is necessary.
The funny thing is that the goal of impeachment is no longer removal from office. It is merely a tool to energize base voters and control the news.
In 2019, the Democrats don’t care if Trump is acquitted by the Senate, which he will be in about 24 hours. They only need to keep their own base in a state of heightened anger and fear for 13 more months.
2
I stopped reading when the Mueller investigation was compared to Whitewater.
5
Seriously Brett ? MItt Romney ? A three-time loser ?
1
@Coffee Dude, trump went bankrupt more than 3 times!
So Clinton lies under oath about having sexual relations with an adult intern and the world is on fire. So disgraceful! As senator graham spoke so eloquently we need to cleanse the office. Trump is a stain on democracy. As bad as bad can be who thinks his only purpose is to trash and burn the foundation of our democracy. If the Utah senator is willing, let him stand up.
3
Mitt Romney, really? He’s just another useless Republican with the backbone of a chocolate eclair.
1
Total hogwash Bret. Your entire column is seen through the eyes of a conservative republican.
Yes, Bill Clinton got oral sex in the White House. So did the Kennedy’s. Other than possibly Jimmy Carter, who knows how many other Presidents had sexual favors while in office.
That’s not the point Bret! Morality seems to be in question almost everywhere in Washington.
What Bill Clinton did was wrong! Period! But to compare Bill Clinton and Donald Trump is the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard! What your article really pointed out was just how corrupt and damaged today’s Republican Party is.
Historians throughout eternity will be theorizing how and why Donald Trump became president of The United States when in reality it’s pretty simple. It’s called Apathy. All of that is going to change either before or after the election of 2020.
1
of all the false equivalences of the Trump era, this one takes the cake. Are we seriously conflating Clinton's illicit sex and lie with Trump's dogged dismantling of our democracy? Bret, you overreachef big time on this one.
1
"Today, the U.S. unemployment rate is 3.5 percent, the lowest it’s been in 50 years" Hmm, looks like you haven't learned very much since you stupidly favored impeaching Clinton. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/11/business/low-unemployment-not-seeking-work.html
1
Does Bush win the election if Gore does feel he needs to run away from Clinton? (Well, maybe Bush didn't beat Gore, but that is a different subject.) Overall, Republicans won the Clinton impeachment, even though Clinton was not removed from office. Trump's wrongdoing is far worse than Clinton's as it involves not only the President but senior Administration officials (how did the Secretary of State Pompeo stand by, and possibly further, this blackmail of a foreign country?; why wasn't he forthright in explaining the decision to withhold Ukrainian military aid?) As with most things in life, if one does the right thing everything else will usually, eventually, fall into place. These are impeachable offenses, and the Democrats should do the right thing and impeach Trump. If Republican Senators make a political decision to acquit and set the precedent that this conduct is tolerable, they will ultimately lose this battle.
Good grief. Show me the tax returns. Show me the transcripts of the calls with Putin. Then call this equivalent to the Clinton presidency, but do me the favor of getting off your high horse soon.
1
Mr Stephens: You say Liberals are blind and you are not. I would argue that there is a bit of self-delusion here. We are blind and so are you.
2
Clinton lied, was caught and impeached, but did submit to the process and rule of law under the Constitution. He took his chances with it. That is historical fact.
Trump admits the charge which led to this inquiry, refuses to cooperate and respect the role of Congress, as sanctioned in the Constitution. His defiance is a new low even for him. His only concern is to shut down the whole thing fast. He doesn’t really seem all that confident when you consider that.
6
This President deserves to be impeached but I couldn't agree with Mr. Stephens anymore. The Republicans will rationalize every single action of this President and acquit him. It's a lock. Unfortunately the damage to Biden has been done and the Democrats will nominate Warren. It will be a McGovern or Dukakis beat down. I think the Dems would lose the House.
This country may need a revolution
one day as Warren and the progressives dream about but they all lack the skill of persuasion. For now, we need a leader who is reasonable and not beholden to the far right.
This mostly Democrat/sometime independent (in a swing district) would vote for Mitt Romney happily. He could credibly make the "clarion" call speech Mr. Stephens suggests. He would be doing our country an incredible service.
3
The government's in chaos but the economy is good (for the wealthy). That's a prescription for Republican happiness if I ever heard one. Oh how I hope Mr. Stephens proves to be 100 percent wrong.
4
This op-ed merely shows how delusional the entire GOP has become today.
Other people already pointed out the false moral equivalencies here.
Another basic truth that Stephens prefers to ignore, is the fact that today, a majority of GOP voters supports Medicare for all, as does the vast majority of the American people, whereas Romney and the GOP want to destroy Obamacare because, as Romney said, why would people need health insurance when they can go to the ER ... ?
And healthcare is one of THE major issues during elections, today.
That's why Romney isn't a credible potential candidate at all.
3
“Or even a clarion speech from a Republican leader who hasn’t yet lost a sense of honor and duty, and who can explain that a president who cavalierly invites foreign tyrants to investigate his political opponents debases his office and sets a precedent that all Americans, liberals and conservatives alike, will bitterly rue.”
That speech has already happened, but it wasn’t from a republican because there really are none who qualify or are even capable of making such a speech. The speech that did it for me was Adam Shiff’s “You might think that’s OK” speech which he made in response to house Republicans glibly calling for his removal after the Muller Report was butchered and buried by Barr on behalf of the president. That speech is the Clarion call that made me really want Trump removed. No one should think it’s OK to let a president, any president, get away with what this one has done and has even brazenly admitted doing.
Overreach? Really?
6
Unlike the visceral hatred of Republicans for Clinton and Obama, the animosity of Democrats for Trump is not grounded in bigotry; it has its basis in Trump's quite deliberate efforts to undermine our democratic institutions and create new norms of presidential power and behavior that should be repulsive to us all. Clinton represented no threat to our republic; Trump's authoritarian mindset is truly frightening and should be regarded as profoundly out of step with our values. The false equivalency Stephens suggests between Whitewater and the Mueller report says it all.
14
Bret you continue to compare Democratic behaviour with Republican behaviour that just doesn't ring true. There is no comparison with Clinton who gave a meandering lie to defend his sexual activity, but who otherwise did an excellent job as President, with Trump who is a shame not only for most Americans but for the whole democratic world. He is disgusting every day and it is getting worse. Please don't loose your own moral compass in his defense.
18
Why do conservatives like Mr. Stephens always want to go backwards. This President should be judged on present reliable knowledge. The Constitution does not say do as you did before, and allows for timely interpretation and amendments as needed. High crimes means presidential oath abuse. What would be dismissed as rude behavior in everyday citizens are grounds for impeachment.
https://constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm
3
Some want to compare Clinton and Trump. Clinton was impeached because he lied about an affair, period. So did Trump if we just think about "Stormy Daniels" for a brief second and in addition broke campaign finance laws and is an unidicted coconspirator with Michael Cohen. Republicans's investigated Clinton for 7 years of his Presidency via Whitewater. And I am sorry, nothing except the sex came out of it. Clinton spoke to investigators. Trump, has not. Trump has barely been investigated really for more than a year because let's just admit that Republicans stone walled everything when they had complete congressional power. In fact, not only has Trump abused his power, he has corrupted the Justice and the State Departments in pursuit of reelection. All other government agencies have been neutered via lack of even nominating agency heads or by appointing lobbyists to every senior post. There is also no equivalence to asking foreign nations to aid his campaign vs covering up a sex scandal. Trump has done what he does without shame because he is a fraud and a traitor. The only consistent strategy or explanation for his actions are that they are what an asset of Russia would do. In all things he has chosen to weaken the political, social and economic institutions of this country. Barr and Pompeo are obviously caught up in this recent conspiracy. We need to investigate all of this in order to remove the rot that has permeated our government. The people deserve nothing less.
13
It's a convenient comparison and that's all there is here. The GOP was a bloodthirsty pack of hounds willing to dig any dirt they could find to bring down Clinton. Remember Ginghrich who orchestrated the take over at any cost to the government and the country in order to get control and power. Since then, they have not redeemed themselves and their self serving support of Trump says it all. How anybody can call themselves conservatives today is beyond me and no amount of dumb comparison such as this is not going to make them look remotely respectable or have faith in their party.
3
Typical of most conservative commentators, Stephens can't write an opinion piece without taking wildly inaccurate pot shots at Liberals and making up all sorts of false equivalences, even when he agrees with what Democrats are doing. All the conservatives I know cannot engage in rational argument without a whole bunch of "what aboutism".
6
"But while a majority of Americans understood — and deplored — the crime..."
What crime, Brett? Having consensual sex? Since when is that a "crime"?
Trump, on the other hand, has admitted to trying to blackmail or bribe a foreign country (now countries) to interfere in an American presidential election.
8
Sure. Let's compare consensual sex and the lie about that to sexual predation, 12,000 lies, cruelty, nepotism, graft, racism, self serving and the perversion of our Justice system into an extension of someone's re-election campaign.
The lesson from Clinton's impeachment is that we should reserve impeachment for actual law breakers and those who dishonor and abuse their oath of office.
If there is any purpose to the impeachment procedures laid out in the Constitution, it is to remove lawless and imperious creatures like the ones we have pretending to be president of these United States and his Attorney General.
3
Thank you Mr. Stephens for the most hilarious opening line of your career: "Republicans were keen on matters of private virtue and public probity." Like Gingrich, whose faulty trouser zippers easily equaled Clinton's, and Iran-Contra, to say nothing of Reagan's race baiting? We must have been living in different countries.
11
@Don Alfonso
Thanks for mentioning Gingrich in response to Stephens' idiotic sentence; one could take a step further and bring up the personal lives of Strom Thurmond, Henry Hyde, and Helen Chenoweth, leading Republicans who tried to hound Clinton out of office.
Bravo, Mr. Stephens, for the master class in false equivalencies and liberal straw men!
6
I'm so surprised to find a Stephens editorial based on false equivalencies, except for the penultimate paragraph.
Really, Clinton and Trump or Nixon and Trump as comparables?
1
In the end, lying about tacky oral sex was not (and should not be) considered a high crime and/or misdemeanor. Pretty simple...
A " president who cavalierly invites foreign tyrants to investigate his political opponents debases his office and sets a precedent that all Americans, liberals and conservatives alike, will bitterly rue. " has committed a high crime and/or misdemeanor. Thus the offender should be impeached. Pretty simple...
The author is correct in saying the GOP has been pathetic and lame. And rather dangerous to the long term health of the republic.
3
"shameful abuse of his foreign-policy powers for the sake of political gain." Hyperlink leads to a policy discussion article that has no mention of "shameful" behavior related to this author's topic sentence about the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Never suspecting that my mother (a lifelong Democrat) was listening, I opined to Jim Bohanan, a nationally syndicated radio talk show host, that President Clinton should resign (he was then fighting impeachment charges). My reasoning was (in my mind) simple: he had lied under oath. That, alone, justified his removal (or voluntary exit) from the office of the Presidency. While still a fledgling criminal defense attorney in Washington, D.C., I was told by a Superior Court judge that she would deem everything I said in her courtroom to be under oath. How could she say such a thing? “Because, Mr. Bartlett, you are an officer of this court.” I certainly couldn’t argue with that. As a DC Bar member, I had to sit for (and, of course, pass) an ethics exam. How could I convince a client charged with a crime that telling the truth was ESSENTIAL to my fulfilling my duties as a defense attorney if this nation’s President could perjure himself with impunity? (Spoiler alert: I couldn’t.) To my mother (I would eventually hear), it was “all about the sex.” But she hadn’t seen President Clinton’s portrait hanging in the lobby of the federal courthouse in Washington, DC, either. We can’t let politics pollute the impeachment process, which now appears to loom inevitably on the horizon. Ask yourself (Mr. and Ms. Senator): Is this the sort of behavior I would tolerate by the opposition party? And remember: You’ll be looking yourself in the mirror long after you cast your vote.
So silly to equate Clinton with Trump! Clinton diddled and lied, but continued to function as president of the whole US even during impeachment. Trump used taxpayer money to extort a foreign country into intervening in our upcoming election. On his best days Trump has been president of only his core 40%, most of whom have been hurt by his fecklessness and self-serving, and he has so few best days! He injures the country every day he is in office, and the damage will only worsen as he unravels in the face of the avalanche of vile evidence coming his way. Of course he must be impeached!
4
Bret Stephens has lost his mind,
5
Clinton demonstrated complete narcissism, even if it meant the destruction of his party and others around him. Whether legally impeachable or not, what he did was morally reprehensible. His party had to use every bit of its political capital to keep him from being impeached, and that cost many of them elections. Al Gore paid for Clinton's sins in the 2000 election, which led to Bush II. And years later Hillary Clinton paid a price for her husband's misdeeds, as Republicans (and Democrats, in some circles) unfairly questioned her judgment in not divorcing a man who had behaved so badly.
One can argue Clinton was the snake that grew to become the full-grown nest of vipers that is Trump and his cadre of loyal venom spewers. Clinton's behavior, lack of shame and remorse, and disregard for how his actions would impact others, set the stage for the immoral, unethical, lawless dung heap in the Trump White House today.
1
During the Clinton impeachment proceedings, my feelings were
“I wouldn’t want Clinton for my husband, but I was happy to have him as my President.”
Trump? I don’t want him for my husband,(yuck) AND/OR my
President.
In Trump’s own words, he is ”a disgrace” in every possible way!
2
False equivalency. Clinton was a politician, an educated statesman, an inspiring figure globally. Trump is a real estate developer and reality show host, inspiring only to those Americans willing to trade conscience for profit, or who enjoy watching a system they were never a part of be torn down - despite no substitute being offered.
People continued to support Clinton because he was impeached for something almost everyone has done: lying about his sex life. The rabid foaming at the mouth displayed then by the GOP is in stark contrast with the measured proceedings of the Dems this time around.
Bret’s Clinton hate has compromised his reasoning, as it has so many other well-educated Republicans. Too bad.
3
Clinton was term limited. Trump is not.
1
Having a highly inappropriate sexual encounter and lying about it (who of us haven't) is far, far different than talking a wrecking ball of sexual assault, grotesque lies, and lawlessness to the United States. Every day he wakes up in the White House, fires off his aggrieved and hate-filled tweets, and walks into the Oval Office to strong-arm foreign governments and wax poetic about alligator-filled moats is a heartbreaking stain on simple decency and our constitutional government.
If the unravelling and ignominious end of the Nixon Presidency began with a bungled third-rate burglary and this president gets away with massive crimes including collaboration with foreign governments to win an election and secure personal gain, the country we knew is over.
3
Stephens is the classic repub. Everything they say is a lie, gross distortion or propaganda.
To claim an equivalence between lying about a consensual affair and the endless lying, abuse of power, incompetence & criminal behavior by a mob boss and tyrant is absurd.
But that's the repub way. The rest of us know the self evident truth. Tump is insane and must be removed now.
4
This is a false equivalence, despite some superficial similarities. Clinton was a womanizer (as was Jack Kennedy) and had other faults, but he didn’t kowtow to autocrats, he didn’t want to tear down the Constitutional system and replace it with himself as autocrat. With Clinton, there never was a question whether he would leave office if he were defeated for a second term. Clinton was a bit of a rogue, but he wasn’t a psychopath. Whereas Trump checks all those boxes.
2
Trump has helped to expose what an immoral country the United States has become. Immoral and flat-out untrustworthy.
1
This column is a masterpiece of false equivalency. Clinton was quite popular with the general public at the time he was impeached. He was impeached for lying about an affair. Trump is historically unpopular, due to being the most ignorant, corrupt and venal man ever to sit in the Oval Office. He is being investigated for withholding military aid approved by Congress as leverage to get a foreign government to manufacture dirt on a political rival. The situations are in no way analogous.
2
The International High Commission on Journalistic Practice should bar this writer from using lazy historical political parallels for a full three years.Whitewater the parallel to Mueller? Ouch. Clinton prevaricating (however shamelessly) about sex comparable to oceanic traitorous and thieving acts of Trump? Gulp. A truly seamless and no delusions economy against one in which 3 individuals own half the country and our life expectancy continues to plunge? And the coup de grace . . . Mitt Romney, busily ironing his shirtsleeve while wearing it, steps into our breach. Oy.
1
Enough about Clinton Bret. Let it go. There is no equivalency. Deal with the here and now. These 'republican' commentators always drag out the Clinton refrain which only works as some kind of subliminal suggestion that the Trump impeachment is the same thing. No one cares about Clinton anymore and those circumstances were completely different. The Democrats efforts today have nothing in common with the ridiculous Republican moral drum beat against Bill Clinton. The hypocritical shock expressed by the likes of Brett Kavanaugh, a likely teenage sexual preadator, is especially hard to fathom and nothing like what's going on today. Bringing that pathetic impeachment enquiry up simply undermines the very justified impeachment efforts going on now. There is really no precedent for what is happening. Let it go.
1
I notice that Stephens links to the Times' thoughtful coverage of Clinton's misdeeds. is there any similar discussion happening in 'conservative' media?
2
So to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen: Bret, Trump is no Bill Clinton. To even suggest a similarity between these two men suggests that Mr. Stephens is looking for the easy way out. Censure instead of impeachment is cowardly. Americans understand the difference between a President lying under oath about sex when compared to a President brazenly soliciting other governments' help in winning elections. Come on, Bret! Please sir, get your head out of the sand and confront the reality that this country is faced with: we have as President the most corrosive, unstable, ill informed and anti democratic person to have ever represented our country on the world stage. He does not believe in a free press, nor the rule of law. He does not care to understand the Constitution. The most dangerous enemy to the United States is not overseas - he sits in the White House.
3
Memories of Clinton's impeachment, unsurprisingly, have grown a bit fuzzy over the years. Clinton was impeached in December 1998, by the House of Representatives on grounds of "perjury to a grand jury" and "obstruction of justice". Both charges of which he denied doing and was not found guilty by the Senate.
Two years later, January 2001, Clinton signed an Order of Discipline stipulating "Mr. Clinton admits and acknowledges ... that he knowingly gave evasive and misleading answers, in violation of Judge Wright's discovery orders ... in an attempt to conceal ... the true facts about his improper relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.... He engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in that his discovery responses interfered with the conduct of the Jones case." At the same time Clinton also admitted, "I now recognize ... that certain of my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false."
So, based on his admission of guilt to the original Impeachment charges, he should have been found guilty by the Senate.
None of this has anything to do with the crimes Trump has and is continuing to do by requesting foreign entities (individuals, nations) to investigate a political opponent for the purpose of obtaining compromising information in return for a desired benefit of value. That is a crime under Federal election laws.
Stay on topic, don't get distracted .
1
The public’s support for Clinton’s impeachment methodically weakened as the process moved forward. The reverse seems to be the case now as the facts of brazen presidential extortion and its coverup come to light. This is not an insignificant difference.
The principle articulated by Mr. Stephens is sound even though you can perceive differences. The other side will have their argument that perjury was a high crime and no man is above the law etc. They will say Clinton defiled the oval office by having sex there with a young intern and no one who who treats women in that way should remain in the White House. It comes down to whose ox is being gored. Two impeachments in twenty years and none in the previous century (don't hold me to an exact figure). Before we overturn the results of an election for President of the United States because of a visceral hatred of the President ( Clinton, Trump or whoever) we should have the entire nation or 90% with us, not a majority in one branch (the House) and less than the Constitution requires in the other. Spare me keeping people "accountable". Sowing the wind can, well you know the rest.
Sorry, Mr. Stephens, there is no precedent.
2
No. There is no useful purpose in comparing Clinton's lies about an adulterous affair and Trump's ongoing assault on our government, its institutions, and our place among the nations of the world. Toward the end of his rhetorical scrambling, Stephens suggests solutions grounded firmly in magical thinking.
Censure? It does not fit the severity of the crime of strong-arming foreign leaders to undermine the candidacy of a possible political challenger.
A credible primary challenge? The Republican Party has become an endless echo chamber in a tawdry funhouse.
Mitt Romney, whose time has come and a breathless nation and Republican Party await his second coming? The time for decency and probity has passed, Mr. Romney, Mr. Flake, and a few others are viewed within the expanding Trump brigades as traitors to the cause, unwilling to leap into the flames of seld-immolation.
Bret, your party (my former party), has doubled down on hate, divisiveness, and cruelty as planks in its platform. There is no going back, the ship left port three years ago.
1
Bret, Before you try to compare Bill Clinton to Trump, which itself is as disingenuous as it gets, please explain, why conservatives hated Clinton? What was the reason, if there was any substantive reason? Maybe just because he was a democrat?
4
Trump inherited the current economy. Unemployment was trending downward long before he took office.
Americans are also fully aware that Trump gave huge tax cuts to the rich and corporations. Income inequality reached its worse level in 2018 since Census began tracking it 50 years ago. The spoils of economic growth are concentrating at the top, and Trump’s tax-cut policies make it worse.
The idea that just because more Americans can make ends meet by driving an Uber means that they will not support impeachment is absurd. Recent polling shows most Americans support an impeachment inquiry.
Trump and Clinton are not the same. Clinton was persecuted from the moment he took office because Republicans felt the WH belonged to them. Finally, they got him on a lie about consensual sex.
Trump lost the popular vote and is in the WH thanks to Russian interference, meaning he wasn’t exactly democratically elected. He paid off women he had affairs with before the election. His personal attorney is serving time. Trump is lawless. The grift is brazen. He is divisive and only concerned with his donors and a minority of Americans who support him. His trade policies are impulsive. He may very well be intentionally manipulating the stock market with all his flip flopping on China trade. Oh, and he released a transcript in which it is crystal clear that he is sought foreign help against a political rival.
To “both sides” Trump’s corruption is intellectually dishonest.
3
Another delusional viewpoint. I never thought Clinton did anything to deserve impeachment. You could question some of his personal moral behaviors, if you were so inclined. But I thought he was a terrific leader, just as I think Trump has done nothing impeachment—worthy and is also a great leader. But as bad as the GOP treated Clinton at the time, I find the Democrats’ treatment of Trump to be far worse, perhaps because it is abetted so often by the media. What troubles me most about the current dust-up is that a US president cannot have a confidential conversation with another world leader without fear of having it leaked to the info-hungry media. How must this appear to the rest of the world? The Democrats’ drive to impeach will blow up in their faces, just as it did the GOP’s during the Clinton years.
Interesting that Bret closes invoking Romney. Everyone now is placing a premium on Presidential virtue, something Democrats didn’t care about two decades ago. Now virtue allegedly matters especially to Democrats.
But they rejected probably one of the most virtuous candidates of the past five decades when they rejected Romney in 2012. Hypocrisy is alive & well.
1
There's absolutely no comparison between the moral crime of marriage infidelity on Bill Clinton's part (and lying about it), and Trump's efforts to violate the Constitution and undermine our democracy by asking foreign powers to help him dig up dirt to use against his likely political opponent in the next election.
This is the epitome of false equivalency.
3
Ken Star chased the White Water issue for years with an unlimited mandate and came up with Monica Lewinsky. So no, there is no comparison. This article materially misrepresents that. Trump, in contrast, has committed treason in soliciting foreign interference in our elections and compromising the office of the President. I will not even bother with citing the litany of abuses he also perpetrated.
3
While I agree with you on so much else, here I must differ. It is true that Trump, if impeached, will almost certainly not be convicted (if only because McConnell will find a way to prevent the trial from taking place). It is true that the economy--no thanks to the current President--has been doing well, at least until said President sent jitters into it by his erratic (lack of) trade policy. It is true that the proceedings will encourage the right-wing base to cry persecution and martyrdom, causing the Republican vote for Trump in 2020 to surge. But those are less cogent reasons than this one: If Trump is permitted to get through his term without impeachment, then those who sat by and connived at his misbehavior by failing to take him to task for high crimes will have enabled that misbehavior. It is not so much to eject him from office as to leave a written stain on his Presidency for future generations that Congress did not simply sigh and stand by. You have advocated for the repeal of the Second Amendment because it perpetuates a state of affairs that may have been relevant in the 1780's but now leads only to needless deaths. One could also advocate for the repeal of the Electoral College (Constitution, II.1.3) because instead of protecting the country against the growth of factionalism, it unduly emboldens a minority faction to thwart the working of the Constitution itself. Impeachment is now necessary to demonstrate that the Constitution is still alive, if indeed it is.
Actually, Clinton deserved impeachment, as does Trump. Clinton not just debased his office and sexually exploited a messed-up young woman but he left himself open to blackmail and crass political calculations like the Khartoum bombing. He put all women at increased risk of sexual harassment -- I remember a member of law enforcement telling me at the time: "We will do as our commander in chief does." For all that Clinton tried to make the presidency a technocratic position, leadership always requires a moral component. Feminists who tried to rescue him did so because of fears over abortion rights -- I hope we know now the importance of the long game.
75
@CFB
By that logic, Trump should have never been elected.
He debased his wives with his affairs, and also teenage girls participating in his beauty pageants.
30
Actually as a woman (and feminist) who is the same age as Monica Lewinsky I am incensed that people would think that in my 20s I was too weak or inexperienced or young to make decisions about my sexuality. I find that demeaning.
38
Clinton behaved rephrensibly. Trump did that with the full knowledge of this nation's voters, including two of my own sisters, BEFORE they elected him. Trump, however, not only treats women like trash, he's endangered our democracy and yet you continue to make excuses for him.
20
It’s very simple. Clinton, for all his faults, believed in the country and the system. Trump is a nihilist who believes in nothing but his own wonderfulness. Much of his base loves seeing him trashing our institutions, and their minds won’t be changed. I don’t care. The institutions of over 200 years cannot be allowed to be destroyed by a 10-year-old spoiled brat.
1194
@Alex Kent Hallelujah.
24
@Alex Kent
Perfect! So well said. Thank you.
9
@Alex Kent
Well said!
5
Bill Clinton's "crimes" are like a kid stealing a piece of penny candy from the corner grocery compared to Trump's robbing the store cash register and shooting the clerk. Remember that he said that he could shot someone on 5th Avenue and his supporters would still love him. Metaphorically, he is shooting Democracy and thinking he can get away with it.
693
@Will25 And apparently Stephens would write a column that didn’t address if murder was wrong or not, just bemoaning the process by which Democrats tried to address it.
46
@Will25 Ever since Trump was elected, the New York Times has gone after him hammer and tongs. And that is not just shooting democracy, it is shooting the truth.
It is sad that so many readers do not even see the dead body of the truth.
This is how a phone call from Trump to Zelesky which included one paragraph about Biden, becomes cause for impeachment. And never mind that Biden is not - yet - Trump's political opponent. It will probably be Warren or Sanders, neither of whom had children in Ukraine.
Meanwhile the $50,000 per month job that Hunter Biden had in Ukraine becomes something to be called a "Republican talking point" and shoved under the rug.
Let us go for the WHOLE truth, shall we? If one party is allowed to lie and deceive then democracy cannot survive. Your hatred of Trump has made you indifferent to the truth.
1
@Ludwig you are kidding, right??You don't see the correleation to how Jared and Ivanka have been elevated probably without security clearance, and paid more than handsomely without qualifications to be anything other than clothing manufacrtured in China consultants..??I mean really,. And remember, we , you and I , will be paying for Jared and Ivanka's and probably t heir childrens secret service protection and health care for the REST OF THEIR LIVES..God forbid one of them deludes the populace and engages in kleptocracy enough to win an election..
5
In moments like this I always find it helpful to conduct a thought experiment.
Let us assume for a moment that 70,000 votes in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania went the other way and Hillary Clinton narrowly defeats Donald Trump, but Trump being Trump decides to run again in 2020.
Now, President Clinton, through her Ambassors, reaches out to Mr. Putin with entreaties to normalize relations and to support sanction relief, but she needs a favor though. Her ambassordors relay that it would be very helpful to the country if Russia would open an investigation on Trump’s potential laundering of Oligarch money through shadow real estate deals in the U.S. and whether he’s been compromised on tape.
Is this now an acceptable practice? Should not Republicans and Democrats weigh in on whether this will be acceptable going forward? Is censure an adequate remedy to this practice? Should we not put this to a vote to understand where we all stand on this importnat matter?
2
The arguments made here have some appeal, but I suggest that the circumstances of this impeachment inquiry differ markedly from those of the Clinton inquiry. First, Republicans who thought the country was doing badly in the 1990’s were wrong, as the author points out, but Democrats making the same argument today are much closer to being right. Income inequality has soared, the Trump tax cut is causing deficits to increase vastly and Trump’s tariffs are hurting the economy. Middle class families are not doing better than they were when Clinton was President. They are doing much worse.
Second, the offense Clinton committed - lying about an affair with a young intern - is nowhere near as serious as Trump’s offense. Rightly or wrongly, the rest of the world laughed at us when Congress impeached Clinton over an extramarital affair (which is commonplace in Europe, for example). Trump’s offense, on the other hand, crosses a fundamental line that the Framers would likely see as the type of “high crime” that would justify impeachment: The incumbent President’s seeking the help of a foreign government to win re-election.
Third, while Republicans misread public opinion in 1998, Democrats are doing a better job this time. Speaker Pelosi did not support impeachment based on the Mueller Report because the public did not support it either. However, public opinion appears to be shifting decisively toward impeachment now. Like it or not, Trump is in some serious trouble.
6
In an otherwise eloquent editorial , this journalist misses a most important point- Bill Clinton in spite of his tremendous moral lapse, never compromised our national security in favor of personal political gain. Bill Clinton never withheld his tax returns. Bill Clinton never acted unwittingly or knowingly as a Russian agent. Bill Clinton never encouraged a foreign government to investigate a political opponent
Should I continue? I think you get the idea .
8
@RD
Bill Clinton also never doubled a structural deficit, as Trump's GOP did, nor did he create one, as Bush's GOP did, but instead, just like Obama he strongly cut the GOP's deficits.
And just like Obama, Clinton turned an inherited GOP recession into a record economic growth and record low unemployment rate.
Bush and Trump merely inherited those booming Democratic economies, and there was NO Bush or Trump dent in ANY economical graph to see at all ...
And of course, Clinton never fabricated lies such as those that led to the Iraq war, which killed more than 10,000 of our finest and bravest youth.
And the list goes on and on ...
4
@RD Only one correction: omit "unwittingly." This traitor knows exactly whose interests he's serving. His interests lie with Russia.
Don't agree that Democrats would have responded the same way if a Republican did the same things. If George Bush had had relations with an intern Chuck Schumer would have smiled and pointed out the hypocrisy, not started an investigation and pushed for impeachment. There's lots of good points and parallels here but the false equivalence between two imperfect parties (or men in this case) reduces the clarity of what the problem is and what is needed to fix it, and makes it harder to convince people to change.
4
This isn't about morals, this is about our Democratic Republic. It used to be considered patriotic to stand up for the basic idea that the USA actually is a Democratic Republic.
President Clinton clearly fell short on moral turpitude. Donald Trump and his family are sacking the country and taking a sledge hammer to the idea of Democracy.
5
My advice to Mitt Romney is "Don't waste words on a man who deserves your silence. Sometimes the most powerful thing you can say is nothing at all." The country is doing what it has to do. Let it play out.
4
@hjbergmans
"My advice to Mitt Romney is "Don't waste words on a man who deserves your silence.""
This may be good advice at times on a personal level, but not when the Republican Party is circling the wagons around (let's face it) a criminal and denying there is any problem.
How about, "If you see something, say something."?
2
The only reason Mr Trump hasn’t perjured himself is because he’s never given testimony under oath; his attorneys knew better than to allow him to be interviewed under oath by the Mueller team. He lies daily about matters large and small. Mr Stephens’ piece comparing the Clinton and Trump impeachment efforts doesn’t ring true to me. But I do believe that Mr Trump’s diehard supporters will continue to follow him wherever he takes them.
8
What Clinton did was clearly wrong - both in terms of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky (Abuse of power, sexual harassment), and lying about it under oath.
However, while the parallels abut the political and economic environments are fair, there are no valid parallels to be drawn about the conduct in question and its implications for the country. Using the power of your office(and potential funds from your country) to push others to investigate the children of one of your political rivals is the action of a two-bit dictator, not the leader of a nation that supposedly prides itself on its constitution and the rule of law.
These allegations, if substantiated, represent a level of impropriety that we absolutely cannot accept from a leader of our country.
4
You may have a point about Clinton's potential "wag the dog" moment - which IS troubling - I think that your comparison of Clinton and Trump is miles from being apples-to-apples. The point is that, as much as I suspect that self interest was PART of Clinton's decision; actual concern for national interest was also a factor. From what I recall, and read, about the Khartoum event, there was a significant number of advisers that felt the action was justified on national security grounds. In trump's case there was NO ONE that didn't KNOW it was wrong, and I doubt if there was ANY element of national security in the decision to ask foreign powers - some of them our adversaries - to interfere in our elections, much less potentially dangle foreign aid as a bargaining chip.
Yes we do indeed condition foreign aid on human rights progress, and even political considerations of the foreign power. But NOT on their willingness to actively interfere in US elections. Just as he himself said to Stephanopolis, he would accept dirt on a political rival from a foreign adversary. He thinks it's OK to do that - simple oppo research.
He crosses this line because he simply does not see the line. He's so morally bankrupt that he really believes that's OK. That's why he released the phone transcript - he thought it was OK to do what he did.
As much as I disliked Clinton and his moral "flexibility", there is no comparison between this reprehensible man-child and Clinton.
9
The difference is that Clinton broke his vows to his wife and lied about it under oath. Trump broke his Oath of Office to defend the Constitution and publicly promises to do it again.
A repeat of Clinton's actions would have likely destroyed his marriage. A repeat of Trump's proudly undermining another American election with foreign assistance would likely destroy.our democracy..
Hillary decided to forgive and trust. Americans who value democracy are under no obligation to do the same for a utterly corrupt man who will certainty continue to break the law to ensure his reelection. In fact, we have a collective responsibility to stop.it.
Mr. Stephens, I'm not sure you were wrong in 1998..But you are absolutely wrong today..
1038
@LT
Mr. Stephens insists that the guy who swindled people at Trump U. and used charitable money to buy a portrait of himself should get a second chance because Stephens believes a man who gets a foreign government to help him smear an opponent is - if he is a Republican - a great man.
And of course, Stephens can't stop writing about how awful Trump's critics.
68
@LT This retired writing teacher is impressed by this balanced comparison. Well done!
19
A sitting US President advantaging a female intern in the Oval Office is a far more serious matter than just private marital infidelity. This remains the Democrat’s Achilles heel in comparing Trump to Clinton. They continue to breezily dismiss in Clinton what they voraciously condemn in Trump.
3
Other commenters charge Mr. Stephens with false equivalency and I agree. Clinton's consensual sexual affair with Lewinsky - which was preceded by similar, unpunished behavior by previous presidents - was personal malfeasance that does not equate with the current president's public record of provable lies, slander of critics, undermining of the free press, probable obstruction of justice, and use of office for private gain. Not to mention his using that office to coerce a foreign leader to bring down a political opponent. And Mr. Stephens distorts the truth when he states as fact that Clinton ordered the air strike against Khartoum to divert attention from the Lewinsky scandal. Yes, a few Republican members of Congress raised questions about the timing of the strike, but no evidence surfaced then or later that Clinton had thus abused his power.
4
You left out the part about Ken Starr and his seemingly unlimited mandate. He would bootstrap himself into positions from which he could go on fishing expeditions to find any dirt on Clinton he could find. I don’t think I was the only one who wondered why we had a grand inquisitor empowered to ask the president of the United States under oath about a consensual affair that should have been nobody’s business except Bill, Hillary, and Monica.
With Trump there are legitimate concerns about undue foreign involvement in our elections and yet he won’t even release his tax returns and put his assets in a blind trust to alleviate concerns about whether his financial dealings are inconsistent with his ability to faithfully execute his duties as president solely in the public interest.
But I think your column implicitly raises the question whether unreasoning hatred of Trump is blinding people to the merits of some of his policy or campaign positions. I don’t want racist or inhumane immigration policies but I’d like to see the interests of American workers (of any race) taken into account when setting those policies. It seems reasonable to think we need to recalibrate our China policy and that other NATO countries need to assume a greater burden in multilateral security. We might ought to rethink trade and antitrust policies with American workers in mind but I’d much prefer Warren to Trump for that.
2
There is no comparison between the impeachments of Clinton and Trump. Clinton may have been flawed, but he was a man of honor and dignity who respected the rule of law. In contrast Trump is an amoral con artist who respects nothing and no one. He disgraces his office every day with his blatant lying. He runs the White House like it is a mafioso operation.
Trump voters wanted a non politician to shake things up. Why else would voters elect someone so obviously unqualified for the job? People were fed up with politicians who don't keep their promises. People want to have it all, live in the greatest nation on Earth with a clean environment, be the world's policeman, have high paying jobs with unlimited health care benefits, and have Social Security and Medicare take care of them in retirement. Unfortunately they, backed by Republicans do want to have to pay taxes for it. So they overlooked all of Trump's obvious disqualifying traits and voted him in.
In the end Trump won't be removed from office as Republicans have sold their souls to put party over country. But it will be worth it as Democrats will be standing up for the rule of law. If Americans decide to vote Trump in again after what he has done they will deserve what they get. That is if the election will be legitimate. I ask Stephens this: is he sure that the election results won't be skewed illegally in favor of Trump, either by some outside player or by the Republicans themselves?
moral equivalency between trump and clinton is absurd. why does the times employ stephens. we are talking about a president asking a foreign govt to get involved to help him in his re-election. the founding fathers would be appalled by trump and what he is doing. i don't think thomas jefferson would have much of a problem w/ clinton.
4
@robert
The Times employs Stephens because:
1. contrary to Republicans, it believes that having a real debate among those who disagree is crucial in order for a democracy to thrive, and because
2. unfortunately, the intellectually dishonest way of presenting things that systematically characterizes Bret Stephens op-eds is the best that "conservative intellectuals" can do today.
I'm pretty sure that the day the Times can find a conservative who writes well AND who uses higher moral standards, Stephens will be replaced immediately.
Bret, as usual, you neglect the big, obvious truth. The big difference between Clinton and Trump is that Trump has committed multiple serious violations of his oath of office by soliciting foreign aid in his own election. Trump has attempted to hide the evidence of his high crimes and misdemeanors by using a top secret server. By refusing to respond to subpoenas, he has obstructed justice. Stop trying to obscure the truth!
3
You are a Conservative Republican and yet you taut the low unemployment numbers and consumer confidence-you do not mention that Trump has added a billion dollars to the national debt with a generous tax cut for the wealthy.You do not mention that Clinton raised taxes and left office with a budget surplus.Clinton disgraced his office with bad personal behavior-Trump is ignoring our constitution and defying our election laws.Trump is making a mockery of our Democracy-the two situations are very different except for the partnership.
2
Don't even know why I read Stephens. As usual he's clueless.
And really, he thinks the situation with Clinton is at all comparable to now?
As he said, he totally misjudged the situation and mood then.
He does so now as well.
2
It's too late for Romney. The furrowed brow and mild statements of disapproval are signs of political calculation and personal cowardice.
Talk is cheap. Nothing any serving Republican has to say is meaningful unless it comes with a call to action to other Republicans. That Romney is the best the GOP can provide in our time of need is further proof that the GOP has sold its soul.
1
Promulgating a false equivalence is beneath you, Bret. Trump gleefully accepted Russian interference in 2016, and requested help from another foreign country to damage a political rival and alter the upcoming 2020 election. The former act rendered his presidency illegitimate, and the latter revealed his continued contempt for the Constitution. Republicans certainly overreached to impeach Clinton on findings that grew out of the original failed Whitewater investigation. Can you really compare that with the current impeachment investigation?
2
"I came of age as a conservative in an era when Republicans were keen on matters of private virtue and public probity. Then Bill Clinton became president, and his behavior exemplified neither."
Why not complete the description of Republicans of the 80s and 90s, Brett. Self-centered, greedy, hateful, fear-mongering beholden to a Southern strategy, long since rocketed out of the orbit of Lincoln. The hero Reagan ushered us into the era of inequality by cutting taxes for the rich, taxing social security and busting unions.
And...though un-intentioned, your false equivalence of Clinton and Trump saps the credibility out of your piece. Romney....please. What we don't need is a billionaire who thumbs his nose at the common people. At least his father recognized the necessary connections between labor and capital, business with the community they serve in. Sometimes it's best to jump down from an erudite ivory tower and see what really ails American and that Conservatism has spent too much time in the sun.
1
One thing Mr. Stephens overlooks here is that while the economy is doing well, as long as you don't look too closely at the numbers, the current president has always been an historically unpopular one. This makes him very much unlike Clinton, who retained relatively high popularity until the end of his second term. The majority of the population, if the constant stream of polls are to be trusted, are sick and tired of Trump if they didn't already loath him to begin with. And they're sick of him because he is intellectually and tempermentally unfit to be president.
I sincerely doubt in twenty years anyone will regret supporting impeachment of this president. We're not going to suddenly look back and think, yeah, we went too far trying to stop the president from enlisting a foreign power to drum up a scandal around his opponent, and collecting daily bribes at his hotel down the street from the WH, and waving away credible accusations of rape, and paying off a porn star during the campaign, and lying about his development projects in Russia, and trying to obstruct justice, and declaring a bogus emergency to build a silly symbol-wall, and on and on. If Mr. Stephens wants to draw equivalences, please get back to us when there's a Democratic president who insists on building a free abortion clinic in every high school, closing all parochial schools, and imposing a rural-resident poll tax.
3
Bush senior ran a terrible campaign in 1988. He played the race card with Willie Horton. Reagan did the same in his campaigns, the welfare queen and the appeal to states rights. Conservatives never questioned this behavior and when Trump attacks people of color the conservatives are mute. They simply want to impose their cultural values, tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy and oppose legislation and regulation that protects the environment They use Trump to advance their agenda for their donor class. Clinton behaved badly but nothing compared to Trump. Clinton did not put us into a constitutional crisis. American conservatism is a sham.
A more apt comparison would be to Nixon, who committed high crimes and misdemeanors for political gain, and whose party supported him in lockstep...until they didn't.
1
I have heard Stephens recently on MSNBC similarly contrasting Democrats response to the Bill Clinton behavior, where they almost unanimously condemned his behavior while arguing that it did not rise to an impeachable offense, with the cricket like silence from Republicans. He suggested there that they could play it the same way.
He was wrong, they can’t. If they condemn his behavior in regard to foreign countries, they can’t follow that with a claim that it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. It is a textbook example that was outlined by the founders as THE example of what is an impeachable offense.
Here in this article he is again trying to draw comparisons between Clinton and Trump, who are both scoundrels, but that is about all they have in common. Clinton was smart, a policy wonk and politically savvy. Trump is a narcissist and a demagogue, with no policy sense and a political sense for only his base’s superficial prejudices. Stevens’ comparison of the Clinton economy, which boomed after he took office with now, which is a trend line that has continued since 2009, is misplaced as well.
To use the comparison to Clinton and the 90s to suggest that Republicans “needn’t embrace the remedy of impeachment in order to denounce the president’s repellent and dangerous behavior” ignores the reality of Trump’s behavior versus Clinton and is based on so many flawed comparisons as to be intellectually dishonest, but that is right out of the Republican playbook.
1
Useless comparisons between Trump and anyone else are not helping. Mr. Stevens bottom line: get Trump out!
You can put a lot of sugary coatings on your defense of Republicans, but you still agree with the majority of Americans that Trump is bad for Americans.
1
I can't get over the overwhelming sense of false equivalency Mr. Stephens attempts to paint between William Jefferson Clinton and Donald John Trump.
Lying about oral sex and marital infidelity in the Oval Office does not share the same ring as attempting to use the power of the Presidency to withhold millions of dollars federal funds in a (successful) attempt to bully a foreign power into digging for dirt on a political rival in a federal election.
Then he does it again, on national television, implicitly using the trade war as a financial cudgel.
Hopefully, If enough Americans also see through this false equivalency, we'll see 45 impeached and have enough Republican Senators vote to convict that he doesn't win re-election.
1
Stephens is adept at saying a lot which really means saying nothing. And, anyone counting on Romney to DO something is deluded. Romney is an empty suit whose opinions change with the wind direction at any given time.
1
You make some good points. And, the similarities between the Republicans then, and the Democrats now are extensive. But, as others have pointed out, there IS a difference between lying to cover up your own sleaziness, and lying to cover up a violation of your Constitutional oath to defend the nation.
1
Mr Stephens, you may have a superficial similarity there, but do you really believe sleeping with an intern is equivalent to asking foreign governments for electoral help?
Do you really think that Clinton bombed the factory in Khartoum to divert media attention from Lewinsky affair?
There are parallels and then there are false equivalencies.
Where do you think these cases lie?
What Trump has done, is akin to treason - definitely unconstitutional.
What Clinton did was a extra-marital affair - something Jefferson had done with his slave, Newt Gingrich was busy doing with his then secretary.
1
More of Stephens' typical false equivalences:
"Right-wing radio was then about as influential as left-wing Twitter is today, and it generated the same kind of visceral and obsessive passion."
- No, Rightwing Radio is still inordinately influential, and Twitter is not inordinately Leftist. The entire country see Trump's lies and hatred on Twitter every day! Plus, Trump denigrates trust in the media in ways Clinton never did.
"Remember the U.S. attack on that pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, destroyed on the basis of dodgy intelligence just days after the Lewinsky admission?"
- No one suggested such a thing back then; you're creating a conspiracy theory.
"But the point here is that conservatives were slow to see it, in part because they were blinded by their hatred of Clinton."
- No, we Liberals don't have a "blind" hatred of Trump. Rather, we despise him for the ways that he breaks laws, foments hatred towards other people, and has destroyed all shreds of civility in our government.
"Clinton hatred played itself out in the interminable Whitewater investigation. Think of it as the forerunner to the Mueller inquest."
- Starr's inquisition was a witch-hunt in search of a crime, eventually setting up Clinton with entrapment. Mueller's investigation was very narrow, and based in credible evidence that a crime(s) had been committed.
Oh, and you forgot to mention that Trump's collusion with foregin enemies for political gain is nearly treasonous.
False equivalences!
5
This opinion is an attempt at false equivalency. There is no "Clinton Precedent" for the situation we face with Trump. In fact, when we look closely, we see the Republicans using their episode of political expedience as a cautionary tale against impeachment in general, where if there is any lesson to be learned it is one of profound Republican hypocrisy comparing their full-throated condemnation of Clinton then, and their impotent silence in the face of Trump's landmark high crimes and misdemeanor now.
1
The shoe on the other foot? Stephens, in your piece you've tried unsuccessfully to fit Trump's oversized hoof into Lewinsky's slipper. Clinton outraged that citadel of virtue, Congress, and its GOP brethren, by having the audacity to lie about consensual sex in the Oval Office. A very public false declaration of what many men and women at the time had done in private and were also at pains to hide or deny. They could identify with that fall from grace which explains how impeachment then backfired. Clinton enjoyed a plus 60% approval rating. Trump's has never been higher than 45%. A list as long as your arm of transgressions, assaults on our institutions, countless lies, unscripted conversations with Putin, obstruction, payments of hush money, unmitigated scorn for the emolument clauses, to cite but a few of many abuses so far witnessed, demand without reservation an impeachment inquiry. To sit idly by, pondering political consequences, is to allow the continued downward slide into total autocracy. Such a clear and present threat to our democracy and its magnitude should be the only consideration. Time now to act.
1
'The who presides over them', what ever happened for government of the people, for the people, by the people? the president may preside over the government but not the people
1
Bret,
I too remember the impeachment battle of Bill Clinton. Then as now, I was a liberal, but I too favored Clinton's impeachment and removal from office. Unlike you, I don't see it as a mistake.
Don't misunderstand; the investigation was an outrage. By forcing Clinton to answer a question about his sex life - a question that had nothing to do with the case - Ken Starr went to lengths that would never be tolerated in an ordinary criminal case. The question shpud have never been asked. But it WAS asked and Clinton lied under oath. We can't tolerate that from our president.
Now we are asked to tolerate far worse from a president, who, whether he knows it or not, has set off a bidding war with foreign governments. They, no doubt, will be turning to the Democratic candidates and secretly (but why should it be in secret?) will be asking, 'Trump has asked for this, can you top it?' If a desperate Dem "colludes" with a foreign government, what can the Republicans say? By allowing Trump to do it, they've just legitimized the new process.
152
@Thucydides: Lying is serious, but I disagree with the view that all lies are equal. I could respect Clinton's lie under oath much more than I would have respected some sort of truthful "locker-room talk" of the sort that Ken Starr felt was important for us to hear; "Well, first we did x, then we did y (but we never did z)..."
And I disagree with the idea that one person's crime will lead to, or justify, the same crime from someone else. It's just as reasonable to expect that Trump's outrageous behavior will lead to better behavior from others... for a little while, at least...
8
Dear Stephen, can you please explain why you're omitting crucial (ESPECIALLY from a moral point of view) facts here?
Lying about a mistress and "inviting foreign tyrants to investigate political opponents" isn't exactly the same, on a "moral scale of judgment", is it?
As to the Khartoum attack based on CIA information that turned out to be less solid than originally proposed: the worst estimates are that because of the lack of medicine that it caused, several hundreds of thousands of people died.
If you claim to find THAT an impeachable offense, then where were you when Bush and Cheney launched the Iraq war, based on entirely false and in this case deliberately FABRICATED evidence, and against the will of the entire international community, war that caused HUNDREDS of thousands of deaths ... ?
The only way to learn how to use "moral scales of judgment" is to first of all start valuing proven truths again, which is something that Republicans had a huge problem with long before Trump even became a candidate. That's why Romney won't be welcomed as a "savior" either, you see?
Finally, both Clinton and Obama turned around a GOP recession that they inherited, all while cutting the structural deficit created by the previous GOP administration. Obama then launched a decade-long + 2% GDP and record low unemployment rate, and Clinton did the same but with a + 4% GDP.
Today, there is NO Trump dent AT ALL, and his promised +4% annual GDP growth turned out to be a lie too...
3
Mr. Stephens, there is a difference here. While Clinton was impeached because of a clear event of perjury, it occurred because of an investigation into an affair between 2 consenting adults that in no way presented an attack on the integrity of our Constitution. Contrast this with the many anti-Constitutional acts of Trump culminating with his current requests for foreign gov'ts to interfere with our upcoming elections. Equating these 2 events represents an extreme case of false equivalency. Yes, perjury is a crime, no question. However, Americans on reflection identified the overall process of impeachment of Clinton as an over-reach. The question is how Americans will view the current impeachment investigation of Trump. Clearly, Trump's transgressions are much more severe and egregious than were Clinton's, and one can only hope that the American electorate will recognize this difference between the 2 cases. While you correctly identify a formal censure by Congress of Trump as an option to impeachment, I believe that you have not adequately explained that Trump's actions are truly against our Constitution and warrants a response by Congress stronger than censure. That is your right to do so. The irony here is that Trump's many tirades against a free press could ultimately strip you of your right to express anti-Trump opinions. If you knew that would happen, would you still feel that censure is a strong enough response to Trump's actions?
3
Thereisnot equivalence between the behavior and action of Clinton and Trump. Clinton’s was personal failing but how did it compromise the security of the nation? How did it compromise his oath of office to the country? It did not generate an executive branch of government not only devoid of leadership but lacking the ability to function. The defections and firings have demolished this branch of government so the “deconstruction” aspired to by Bannon at the beginning of this administration is nearing completion. It’s Nero and Rome. Soon we will be sifting through the ashes and asking what happened. This is what happens when there are not enough good men and women willing to do what’s needed.
3
How about Trump's future and the Nixon Precedent as a more useful comparison.
As I recall, the weight of disapproval towards Nixon resembled, to borrow a common phrase, a slow train wreck. Nixon was guilty before any but a few knew he had done anything. Doesn't that sound more familiar. Curiously, if my memory is reasonably correct, Nixon's downfall was the result of those around him being forced or encouraged to recognize that they could either testify or go down with the Nixon ship. And, there were those, that finally decided that Nixon's crimes were too much to cover-up.
There are other potential similarities, such as Nixon's original refusal to surrender the tapes that detailed his criminal efforts and crimes and Trump perhaps refusing to surrender telephone transcripts.
I'm not trying to suggest that Clinton was a saint, but I am suggesting that events from my perspective more mirror those of Nixon than Clinton. I don't imagine Trump arguing the meaning of "is."
Finally, rather than considering the danger of trying to impeach and remove Trump from office (and the relative likelihood that will occur). We should consider the danger of not trying to remove him from office.
4
The article attempts to create a parallelism between two impeachments - Clinton & Trump. The argument is pretty weak. It is even weaker trying to indirectly create an equivalency between conservative and liberal thinking of similar times. Based on the current state of affairs, it is reasonable to assume that conservative politicians in America are now simply nationalists. I see many conservatives, at least in public life, helping themselves above anything else. Trump & the GOP/Republican politicians make the case- party and power above country and Constitution.
4
In 1998 Newt said he was pushing impeachment because “he can” and 2019 where Nancy Pelosi who has resisted impeachment for over a year is pursuing it because she “has to”. Big difference.
And while I take the point that impeachment is what congress says it is and therefor it is a judgement call for the magnitude of the crime to fit the social disruption impeachment will bring, the magnitude of the crimes here are vastly different from Clinton’s.
There is a HUGE difference between lying to the FBI about having extra marital sex in the WH and using the power of the US government to force a foreign government to investigate your political rival.
I also find it interesting that many Republicans use the 1998 impeachment endeavor as an ominous warning to Democrats of their folly over and over. But they NEVER harken back to the Nixon impeachment experience as an analogy.
Mistaken historical analogies are always dangerous (generals always fighting the last war) but the Nixon experience is much closer to today’s impeachment issues (when the economy was also doing well) then 1998. Is that why conservatives never bring 1974 up as an analogy?
And Brett, unlike you, I have lived as an adult, through both.
10
The Republicans won the 2000 election and maintained control of Congress. I don’t understand what you’re talking about!
2
Mr. Stephens, focus please. Ex-president, Bill Clinton, is not the issue in 2019. The issue now is the corruption of President Donald J. Trump. The issue is whether or not Trumps' degree of corruption will damage the American form of democracy. Trump will be impeached by the House of Representatives. The evidence is simply to clear to be avoided or spun. The issue is not whether there is a danger of political overreach by Democrats; it is whether or not abuse of power by the president Trump is sufficient to remove him from office.
4
Let’s remember that Democrats had no problem criticizing Clinton and decrying his behavior while opposing the impeachment. Move On is still with us.
Republicans seem to have no analogous response. Except for a few like Mitt Romney, the silence has been deafening.
5
As others are pointing out Clinton's dalliance was a different affair from the current situation. His was a moral failure, not a public betrayal of office. More important in this case is Republican control of the Senate. No one expects impeacment will succeed. They expect partisan rejection despite the crime. The Republican failure to criticize the President or condemn his action will condemn the party. The House impeachment vote will succeed in its failure.
3
How can you equate the two senarios. If Clinton had gone on to have another affair with another intern, how would the country's electoral process be compromised? If this President remains in office how can we be sure he won't reach out to another country to "rig to system?" Unfortunately I feel we are on the precipice of a decline that we may never recover. I am disappointed in Mr. Stephen's nonchalance.
2
While I agree with readers criticism of this piece as a false equivalency of the misdeeds of Mr. Clinton and Mr.Trump, there is a lot of similarities. But like most people, including me- I misread the backlash against the R’s. The Atlantic did an interesting analysis of what really happened to R’s after The impeachment affair, they lost only 6 seats directly to the impeachment and the mood of the country was toxic for Mr. Gore’s election. Also- going into impeachment Mr. Clinton’s approval rating were much higher than Mr. Trumps. I think people are much more open right now to an inquiry and then possible impeachment. It would not be overwhelmingly popular, but in the end, it will kill Mr. Trumps re-election hopes. Mr. Trump’s antics are just too much for people to take.
2
We really invest way too much in our Presidents. Get rid of Trump. Welcome president Pence (or president Pelosi if current trends continue). What would have been wrong if Clinton stepped aside and Al Gore became president?
We need to look at our presidents as CEO’s who are subject to rigorous oversight by the board of directors, I.e. congress. Another good move would be to get rid of the office of legal council rule that says a president cannot be indicted. Much better to have a legitimate, autonomous DOJ investigate the president for criminality than Congress.
The president has become imbued with way too much power. Congress has to take back the power that the constitution gave them.
Presidents should simply be more disposable.
2
@Jonathan Sanders
Jonathan, you lay out maybe the number one reason that Republicans should go along with impeachment: the longer Trump stays in office, the more VP Pence gets ensnared in his impeachable offences. Witness the Doonbeg affair. Now this. It's getting harder and harder for Pence to stay above the fray.
Trump's a fool but he's a cagey one. He knows his party will never remove him from office if Pence has to go too because he got wrapped up in the same offences. If Trump AND Pence go, who's next up? (President Pelosi alliterates nicely don't you think?) That's why Trump ordered Pence to stay at Doonbeg in violation of the emoluments clause.
Though it is tempting, it is usually a mistake to draw analogies between past and current events. Remember the analogy that President Johnson's advisers drew between the British backdown at Munich and the domino theory that motivated the U.S. to intervene in Viet-Nam. So forget about Clinton. He wasn't our best president, nor our worst.
Trump must be evaluated on his own terms and in the context of current events. Observers, such as Bret Stephens and David Brooks, argue that we shouldn't impeach. The next election is only a year away and we can allow the voters to decide whether Trump has been a good enough president who should be re-elected. But many observers, including Stephens and Brooks, believe that President Trump is a troubled soul who shouldn't be allowed to be the principal of a school, let alone the president of the United States. He lies continuously, he slanders his opponents, he has committed treasonable acts, he favors his own interests over those of the American people.
We should not wait another week, let alone another year to permit Trump to remain in office, especially now that he has gotten rid of minders like Generals Kelly, McMaster, and Secretary Tillerson. At least Nixon retained his minders till the end, Kissinger and James Schlesinger.
Each week brings new revelations and outrages. What will the Times and the Post report on Monday?
2
I think this author's perspective is heavily colored by their own viewpoint. while he may have found Clinton's behavior disturbing to the point of impeachment, I don't think most Americans really cared, so they viewed the basis of the impeachment as rather frivolous from the start. in trumps case, the allegations are serious, and can have major consequences that affect national and world politics, and those who try to downplay the investigation as a Witch Hunt part II are really ignoring some basic facts in favor of their partisan lean.
3
Trump was unfit from the beginning and has never understood the difference between running a business and governing a large nation-state. The people need to put limits on what a President can and can not do, otherwise a precedent is set that is deeply troubling. Trump was thrown up and out of the polity the same way Ventura and the Terminator were in Minnesota and California and, eventually, their lack of experience in governing did them in. Clinton knew how to govern and the unfortunate adolescent affair destroyed the last part of his presidency and, more importantly, caused enough shift from Democrats to prevent Al Gore from becoming president. So, there were consequences. Trump needs to have the lines drawn tightly around him. Congress and the people are the ones to do it. You have to proceed carefully though because the partisanship can get in the way of the need to control him.
@David
"...enough shift from Democrats to prevent Al Gore from becoming president."
Gore won the vote. The Electoral College prevented him from being President.
@Thucydides it should never have been a contest--had Clinton, who won a mandate against Dole, governed as effectively as he had from 95 onward, continued to govern effectively without the distraction and disgrace of the scandal, with the state of the union being so good at the time, he would have easily handed the presidency over to Gore. Clinton blew it in a manner of speaking.
I was a republican in 98 and felt as though the Republicans were doggedly setting traps to snare Clinton. The whole Monica Lewinsky basis for impeachment felt like an overreach. Whether you liked his policies or not, Clinton was a respectable statesman carrying out the country's business. What we have now is quite a different animal. Partisanship has reached levels never before seen in this country, and yet, the Dems have been v e r y s l o w to act in the face of undeniable obstruction and self dealing by this con man who has forever sullied the Republican party. The Republicans would be MUCH better served by joining the Democratic effort to remove him and blot him from memory as quickly as possible.
6
Your commentary and those of others ask the wrong questions. If the Senate fails to remove Trump from office, does anyone really think that he will say "I'm sorry and I promise to be a Boy Scout for the rest of my term". Of course not. He almost certainly will interpret the acquittal as a green light to pursue any means necessary to smear his political enemies.
Moreover, should a Democrat win the presidency in 2020, that President could rely on the Trump precedent and use spurious accusations to launch investigations against GOP members of Congress. And for those who think that this is unlikely, they should remember that revenge is a very powerful motivator.
4
Sex between willing adults is not the same thing as forcing an ally to create a scandal about a political opponent by holding military aid hostage.
That is the primary difficulty with the Republican position.
Jaywalking is not equivalent to arson.
8
I agree with all that say it's a false equivalence between Clinton and Trump. One point I don't see mentioned in the comments and certainly not in Stephen's article, is that the Republicans portrayed themselves as the party of family values and were shocked, shocked by Clinton's behavior.
Then details came out about Gingrich's affair. As I remember he was replaced by a guy named Livingston and details came out about his affair and he was gone soon after, but the Republicans' hypocrisy took the wind out of their sails. Clinton was lucky in his enemies.
6
@Steve
"Then details came out about Gingrich's affair. As I remember he was replaced by a guy named Livingston and details came out about his affair and he was gone soon after, but the Republicans' hypocrisy took the wind out of their sails. Clinton was lucky in his enemies"
Gingrich down, Livingston down, for their affairs. Wait, here comes Dennis Hastert who became Speaker. Dennis Hastert, the author of the "Hastert rule" etc. Dennis Hastert, blackmailed successfully for a homosexual relationship he had when he was a wrestling coach. Dennis Hastert, as a wrestling coach arranged his locker room chair to observe his wrestlers take a shower. No, let's not forget Dennis Hastert, the successor to Gingrich and Livingston. I guess Paul Ryan was the exception for not disgracing his reign as Speaker.
I did not like Bill Clinton and did not vote for him. However, the Clinton impeachment was an obvious and primarily political maneuver to drive a stake in the heart of the Democratic Party by Newt Gingrich and a new breed of uncompromising conservatives. Trump has created a constitutional crisis that goes to the heart of our constitution and democracy. The mainstream media's characterization of this as a fight between parties is a disservice to the USA.
8
Censure the President for inviting foreign interference in our election? For placing himself under obligation to foreign countries that do him personal favors?
The dangerous truth is that were he not President, Trump could never qualify for a security clearance. Not even close. The sooner he is gone, the better. And the safer we will all be.
7
The comparison to Clinton is another "false equivalency." The correct comparison is to Nixon.
Nixon and Trump both used the power of the Presidency for personal gain over national best interest. While Clinton used poor judgement in his personal life he never chose self over country.
Compare to Bush 2. He falsified intelligence to justify invading Iraq. The result was a hot war that cost thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, trillions of dollars, and created a home for ISIS. Poor judgement notwithstanding, it was ostensibly in support of our national interest, not for personal gain.
Pelosi was correct in rejecting calls for impeachment when the issues were policy differences and demeanor complaints. But now, Trump has been shown to choose personal interest over national interest, and it's a game-changer.
7
Stephens believes that Trump's inveterate corruption, of which the Ukraine extortion is only the most brazen instance, does not rise to an impeachable offense. His only reasoning is his vague sense of the "mood" of the people and Trump's current "lockstep" GOP support. It's an argument likely to be relegated to the digital wastebasket, where it belongs, as quickly as rapidly changing public opinion moves further toward recognition of what Trump has done. But more importantly, it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the place of impeachment in the Constitution and the founders' thinking about the perils of democratic governance. Impeachment was never intended as reflection of popular opinion. It was the founders' fail-safe measure against the possible rise of a demagogic tyrant willing to flout the law and the Constitution, ally himself with foreign powers, and play upon the ignorance and resentments of "the mob" with lies and deceptions to secure and exercise despotic power. Trump is the demagogic tyrant the founders feared. Impeachment is their remedy to the defects in democracy Trump has exploited. It is not a populist remedy. It is nakedly "elitist," except for the stipulation that it be conducted by the people's elected representatives. Impeachment is a mechanism for the nation's leaders, in a time of crisis, to lead rather than follow to save our democracy from itself. It's meant to prevent a lawless demagogue such as Trump from getting anywhere near an election.
9
I am an independent that leans toward liberal. I thought Clinton should have resigned and voted for Bob Dole because I thought he was a honorable man.
I was hoping for just what you said about resistance to Trump by republicans and a primary challenger but that’s not happening.
As bad as Clinton was Trump is a real threat and his actions are beyond the pale.
Clinton may not have been thrown out but lead to the Republican dominance we have know.
1
Perhaps you’d care to rethink your opening assertion about private virtue and public probity in light of the fact that the house at the time of the impeachment was led by Gingrich, who has twice left ailing wives for healthier mistresses (gesundheit, Callisto) who was then succeeded by Hastert, about whose crimes the less said the better. These claims of personal morality as being a strong point of conservative leaders was dubious at the time and are frankly risible now. If you can’t be honest about the past in retrospect, why should anyone take seriously your assessment of the present in the moment?
15
Other commenters have stated it well, Bret Stevens is "trading in false equivalency." Again.
I too, would like to see Mitt Romney challenge Trump for the nomination, but various States have already cancelled Republican primary elections -- I suspect that may disrupt the effort. Is the POTUS involved with this too? (Note to Whistleblowers).
While Bret's call: "Mitt Romney, the moment could yet be yours" may be the right thing to do, would anyone be surprised that Mitt may be concerned the Donald will instigate international investigations into his background? After all, his consiglieres, Guglielmo Barr and Rudolfo Giuliani, are certainly more than willing to look into the matter.
4
Notice that Stephens does not even bother with the charges leveled at Trump but rather resorts to a false analogy and equivalence,
If Obama had asked foreign governments to investigate Romney, Stephens would be the loudest voice for impeachment.
Columns like this make one question his qualifications.
14
President Clinton did not tell the truth when asked about an unrelated matter in a civil lawsuit. He was impeached, tried in the Senate, and acquitted. In the next election Republicans used Clinton’s impeachment against the Democrats and won a close race (and learned a valuable lesson about stacking the courts with Conservative judges, I would argue.).
The process played out exactly as Gingrich (when he wasn’t with his mistress) and Republicans had planned.
Today the circumstances are remarkably similar (even worse, one could argue) and yet, to Republicans, it’s a mistake. Weird, isn’t it?
2
Lying about oral sex vs violating the emoluments clause, soliciting foreign intervention, funding Saudi genocide in Yemen...yup, they pretty much cancel each other out
16
What a horrible comparison but not surprising. It’s hard to tell if conservatives are willfully ignorant or just plain clueless?
9
I am a liberal Democrat who criticized Clinton's inappropriate behavior, but his misdeeds were minuscule compared to the corrupt tyrant who is in living the White House today. Trump is sucking the life out of our Constitution and destroying our democratic republic.
13
This column seems to have been written to say that Clinton was was bad as Trump.
What absolute, utter, blind, idiocy.
20
@Eric apparently Bret is only the ghost writer someone else speaks through his ink.
Toward the end of his piece, Stephens talks about a "moral scale of judgment" that provides several alternatives short of impeachment for morally squishy Republicans. He seems unable, though, to employ such a scale when comparing Presidents Trump and Clinton. Bill Clinton was certainly morally compromised, to say the least, but are we really to believe that Clinton and Trump are equivalent evils? Did Bill Clinton. like Trump, threaten to take down our democracy and undo all of the civic norms and conventions that keep it healthy and intact? Analogies and comparisons are only instructive when you are able to articulate their limits.
610
@Arthur Miller
Agreed! Comparisons never work. Ultimately they prove to be fallible.
Just deal with the issues at hand. Where basics of patriotism and morals are clearly obvious and in question, like Nixon’s, comparisons become a matter of judging how sinful the accused has been, is he a small sinner or a big sinner? That’s when Clinton was judged , well, not so bad.
But Trump looks like one of the really big sinners.
I despise becoming judge and jury but there are times there is no other choice.
16
@Arthur Miller Trump is the man of 10,000 lies. This is not an isolated incident.
14
@Arthur Miller
Correct: Not to say that one can guess than any politician might have dirt on their hands, this is an outrageously false equivalence. It is the way a slick lawyer would lay out the case. There is dirt, and there is covered in mud.
However laundry lists of of verbal equivalences will make up exactly the type of case that will be thrown into the kinds of debates that people have in this country and these days given the sorts of constraints that operate in the mass media.
So it is handy to have Stephens lay it out for reader's to think over. So I like it in that respect.
I am neither for or against impeachment. IN PRINCIPLE I like the idea of a vote of censure instead. As a practical matter however, I think the investigations to explore impeachment will be important. They seem to be the ONLY way to disclose all the irregularities that Trump is up to behind the scenes.
His earlier business practices and dealings are relevant here as well. He and Kushner brought a lot of baggage into office with him and while much of it is already public knowledge there is much that may be relevant that he has worked hard to keep the voters from knowing in full detail and that we have a right to know.
Trump is using or abusing the power of the office to try avoid necessary uncovering and disclosures of information. Given that, how are we to get the facts without an impeachment investigation?
13
I’m looking for the admission that Clinton’s impeachment was wrong because....he did not commit an impeachable offense. He had a tryst with a 23 year old intern, then lied about it under oath. I didn’t care then, just as I don’t care about Trump’s tryst with Stormy. Stephens is delusional because he can’t see that these Clinton’s and Trump’s impeachment stories are different. The modern Republican Party was born in the 90s with Gingrich and 24-hour news and Rush Limbaugh. They were hysterical and wrong then with their crazed pursuit of Clinton, and they are hysterical and wrong today with their crazed defense of a president who has clearly abused the power of the the office by twisting the arm of a third rate ally for his personal political gain. What is the common thread in both situations? Let’s see...a hysterical, wrong, crazed Republican Party (Jim jefferies, i’m looking at you! ) fueled by right wing media zealots.
13
I agree with many of the other contributors. The comparison between Clinton and Trump is false. Indeed it is an exercise in False equivalency!!!
7
"shameful abuse of his foreign-policy powers for the sake of political gain. (Remember the U.S. attack on that pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, destroyed on the basis of dodgy intelligence just days after the Lewinsky admission?)" Actually, I don't remember that attack. And neither, apparently, did the Republicans who impeached Clinton, because it was nowhere in the Articles of Impeachment. So, do tell, why do you mention it as if it were?
4
@Colby Hawkins Of course, the reason you mention it is to make the Clinton impeachment appear more legitimate than it was. The truth is, all the GOP had on Clinton was lying and coverup about sex with an intern. It will always be the most ridiculous impeachment the US has ever experienced. The real abuse of power was the impeachment itself.
From my bird’s eye view I see a Republican Party whose partisan pathology has worsened since the 90s. It’s so bad they don’t even know how to govern anymore. The last great Republican President was Ike. They don’t know how to play fair, either. It’s the party of ignorant old white men who have no business having as much power as they do because they have absolutely no interest in the common good. Like Trump, they would rather rule by autocratic means than govern by democratic means.
So when I comes to impeachment, there really is no equivalency. The Republicans have done nothing for the Average American for decades except wrangling the most ignorant and uneducated among us to turn on each other. They must feel so proud.
6
Clinton's extramarital affair was a private matter and grounds for divorce not impeachment. Witholding congressionally approved aide to a foreign goverment in an apparent quid pro quo relationship is extortion. I generally support Mr. Stephens sensible comments that refute liberal prolifigecy. Not this time.
2
Trump’s henchman (unfortunately far too many Republican congressmen) like Nixon’s refuse to acknowledge his wrongdoing at the level of impeachable offenses. Some conservatives who worked for Nixon, such as Pat Buchanan and G. Gordon Liddy, castigated “Deep Throat” (Mark Felt of the FBI) and asserted their belief that Nixon was unfairly hounded from office. Trump congressmen and agency appointees are taking the same position about the whistleblower and are sure to end up on the wrong side of history.
2
Wouldn't Bret Stephens be happier writing for the Wall Street Journal? "Right-wing radio was then about as influential as left-wing Twitter is today"? Rather strained false equivalence again.
3
Turned out to be a typical opinion piece from Bret.
The Title 'Trump's Future and the Clinton Precedent' implies, at least to me, it would be about Trump and what he has done relative to what Clinton did but it was not to be. Turns out it was a typical Bret piece bashing Clinton and the Democrats.
2
These conservative pundits will go to any length including false equivalencies to fain hypocrisy. The magnitude of the crimes does matter. I don’t think sex with an intern, although despicable behavior, rises to the level of an impeachable offense. Seeking the aid of foreign governments to undermine a potential political rival and inviting their interference in our elections, among other crimes, certainly does. We also have a current president who has weaponized the entire government in doing his bidding. Clinton never did such.
I also take issue with the notion that Democrats were OK with Clinton's behavior. Even Vice President Gore came out in opposition to his offenses. Most of the electorate simply didn’t believe his offense was impeachable. Trump’s offenses are!
Do you truly believe that republicans, even after thier overstep with Clinton, would have stood idly by while a democratic president behaved in this manner today? I think you know the answer to that.
4
I'm no Clinton fan. The long arch of Clinton history brought us Trump in the first place. However, I think its important to highlight what Trump's impeachment is not. Trump isn't lying to Congress about an innocuous, if inappropriate, sexual relationship. He did that too. See Stormy Daniels. The crime was the FEC violation, not the affair. However, that's not Trump's primary offense.
Trump is willfully interfering in our election process. In a word, Trump is cheating. Clinton was manipulative and deceptive and dishonest. However, he never went before the public with an argument reading "cheating is okay when I do it." That's essentially Trump's only defense. The best defense is apparently an impeachable offense.
I personally think Trump should be tried, convicted, and removed. What is sacred if not the fairness and legitimacy of our elections? However, I can be reasonable. I would accept censure and resignation. Republicans should force Trump to publicly announce he will not seek re-election due to official misconduct. That seems like a fair compromise.
However, we're talking about Trump here. He's about as graceful as an elephant on marbles. He's not going to give up the White House willingly. Not least of all because he faces a veritable mountain of legal liability on the other side. No. Republicans are going to have to force him out one way or the other. I agree. Romney is the key here. He's the lynch pin. I've already written him a letter. Have you?
4
I don't hate Donald Trump. I pity him. Hate is what, apparently, has motivated Republicans since the New Deal. Don't ascribe your petty motives to those you refuse to understand.
I checked out at "left wing Twitter," as if Trump's situation can be pinned on a social media platform.
2
The Great Advantage House Democrats in 2019 have over the Clinton hating GOP back in the day is that Donald Trump can’t seem to keep his mouth shut. Rep Schiff had put the Impeachment process in jeopardy with his views about what was said in the Whistleblower phone transcript and then the President doubled down with another meltdown out on the White House Lawn. The result has put the GOP in position where defending Trump in the House & Senate might put them at risk in 2020. Clinton was smart enough to lawyer up & keep quiet & sound bites to a minimum. President Trump’s “Bully” persona worked on the campaign trail but it’s the shovel that’s digging his own grave right now. I wonder if there’s anyone on his staff that can get him to stand down. It doesn’t look like it.
1
Mr. Stephens gets it wrong, at least on one count.
What Mr. Clinton did had no political bearings relative to the Constitution or global affairs. Impeachment was an over-reach.
What Mr. Trump has apparently done, and admitted to, is a breach of the Constitution, which he repeated in asking China to do the same as he’d asked the Ukraine.
Both men were/are foolish. Trump is dangerous.
4
I didn't vote for Clinton nor did I vote for Trump.
That said, Clinton didn't commit treason Trump has.
2
Don't hold your breath, Bret, concerning Mitt Romney. You may have forgotten the Etch-a-Sketch candidate of 2012 who, at a moments notice, could become something totally different than he was before. Or maybe you've forgotten the pathetic picture of Mitt sitting at a private dinner with the Donald as Trump tortured him with the false promise of a job as Secretary of State. Mitt's mild rebukes of Trump's behavior are his way of attempting to keep himself positioned as a dark horse candidate in case Trump would actually get removed from office before the Republican Convention.
3
I don’t see any moral or practical equivalence between Clinton and Trump.
Clinton, despite his sexual peccadilloes, was a brilliant scholar, an uber-educated man with a practical sense of what was politically possible.
The impeachment against him was a travesty, but still an amusing one when Chief Justice Rehnquist showed up in a costume straight out of a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta.
Trump, although I actually do agree with some of his broad policies, doesn’t have enough adjectives in the dictionary to describe his psychotic personality.
The impeachment inquiry for him is long overdue.
2
I'm fed-up of reading justifications for Trump's flagrant violations of his oath and acts of treason because unemployment is low and the economy is good. Either the Constitution is enforced or we have no Republic. The economy has nothing to do with it. Moreover, if America is going to coddle a fascist tyrant who is destroying the pillars of our democratic form of Government, there will be a lot less economic prosperity in the future. Follow the law, it's not difficult. The man deserves impeachment and removal.
6
The difference between trump and Clinton both being rogues is that Clinton had and intellectual cunning while this president only knows bullying.
Yes, the similarity is that both richly deserve to be "impeached." Clinton did not deserve to be convicted. He had an extra-marital affair. And he wasn't convicted.
Trump is not only guilty of a "presidential" (abuse of power, political") crime and deserves to be impeached AND CONVICTED for that... He has indeed committed that crime again. (China). And he has essentially admitted to committing both of those criminal acts. Being President means that you follow the law.
All in all, more false equivalency/propaganda from so-called "conservatives."
And I have to wonder: What exactly is "conservative" about Trump, whose aim is mainly destruction? That sounds more like a "radical" approach to government, and subversive. What about Trump is conservative? He "conserves" nothing. He has no appreciation for history or the status quo. He does exactly what pleases him, and little else. he has no dignity and no shame.
And this ugly and deceitful law breaker is the standard bearer for the "conservative" cause?
Yup, if Mitt Romney is instrumental in removing Donald Trump; I will be voting Mitt in 2020.
In 2012, of course there was no chance that I would have voted Mitt. BO was way superior sitting president. But 2020 Dem Field is useless unless Buttigieg, Cory (turning to Centrism), Kloubacher and Bennet get their act together. Top rug of Dem field is a spent force - Biden buried by Trump, Sanders with failing health (and I never approved his Socialism anyway), Warren scarring all business people, Harris still getting her Health Care right.....what a useless slate of candidates.
So yes, Mitt has a great chance if he becomes the giant killer like Michael Heseltine (true, Trump is nowhere near Thatcher). I will vote for him. I need to see what 'killing political instinct' he shows here. Last time his instincts failed, ask Megyn Kelly of Fox News then; circa 2012.
"I was for impeachment at the time. What a misjudgment that turned out to be."
So now that the shoe is on the other foot, your ethical standards have changed.
How quintessentially Republican.
As a person who doggedly believes in her ethics, I thank you for this column. Partisanship and situational ethics are the scourge of our current era. It’s all about the win, with little regard about what it is you are winning.
Would you leave Trump at your job for the day and let him be the steward of your career, even for an hour? Would you enjoy a conversation with him on a topic of emotional importance to you? Would you trust him with your impressionable children? Would you hire him? Would you eat a meal with him?
I’d dare say no to all of those stupid, unrealistic scenarios. I ask them, though, to illustrate the depth of Trump’s narcissism, ineptitude, and immoral nature.
He has now demonstrated that American foreign policy has repeatedly been weaponized for his personal use. Let’s not forget all the other questionable foreign policy blunders. At this point, we need to take the keys to the car, because padre can’t drive.
History will not be kind to the Republican Party, and I don’t believe neither will voters, unless someone like Romney steps up. The outrage that has happened to our country, from small cultural micro-aggressions all the way to the growing list of probable crimes, Trumps legacy will be civil and criminal litigation for the next decade.
And as those detail trickle in, voters will be watching. And in some not distant future, voters will weigh details of those crimes against someone sane.
...and it will destroy the GOP.
The alarm is ringing. Loudly.
1
Bill Clinton was a highly intelligent Rhodes scholar who served as a State Attorney General and Governor for multiple terms and had a deep understanding of public policy and public society.
Donald Trump was President of Trump University, a career grifter with a strong record of lying, cheating and tax-dodging for a living who has no idea how to help the public because he's so busy helping himself.
Clinton raised taxes and made the economy flourish while balancing the budget.
Trump cut taxes for billionaires and his businesses, is causing a tariff recession and has exacerbated America's record income inequality while blowing up the deficit like a drunken Republican sailor.
The only similarity between the two men is that they're both lechers, for which the Republicans decided to impeach Clinton.
Trump's entire Presidency, on the other hand, is an impeachable offense; he governs only for the Americans who voted for them....(while simultaneously ripping them off), his words are a combination of salad, lies and spite, and his campaign managers are mostly foreign citizens.
Trump is also uniquely and broadly reviled by Americans because of of his lack of dignity, his ignorance, his wretched character and the fact that most Americans view him as fake, fraud and a phony and public safety threat.
False equivalence is the bread and butter of Grand Old Propagandists.
It would be nice if Bret Stephens took off his embarrassing Republican hat that continues to cloud his judgment.
8
This is such a transparently false equivalency Mr. Stephens. You conveniently omit Trump’s 16,000 lies to date, the glee with which Mr. Trump governs the country for his base and spites all others, the rampant incompetence with which Trump manages the business of government and recruitment of senior government staff, and the casual way in which Mr. Trump breaks all norms, rules, and laws applying to the chief of the executive branch.
Conservatives who try to equate Trump with any other President do themselves and their position a disservice. Trump has an awful lot to answer for, and his supporters have even more.
A false equivalency if ever there was one. Clinton, flaws notwithstanding, was respected around the world. Citizens of other countries joked that the US was damaging his good presidency over a wrongful sexual affair. Liberal pundits and allies in the US denounced him. (Newt the Speaker denounced him in between his own daily dalliances with a woman not his wife.) Clinton wanted to govern; knew how to govern; was able to govern even in the face of a hostile Congress. Trump is a corrupt, criminal, grifting narcissist. Clinton also ( unlike Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, Cheney, et als) testified under oath — as has his wife, a half dozen times. You would like us to forget, mr. Stephens, that nearly all in Trump’s inner circle have either been convicted or indicted for lying about all things Russia. His son and son-in-law have also demonstrably and admittedly lied. Trump deserves impeachment; Clinton did not. A great many people would not admit voting for trump; most of those people may not admit now wanting to see him go down, but they do. Clinton’s impeachment did not materially obstruct his governance; here’s hoping that Trump’s does.
3
Your last paragraphs were great, @Bret Stephens, but I was disappointed to seeing you indulge in the kind of "false equivalency" you usually deplore. Clinton acted like a jerk in his personal life and lied about it -- but Trump is actively undermining our country's foreign policy goals and ideals. There is really nno comparison.
1
O, please! Stephens is back to his false equivalencies and good/bad people on both sides. I thought he graduated from that school.
The Republicans desecrated the impeachment process during the Lewinsky Affair. Trump desecrates everything he touches.
“Some of the people all of the time.”
If one were to offer a master class in false equivalence, this column would be a great place to start. Trump blew past shady real estate deals and sexual infidelities decades ago (before Clinton, in fact). He is a serial liar who has deliberately undermined the functions of government. He is a white supremacist par excellence. Now he openly flaunts his illegal attempts to secure foreign interference in US elections. The rule of law is going up in flames and Stephens is making a point about how the Democrats should be nicer or some such nonsense. I find myself not just rejecting his advice but regretting having listened to it in the past.
2