Trump's call to Zelensky the day after the Special Investigator's testimony shows that he was emboldened by the misinterpretation of the Mueller Report. I fear his reaction to acquittal by Republicans.
22
Douthat's column along with the opening 'arguments' of POTUS's defense team conclusively demonstrate there is no defense in the face of the case put forward by House Impeachment Managers based on numerous FACT witnesses so they offer a litany of obfuscation and misdirection interspersed with desk pounding.
11
Who would have guessed that it would be so easy for an authoritarian figure to destroy the country?
This has been a slow motion coup especially since Reagan start with the tax cuts and Voodoo economy known as Trickledown or reaganomics.
Reagan knew that people trusted him, and his betrayal of trust was the beginning of the end.
Senate Republicans are happy to enable Trump now by doing nothing to stop him.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”― Edmund Burke (in a letter addressed to Thomas Mercer).
19
That other Congresses decided not to impeach other presidents is not a strong argument that Trump's impeachment is extraordinary (or as Trump's lawyer's put it, unconstitutional). In the criminal law this comes down to a prosecutor's discretion, and a prosecutor's decision to charge or not charge a crime is generally not subject to challenge. Similarly, that one Congress chose to overlook a transgression does not mean the current or future Congress has to.
8
This nation attempted to rid itself, of the "IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY," in 1976, with the election of Jimmy Carter. Four year later, Dutch Reagan's swagger, his vision of Morning in America, and the confusion of deciphering between jingoism, and patriotism, brought that experiment to an end.
11
I look forward to reading Mr. Douthat’s defense of trump when the square peg in the Oval Office is no longer President and ranked last on the presidential historians’ list.
11
Trump was investigating corruption in Ukraine before Biden announced he was running. Ukraine has a habit of pocketing aid dollars which is why the IMF has withheld aid to it. The Brits tried to prosecute the head of Burisma , Hunter Biden's firm for money laundering but couldn't get ukraine to provide documents. The head of Burisma fled Ukraine and only rreturned when prosecutor Shokin, who was fighting corruption, was fired . Biden got Shokin fired by saying that Ukraine wouldnt get a billion in aid unless Shokin was fired. Burisma's leader stole billions in aid money and some of it ended up in Hunter's investment firm.Trump has withheld aid to over 20 countries because of corruption and other issues . Trump didn't withhold aid to Ukraine since they got it before Sept 30.Trump has a mandate to make sure taxpayer dollars aren't stolen . Obama gave Ukraine $0 in military aid . Biden's son also got a 1.5 billion dollar deal with the Chinese government and Biden's brother got a deal to build 150.000 houses in Iraq. Do you want a president whose decisions will be corrupted by the financial interests of his family ? Trump made his money in the private sector not by crony fascism like Biden , Feinstein and Pelosi.
In the Zelensky call, Trump pointed out that Zelensky was surrounding himself with corrupt oligarchs. Trump also wanted to find out about the DNC server hack since the DNC refused to have the FBI examine it an Crowdstrike is a Ukrainian company.
3
NY Times - these are assertions of fact that are demonstrably false, not opinions, yet you choose to publish them with no rebuttal? Are you adding to the disinformation campaign?
18
One big difference is a point that Blackman overlooks. Trump violated the law when he withheld military assistance. Assistance, no less, to an ally under attack by Russia. In addition, he did it for venal reasons. He removed the Ambassador, in part, we now know, to allow cronies to pursue deals in Ukraine. He based his decision on fantasy. This is a far cry from appointing an Attorney General with the advice and consent of the Senate to induce his father to resign, which was not actually required but reflects an old-fashioned view of propriety.
6
I think the danger with Trump is that his supporters seem to be so uncritical of anything he does. As Trump put it, he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and it wouldn't matter. Mistakes (impeachable or not) of other presidents always resulted in some loss of public support. Not so with Trump. If Republican voters started acting like normal citizens of a democracy, we wouldn't need to turn to impeachment to hold him accountable for his misdeeds.
17
This is not normal.
Liberals should tangibly explain the “why” to us.
Why are they consumed with these unending efforts to remove President Trump?
“ Psychologist Bernard Golden, author of Overcoming Destructive Anger - Strategies That Work, describes hatred of individuals or groups as a way of distracting oneself from the more challenging and anxiety-provoking task of creating one’s own identity:
"Acts of hate are attempts to distract oneself from feelings such as helplessness, powerlessness, injustice, inadequacy and shame. Hate is grounded in some sense of perceived threat. It is an attitude that can give rise to hostility and aggression toward individuals or groups. Like much of anger, it is a reaction to and distraction from some form of inner pain. The individual consumed by hate may believe that the only way to regain some sense of power over his or her pain is to preemptively strike out at others. In this context, each moment of hate is a temporary reprieve from inner suffering."
1
If only the voters wishes were actually instituted post-election, then it may seem a reasonable argument. It also subsumes the role of the Congress in it’s decision to pursue impeachment. Elections ought to matter, but we have that archaic Electoral College that decides the winner and the electors aren’t bound by a duty to vote in accordance with the will of the people. That is not a functional democracy, it’s a farce.
It is the duty of Congress to provide a check on a president who thinks he is above the law. Sure the timing looks bad, but when are we not in election mode in this country. It doesn’t matter that an election is forthcoming, what matters is the ability to hold a president accountable WHEN he crosses the line. IMHO, Trump should never have been seated in the presidency in the first place. The majority of Americans voted for his opponent!
9
Mussolini would recognize the red hats as a variation of his black shirts.
8
@mlbex
The red hats are equivalent to a red, white and black armband. They already have 2/3 of it.
4
@mlbex
What about the pink hats?
“it’s been apparent for a while that Trump doesn’t want to be an American Mussolini”
Have you any evidence on which to base that claim?
10
The presumption in this piece that Trump knows about or even cares about how government works or should work, that he is at all contemplative of the damage he is doing to our system, is what I find most galling about it. Why is any thoughtful person, which I will allow one to consider Mr. Douthat, writing something that makes any such presumptions? It's like someone visiting the zoo pretending that the residents of the monkey cage might be able to comment on experiments at the nuclear physics laboratory at the neighboring university. By the time people like Douthat figure out that Trump is indeed a complete moron the damage done will be almost entirely complete.
10
It may seem a trivial example but apparently it worked with Clinton. After the impeachment Clinton kept his equipment in his pants, at least until after Bush's inauguration.
Though I don't always agree with Douthat's political leanings, his columns are consistently thought-provoking and well-argued, this one being no exception. NYT Opinion's most valuable asset, I hope he's kept on for as long as possible.
3
You’re a Republican so you like to look for both sides, false parallel nonsense when every elected official in your party acts like a spineless accomplice to a criminal megalomaniac.
Sorry. JFK’s brother was far less of a stooge for his president than William Barr is. Jared and Ivanka are thoroughly unqualified and their role in Trump’s administration is far more shameful, corrupt and nepotistic. Impeachment is not a crime against election results. Elect rigging is.
15
LBJ would not have taken foreign policy advise from Lev Parnas.
14
Mealy-mouthed way to let Trump off the hook!
8
Ross, You have it backwards. Progressives understand what parts of the constitution should focus on the intent of the founders(e.g. Article 1,Section 2...impeachment) and which parts should take account of the changing times(e.g. the 2nd amendment....we're not using muskets anymore).The power to impeach goes back to the beginnings of western civilization, long before AR15s were invented.
4
Irrelevant, false high-brow commentary, as always. We life-long readers of the NY Times deserve a more compelling "conservative" voice of the right, to keep us balanced. And I know Burke, de Tocqueville, Kirk and Rossiter (& company), by heart. I always feel I need to stop after mid-way through the first paragraph, life is just way too short. As Baudelaire said (I believe quoting Lavater), "Dieu preserve ceux qu'il aime, des lectures inutiles."
4
To say Trump aspires to the corruption of LBJ is correct. As tapes now show, LBJ conspired with McNamara to concoct a story about the Gulf of Tonkin incident in order to galvanize support for escalating the Vietnam war. We see similar strains in Trump regarding Iran. Yet Trump is much more like Mussolini than you suspect. He has a Fascist Internationale of leaders around the world who disdain democracy and support each other. In that sense, Trump is a very dangerous leader who will probably concoct more reasons to go to war, not for geopolitical reasons but rather for reasons of personal interest and sustaining the Fascist Internationale.
3
The comparative political analysis of a president whose venality is his most identifiable characteristic, is ludicrous.
5
If the Impeachment Proceedings get to witnesses (four Republican votes needed) it could get a little dicey.
The Press will have a little more time to dig up something new. The actual transcript, or better yet, a recording may leak.
Trump is a major favorite to skate, but, its not over until its over.
1
If we must wait for an election to decide if the president should be ousted, then why the heck did the framers write impeachment into the Constitution?
Let me fill you in. Impeachment and removal were intended by the framers as a remedy to deal with a corrupt president *between* elections.
5
Question: so why are Republican members of the Senate planning not to call witnesses and acquit Donald Trump.
Answer: To protect themselves from having to apply for welfare benefits, unemployment compensation and food stamps.
7
The relevant comparison would be between Richard Nixon's lying and covering up of a burglary, which, when revealed, induced even this "not a crook" to resign, and the current liar in chief's attempting to undermine the military defense of a US ally by holding up $300,000,000 in military aid to get them to smear his political opponent. Can you honestly say that Nixon's offence to the constitution was worse than Trumps? The argument that standards rose after NIxon's resignation forcing Trump to be held to a higher standard is ludicrous.
6
There is no evidence that Trump shares LBJ's interest in the welfare of Americans. We can leave Mussolini aside. The point is that Donald Trump has NO interest or appreciation of the workings of government - except as they serve his self-aggrandizement. Everything is about himself: his power, his wealth, his Brand. The man is a snake oil salesman.
Certainly the maxim attributed to President Lincoln will prevail: " You can fool some of the People all of the time, and all of the People some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the People all of the time." If we fail that test, God help us.
12
Ross Douthat and Professor Blackman make the same mistake: the examples they both site are of domestic political tricks. Are these criminal acts? That's for a different discussion. Regardless, they are not cited in the Constitution. President Trump not only sought foreign interference in our election, he resorted to extortion in an attempt to get it. Our Constitution says that is wrong.
7
I think Ross Douthat makes many worthy points. If the Democrats had indicted Trump for a much larger number of high crimes and misdemeanors of which he is manifestly guilty - notably for his multiple violations of the emoluments clause - impeachment would have been a more incontrovertible, inarguable consequence. Where I part company is when he says that Trump isn't Mussolini. Oh no?!?! That's exactly the model - via Berlusconi. The fragile net of checks and balances is barely holding the line against a more obvious reenactment of Italian fascism here, but he really resents it that he can't go whole hog.
1
January 26, 2020
Trump Plan B impose Martial law - surely makes it easier for the voters.
3
Come on, Ross. You know that there is no defense for the indefensible. There is only cover-up, obfuscation, and process arguments delivered with authoritarian misrepresentations, false equivalencies, and outright lies.
7
The move towards impeachment is currently building towards a crescendo. It will result, ultimately, in the firing of a can of red, white and blue confetti streamers. At the end of the day, Democrats will have done their duty, Trump and McConnell will pat each other on the back, and Senators can go back to sleep. Speaker Pelosi did her job. And she had no choice. Trump bobbed, weaved, ducked, lied and embellished. He tweeted and howled. He is guilty of everything he is accused of...in the two articles that is. But, the frustration and outrage he has engendered is what is being debated. His behavior as POTUS is being bundled up into the drive to remove him. Our most repulsive President has triggered these processes and that has given heft to the Republicans argument that they have been after them since he was elected. But then....So what?. They are both roads to the same place...Trump's ultimate oblivion.
1
To posit that impeachment would impose some restraint on Donald Trump is absurd on its face. If Trump has shown us anything it is that when he can get away with something he will do it again, in spades -- and then throw it in our faces. He revels in his historical unaccountability. And, with a craven senate behind him, he will be ever more emboldened to abuse the power of his office for his own personal gain. For Trump, personal gain is the stuff of life, his entire raison d'etre, regardless of consequences to others (for it is only others who suffer the consequences of Trump's unbounded rancor, vengeance and greed). Hopefully Trump will finally have to answer for his misdeeds, but that time is certainly not now.
8
Mr Douthat, Just because Trump is not the first president to do something corrupt does not excuse his corrupt behavior. To argue that he chooses to act more like LBJ than Mussolini is to assume he knows who those two people are, he may know who LBJ is but I'd bet my social security that he doesn't know who Mussolini is - and he certainly doesn't know what either of those two men stood for.
Mr Douthat you pose as a respectable thoughtful conservative, but it's clear that you, like the rest of your party, are a Trumper.
2
Conservatives are always fishing for excuses for venal Republicans, and are always looking to find fault with the smallest venial sin of a Democrat.
Case in point: Clinton. Yes, he lied about a non-crime under oath, which technically can be prosecuted. I ask you: how many prosecutors would ever prosecute or even care about a witness under oath who lies about something which has absolutely nothing to do with the alleged crime under investigation?
Prosecutors wouldn't care so long as the lie had nothing to do with the possible crime. But McConnell and company and all the other Republicans went after Clinton and hounded him and voted to remove him from office.
Douthat and Stephens and Brooks are all trying to write columns that ever-so-gently give Trump a mulligan. They're completely flummoxed.
5
The author says "And despite Trump’s nepotistic impulses, even he hasn’t yet imitated Kennedy’s elevation of his own brother as attorney general."
WHAT! Trump appointed his son-in law as secretary of pretty much everything, arguably having more power than most other appointed officials. He famously had meetings with foreign heads of state that were kept secret from the Secretary of State.
Trump appointed his daughter as an adviser for almost anything and she obviously teams up with he brothers in order to advance their commercial interests around the globe.
I think you can argue that no President in history has been so corrupt as this one. In addition there is NO evidence that any other president tried to strong arm a foreign haed of state for his own electoral benefit while at the same time putting USA national security at considerable risk.
Too bad the author chose to ignore this; think intentionally.
7
"...and so deciding when a president crosses the line and betrays his office is almost always a task best left up to the voters."
So here we have a president that likely work with but definitely called for the interference of a foreign power in 2016 election. Now we face that same president caught squeezing a foreign power to interfere in the 2020 election.
Add to that Mitch McConnell's all out effort to block bills that would protect those very votes, the above idea in this case is ludicrous. This president and all the conspirators that helped in this crime must be found and brought to face their own trial.
4
"...and so deciding when a president crosses the line and betrays his office is almost always a task best left up to the voters."
So here we have a president that likely work with but definitely called for the interference of a foreign power in 2016 election. Now we face that same president caught squeezing a foreign power to interfere in the 2020 election.
Add to that Mitch McConnell's all out effort to block bills that would protect those very votes, the above idea in this case is ludicrous. This president and all the conspirators that helped in this crime must be found and brought to face their own trial.
If it is "the voters to decide" then why is there an impeachment clause at all? If impeachment is unwarranted in the two years after a presidential election (the voters have spoken) and it is unwarranted in the two years before a presidential election (the voters will decide) then the impeachment clause is empty blather.
Clearly, removal from office via impeachment is a power of the Congress and not of the voters.
4
That a reversal has taken place and that democrats are suddenly originalists is insincere. It is so insincere, I'm not sure there is enough space in the comments to set the record straight.
And that's the thing about our politics today:
One party gets to say and do anything and there's not enough oxygen in the room to set anything straight. Attempt to do so on one thing and, before you're done, you've got 10 things more to set straight.
All that is left is the enduring mess of a party gone mad.
1
Actually you were on course until the end. It is for the Senate to decide. Then if Impeachment is rejected The president can run for re-election if he so chooses in a wholly separate event. Of course Democrats want very much to link this trial with the election and to use this opportunity to tarnish Trump and other Republicans.
I think with that objective in mind they should have spent more time polishing arguments in front the mirror or better still in front of well represented focus groups instead of in front of Democrat groupies. .
1
Republicans keep saying blithely, “Let the voters decide,” which evidently means, “Let Russia decide,” or, “Let China decide”, because Trump has openly invited them to hack Democrats to help him win again. They are saying that inviting foreign nations to hack our elections, both figuratively and literally is no worse than sexual peccadilloes and to say “Tut-tut” and be done with it.
Trump’s offense doesn’t involve vague personal benefit like nepotism; his offense and Republican support of it is open war on Democrats and on election integrity and security.
3
Mr. Douthat's elaborate historical comparisons on impeachments throw little light on the present situation. President Trump is already impeached. The remaining questions are about the actual trial in the Senate and here there are few precedents and Lyndon Johnson and John Kennedy are irrelevant.
Douthat's conclusion was obviously preconceived and does not and cannot follow logically from historical facts that are not about impeachment trials. The voters should decide, and will, he thinks, in November. But that conclusion is premature and totally disregards the substance of Trump's greatest crimes against our democracy: there have been attempts to cheat using foreign influence, something even Mr. Douthat can't reconcile with our Constitution or our traditions. The election in November may, therefore, not be fair. An unfair election in which Trump cheated wouldn't disclose anything about the majority's opinion of Trump's behavior.
3
Because the GOP-controlled senate cannot act with respect for the country, I will look forward to the drip drip drip of new information that will filter out over the months between now and November.
2
The author neglects the fact that the second article of impeachment is a matter greater than any backsliding. It eliminates congressional access to evidence in an impeachment case.
2
"...when a casual corruption was more commonplace, and presidents routinely used their powers to spy on political opponents (as L.B.J. did to Barry Goldwater) or undermine them, enable their private appetites (cough, J.F.K.) and cover up their scandals."
Sure sounds to me that Ross needs to be reminded that the -Two Wrongs Don't Make Right - principle is still relevant today, maybe more than ever...
We are better than to buy in what Donald Trump is selling.
The rise of the national security state has made constraining the president from abuse of power much more critical.
Nixon's first move during Watergate was to falsely claim that a CIA operation was happening and no one could investigate. If he has succeeded with that what would have ensued?
Would it have become normal for presidents to have an enemies list whose members would be targeted by different Federal agencies? How far would such a scheme have to go to create an actual tyranny here?
And of course LBJ oversaw our massive military involvement in the Vietnamese Civil War. If we the post-Watergate reforms had been in place might Johnson have found his military adventure more difficult to pull off?
1
"Thus the House Democrats’ brief for impeachment is studded with 18th-century quotes to prove that “high crimes and misdemeanors” covers all manner of corrupt uses of official power, easily encompassing Trump’s sordid behavior with Ukraine. "
First, this sentence suggests that Douthat has already judged Trump guilty: the use of the "sordid". Thus we'd better disregard the rest of the piece.
But the rest of that sentence goes against the whole "gestalt"
of the American judicial tradition, which says that to be convicted, there has to be a specific law. Or put differently, he's arguing that impeachment and conviction are political, not judicial, affairs. Douthat (perhaps unwittingly) argues that, its perfectly OK, and in this particularly egregious case, almost required, that after the Republicans present their defence,
there should be a vote to dismiss the charges then and there. And of course, it would be perfectly OK, almost required, that all Republicans vote to dismiss, on the grounds that the impeachment itself was "un-American", a non-crime best punished by ignoring the demands.
1
"And despite Trump’s nepotistic impulses, even he hasn’t yet imitated Kennedy’s elevation of his own brother as attorney general." Yeah, right, Ross. RFK was a qualified attorney with significant experience going up against the Teamsters and Joseph McCarthy. And he was confirmed by the Senate. Not like Javanka, who are qualified for nothing, and have not even passed a proper security clearance.
7
If only we could trust that the voters would be able to decide fairly.
We cannot.
Moscow Mitch refuses to permit legislation to advance which strengthens the security of our elections. Trump invited Putin to look for HRC's emails, he is on trial for pressuring a foreign country to participate in an electoral smear campaign, he lies about electoral results and makes wild, unfounded and racist accusations about illegal voting. Both of the major political parties engage relentlessly in gerrymandering, trying to stifle voters who do not agree with them and escape accountability. And both parties take billions and billions in bribes from the wealthy to protect their interests over those of the great majority of Americans.
Here in Georgia, we have a governor who refused to step down as Sec of State during his tight election campaign, who used the official state website to solicit "donations", who purged the voter rolls (and whose successor is doing so again, both of which have disproportionately affected low income, minority and urban areas) and closed minority-area polling places, who refused to provide sufficient voting machines to avoid hours-long lines in predominantly Democratic districts and whose poll worker employees disproportionately challenged people of color at the ballot box. He won by 0.2%
Both parties have embraced and normalized cheating. But the GOP has institutionalized ignoring the law, voters' rights and dirty tricks. We cannot trust tainted votes.
4
We already know the outcome of the impeachment trial no matter charges are brought against the president. Hopefully the people will elect their representative more carefully in the future as to how they expect them to govern to keep our democracy but actually don't count on it. I am just waiting for Trump to shot somebody and watch the Republicans letting him get away with it as a non impeachable offense.
The comparison to LBJ is apt, but it's missing one important historical parallel: the lying. LBJ's predilection for less than truthfulness helped sustain disastrous US involvement in Vietnam (sending many young American to die at "credibility gap"). Does anyone think Trump has the judgment to spend American lives wisely? If presented a choice between his isolationist instincts and his personal aggrandizement and re-election bid, which impulse do you think this man will bow to? Do we really want to wait and see to find out?
The Whitewater investigation was about Clinton's personal finances before he was president.
It cost $100 Million in today's dollars.
I'd go for that for Trump.
5
I think this is a reasonably fair analysis of the factors complicating impeachment, above all the unstable, always-evolving criteria, which will indeed vary in a particular moment according to whether one embraces a "orginalist/strict-constructionist or "living, changing document" approach. The upshot is that this instability virtually precludes removal except in extreme cases that satisfy every conceivable interpretation, out-&-out bribery or treason.
Indeed, had Trump committed "clear" bribery or treason, Trump's lawyers would still require that a) Trump absolutely clearly *intended" ("res mensa") a bribe or treason, a requirement they would claim could only be satisfied by documentary evidence and 2 witnesses claiming Trump explicitly declared the intention to "bribe" or "commit treason" ("betray" would not suffice; it's ambiguous and might not mean "treason"). If Trump met this very high bar, Trump's lawyers would say "or" in any authentic reading of that clause really means "and" (which they would back up by contemporaneous usages of "and" being interchangeable with "or"), so Trump would have to explicitly say he intended to commit "treason" and "bribery" to be guilty.
What Douthat really misses, though, in his comparisons to the more casually self-interested use of power established by LBJ & JFK, is that all consistently recognize this standard: guilt arises when the self-interested behavior can reasonably be understood to violate the national interest.
2
It's very difficult to think of a president less like LBJ than Trump. Yes, there are questions about vote counts in Texas, and how exactly did LBJ become rich via politics. But LBJ didn't want to be Mussolini; he preferred FDR. He got the Civil Rights law passed, he got Medicare and Medicaid started. He had the quaint idea that a president should do things to help ordinary people, not just to enrich himself. Inheriting the Vietnam conflict, he made many mistakes, but the positive things he did are far beyond the capabilities of Trump, who has no interest in any voters outside his ":base."
9
A thoughtful piece but... comparing Trump’s nepotism to JFK’s is a stretch. RFK was a Navy vet, journalist and lawyer who as counsel had already taken on McCarthy, Roy Cohn, the mob & Jimmy Hoffa, run a successful campaign, and published a best selling book on corruption. He was steeped in international relations and public service. What government experience did Kushner & Ivanka have? Despite accusations of nepotism, RFK turned out to be a highly effective AG too— another big difference.
8
An incredible stretch! And that is not even taking into account the service and intellect that was ingrained in both JFK and RFK. Trump possesses not an inkling of that. Not impeachable for being ignorant and clueless.....but just pointing out other differences.
3
Will the Republicans even address the issue brought up by the House? Can they -- and win? Or will they go the low road of ridicule, attack and smear? This is important to us. We, the American people deserve to see documents and hear witnesses, nothing less.
6
The following paragraph strikes me as naive. How exactly will this President feel contrained by this quasi-censure. He pressured Ukraine a day after the Mueller report was released. It take an ability to feel contrition for a censure to work. Trump has no shame.
'And since Trump presumably will not be removed, in practice we’re testing a more modest argument still: that whether it’s perjury or a “perfect phone call” with Ukraine, impeachment-without-removal can function like an act of censure, a punishment that restrains misbehaving presidents without actually removing them.'
4
Douthat is not only furthering an effort to normalize Trump's perfidy he is providing a platform for a right wing conservative extremist masquerading as a Constitutional Scholar who is actually an ASSOCIATE Professor at a fourth tier law school who graduated from the Antonin Scalia Law School—a wholly owned subsidiary of Koch Industries.
4
@Mary Elizabeth Lease
And guess who is in line to be the next Attorney General?
This is how one auditions for a job in the Trump administration.
1
What Douthat writes, as usual, is illuminating. Still, it doesn't address the more important issue. The venality and acquiesce of the Republican party to a crook and slob like Trump.
5
There were no strengths to Blackman's arguments. While Johnson's actions in the Clark case may not pass the smell test, there was nothing illegal. Nor did it endanger the lives of an American ally. And Johnson did not refuse to cooperate with Congress.
And please tell me that you are not seriously arguing that RFK was as unqualified as Javanka!
5
Interesting argument, but nonetheless what is truly disheartening (and I’m not claiming this can be remedied by any legislation or policy) is the degree to which Trump has made lying a shameless endeavor.
I’m not talking about traditional political misdirection. Politicians are pretty much forced to fudge the truth in order to survive. Nobody really wants to hear uncomfortable truths from our politicians. Nearly all, however, lie with an ear toward credibility. They tell fibs that at least have a semblance of reality. They can at least seem to be telling the truth.
Not Trump. He tells lies in plain sight, ones that are easily proven to be lies, often with little or no effort. They are lies that everyone knows are patently untrue.
To be a politician is to have a loose relationship with absolute truth because no one really wants to hear it. We want to believe that things are better than they are. Effective politicians want to make things better, but they need a little leeway to make that happen. They don’t lie so much, as be selective about the truths they tell. That’s not how Trump rolls, and sadly, Republican Senators are all in with him on open lying.
Unfortunately Trump’s most brazen lie, that America needs to go back to a time when simply having white skin gave you an advantage, will in fact weaken us, not make us greater. That’s a lie that might destroy us in the end.
2
Douthat writes, "...impeachment-without-removal can function like an act of censure, a punishment that restrains misbehaving presidents without actually removing them."
When the Senate votes against removal from office, do you seriously think that Trump will treat this as anything but "complete and total vindication"?
I could live with an official censure and letting the voters decide his fate in November if Trump would acknowledge that his ham-handed attempt to strong-arm Ukraine was less than "perfect".
We all know that won't happen.
Trump learned from Roy Cohn never to admit fault, act like what you did is perfectly legal, and then whine about being treated unfairly when you are forced to face the consequences.
There is no evidence that he will ever deviate from this path.
6
“Allowing that Trump is particularly crude about it, all presidents conflate their own political self-interest with the national interest ... ” Wow, Ross, you must have a full basket of cherries after all the picking necessary to place Trump’s corruption merely on the crude side of normal.
3
Miss. I thought you would say the obvious and state that Trump's best defense is a criminal GOP and brainwashed general populace. It's staring you in the face Ross. Crime pays for the crime party.
I for one am glad that there is now no moral reason to follow the laws. The GOP demonstrates that it is okay to do whatever you think you can get away with. Sure, I understand that most people are too stupid to get away with crimes, well, and they are poor, which means they are guilty until proven innocent, which costs a lot of dough and if don't have it, your guilty. Anyway, no crime is immoral now. You just need to get away with it. The only thing that stops you from committing a crime are the laws and those are only applied in certain cases. So payoff the local cops and have at it. The GOP has shown us the light, well, the path to criminality.
Hera at the beginning of the end, it's good to know that anything goes. I actually can't wait until all the stupid democrats realize where we really are. They still think they can vote him out.
2
Even within the defined scenario, our circumstances do reflect the "twilight-of-the-republic" sentiment. Consider that certain conservatives, (AG Barr, cough), have a life long goal of expanding executive power beyond its current state while also removing the constraints imposed by Nixon. Douthat fails to recognize the Republican political apparatus effectively supports backsliding so long as it only applies to them.
This was true long before Trump. In fact, Republican lawmakers are attempting to use impeachment as a mechanism to further pursue pre-Nixon realignment.
You need to understand the Clinton impeachment actually achieved an unstated goal in failure. Although suffering relatively short-term loses, Republicans actually got what they wanted. Presidential priapism is once again acceptable. See Access Hollywood and Stormy Daniels. Democrats could not forcefully attack moral and legal misconduct they had already acquitted.
William F. Buckley Jr. understated the conservative paradigm. Conservatives aren't yelling "stop" at history. They're actually yelling "go backwards." This is an explicitly stated goal. "Make America Great Again" is one obvious example.
Taken to the extreme, you would actually consider Republicans 18th century royalists. They would like a return to monarchical rule under British authority, just without the taxes. The calls for absolute impunity echo King George more than Mussolini.
1
Trump’s best defense is that not a single witness testified that he set a quid pro quo on military assistance to Ukraine or a presidential meeting. Ambassador Gordon Sondland testified there was no quid pro quo on military assistance but that he “presumed" there was a quid pro quo attached to a meeting between Trump and President Zelensky. He testified that when he asked the president for clarification, Trump told him explicitly that there was no quid pro quo.
As the defense team pointed out yesterday, Zelenksy was not denied a White House visit. During their July 25 phone call, Zelensky suggested that he and Trump meeting in Poland rather than at the White House. After Trump invited him to the White House, Zelensky said, “On the other hand, I believe that on September, l we will be in Poland and we can meet in Poland hopefully.” The White House scheduled the president to meet with Zelensky in Warsaw in September, but canceled the trip because of Hurricane Hugo. Instead, Vice President Pence went to Warsaw to meet with Zelensky. Presidential Advisor Tim Morrison testified he rescheduled the Trump-Zelensky meeting for the next available date, which was Sept 25 at the United Nation in New York.
@William Case
You are ignoring that to Sondland it was as obvious as 2 + 2 = 4 that Trump demanded political investigations before he would meet with Zelenski or release the aid, and that David Holmes heard Trump on the phone say to Sondland, "So, he’s going to do the investigation?"
Republicans are grasping at straws.
1
@Sherry
Trump has always acknowledged that he asked Zelensky to look into allegations against the Bidens. The overheard phone call merely indicates Trump wanted to know if Zelensky was going to comply. It does not indicate he condition military air and a presidential visit on the investigation.
Yesterdays, the defense teams show video clips of Sondland’s testimony that made him look foolish. He wavered under question, admitting he had only presumed there was a quid pro quo but admitted under questioning that he merely presumed there was a quid pro quo. When Ambassador Taylor expressed alarm, he called the president to ask for clarification, and Trump told him there was not quid pro quo. Sondland admitted that no one ever told him there was a quid pro quo. His testimony supports the defense, not the prosecution. All the other diplomats and all the Ukrainians say there was no quid pro quo.
"Trump’s opponents are suddenly constitutional originalists, seeking to ground their case for impeachment in 18th-century history and founding-era rhetoric."
This is an unwarranted snarky remark, Ross, distracting from the seriousness of the impeachment articles and the imperiling of the nation because of Trump's conduct in office. You can do better, or can you? The snarky remarks are one reason why this reader's blood frequently boils when reading your opinion pieces.
3
And how do you address these facts: 1) Although impeachment doesn't require an actual criminal offense to have occurred, just such a criminal offense has occurred as the GAO report tells us. 2)This president has quite clearly been proven once again, and this time in full view thanks to the recording provided by Parnas, to be a pathological liar and a thug?
2
The irony of a newly minted conservative Catholic defending a person like djt really boggles. djt has the cosmic vibration of your favorite reptile. His “perfect” phone call was a crime. His impeachment led to his second crime of obstruction of Congress. This was more blatant than any of the founding fathers could have imagined.
djt is a vessel of the far right. Another irony is that McConnell and Barr, and the Freedom Caucus, and the Federalist Society are writing their own obituary.
2
Undeniably the best column I have read by Mr. Douthat.
Every senator who votes to acquit Trump is going to own every idiotic, dangerous, criminal, and embarrassing thing he does from the time of the vote until he is no longer president.
As for me, I hope Senators Burr and Tillis are fully aware of this fact before they vote.
2
Ross, it takes more than a verbal slap for thuggery to decline. Look at how the thug brays to his Twitter sewer: Come and get me Coppers!
In 2016, he saw Comey hand him the election by what amounted to a last-minute smear of his opponent. In 2019, he decided, hey, let's do it again!
No Trial, no stopping the thuggery.
1
Trumps best defense is that he is wholly unfit, and an incompetent buffoon who is totally corrupt, and utterly devoid of ethics, morals, decency, or any inclination to do anything which does not benefit him directly and foremost.
And upon further consideration he wishes to resign.
That would do it.
5
The best antidote to this latest column by Mr. Douthat can be found on page 3 of the Sunday Review section. Scandalize! Minimize! Repeat as Necessary. Ms. Hemmer neatly packages Mr. Douthat's column along with his right wing compatriots writings into a box filled with rumor, distortion, and outright lies.
Once packaged, do with the box what you wish.
1
Nice thoughts, Mr. D.
But Alex Hamilton said it best:
"When a man unprincipled in private life desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents... — despotic in his ordinary demeanour — known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty — when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity — to join in the cry of danger to liberty — to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion — to flatter and fall in with all the non sense of the zealots of the day — It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may ‘ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.’
1
Wanting to be LBJ isn't the same thing as behaving like Moussolini.
3
Another ridiculous editorial. Being an apologist for Trump is wearing thin. "Trump’s conduct is indeed more historically normal than the twilight-of-the-Republic rhetoric of his impeachers would suggest."
Okay, then your argument is that if it has been done in the past, it's ok? What planet are you living on? Keep voting for Trump and those who kowtow to him. You are in with the crowd that cannot even put an adjective together with a noun. Enjoy your wealth as it is protected by your "leader."
2
Mr. Douthat,
Inspite of your learned analysis and insightful chatter about the the original constitution, impeachment is happening. Get over it.
Mr. Johnson
1
He wants to be JFK--Melania is Jackie and Ivanka is Bobby(cough)
2
As Mrs Dowd wrote today Americans wanted a thug. They got an immoral vulgar misogynistic bully. Republicans wanted a thug above all else. They should rename themselves into the Oligarchs party. We love it corrupt. We love voter oppression. We love power above everything else. No morality there. And nearly half the country adores it. Mostly men. What does it say about American men. What never date one of these.
3
I read the article and the comments posted here and I was struck by this thought:
Liddl’ Donald Trump is incapable of writing any of the words I just read. All of this intelligent, exhaustive analysis of the historical relevance of this impeachment trial is ridiculous.
Trump is a criminal with a criminal mind who has been allowed to get away with his criminal behavior his entire life. Once he is cleared by the Senate he will probably just do something else that is equally outrageous (he probably already is). As Nancy Pelosi said, Trump self-impeaches himself almost every day.
5
No, Trump wants to be mob boss, but what he is and what he’s always been is a vulgar fraud.
4
He doesn’t want to be anyone be himself. OMNIPOTENT!
1
This isn't about impeachment – let alone removal...
It's about jacked-up censure on steroids – of a guy who brought it on himself...
We know there aren't 67 votes – there was never a chance...
But that there aren't a ready 51 votes to drop this circus tent – like tonight – and fold it up for the next time around...
Says everything the Constitution never did...
1
Though is an insult to Mussolini, Trump is more dangerous than the Italian dictator. Yes, they both share the funny vane body movements and fatuous pout, but Mussolini didn’t have access to the types of weapons we have today.
1
Ross, not too many of the many aghast at Trump' threats to our democracy are much motivated by his sub-JFK "priapism" --grotesque cardinal sin that it is -- or his nepotism (unaided by a child or son-in-law with RFK's resume).
2
Trump’s best defense would be to be hoisted on a petard.
2
This is strangely similar to your defense of uber-conservative Catholicism. Everything about the church, about dogma, about the Pope is inviolable, not amenable to doubt. Except this Pope, who somehow slipped past God and took the big chair. Thus, Ross and his mission of holy destruction and heartless rectitude.
Our President is the opposite case, the one, the only reason originalists might abandon their phoney position. Our Constitution is the sacred covenant of the Founders who knew all, saw, all, accounted for every conceivable eventuality.
Except this time because, honestly, who could have foreseen God would sent a new savior to this woebegone pile of corruption and greed? And that it would be a corrupt, greedy, un-American soul come to rescue his nation? Certainly not our idiot forebears.
Republicans urgently remind us the Constitution is a living document, endlessly interpret-able in light present exigencies.
Black-robed heads are painfully spinning, creating new arguments from dross.
1
The column is meandering and lacks any central argument beside some other presidents did something completely different but its kind of related so we should reserve judgement in the writers opinion. This is intellectual dressing over a heap of trash. Shed the columnist and invest in more reporters. If you want a conservative voice, hire someone who actually takes a stand.
1
LBJ - flawed politician with a big heart in the right place. Pushed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, and read the riot act to derp south politicians when his black employees were treated poorly in their states.
Donald Trump - self confirmed as a white supremacist and racist.
Ross, they are nothing alike.
3
Comparing Trump to JFK, LBJ or -any- former president is absurd. He is an unfit, incompetent, ignorant fool with a mob-boss and dictatorial psychology. His election was a perfect storm of fear, ignorance and hate - with help from the Russians. It was an anomaly that will be regarded as such by history - as will those who defended and enabled him.
2
"Pat Cipollone, one of the president’s lawyers, added: 'No one ever thought that it would be a good idea for our country ... to try to remove a president from a ballot ... ' No one? Really? How about the framers of the Constitution, who established the impeachment process to do essentially that ... " (Frank Bruni, NYTimes, 25Jan2020)
Mr. Cippollone does not seem overly constrained by facts:
"White House counsel Pat Cipollone lied during the Senate impeachment trial when he said Republicans were not allowed in the secure briefing room during House impeachment hearings. Confronted by this blatant untruth, one of Trump’s lawyers, Robert Ray, declared, 'I’m not interested in wading in the procedural weeds here.' ... Some senator should send a note up to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asking him to admonish Cipollone.” (Washington Post 23Jan2020)
1
Wrong. Trump and McConnell are already talking as if they have a right to permanent power and that the dictatorship has already started.
Mussolini it is.
This moment is our Crossing the Rubicon, our 1932 German election. How we deal with someone as mentally impaired and non-empathetic as Trump, along with his treasonous supporters, will decide our fate.
1
I’m just wondering, is there a way to have a deferred sentence? Accept the case is proved but make a determination that as the election is in about 10 months it may be better to let the people throw the bum out?
Hmmm.
Let's go ahead and say you tied something up with a bow, and ignore whether it is pretty or if it will withstand a little tugging.
I wonder, Ross, were you planning on discussing obstruction and relevant historical parallels in a later article?
1
This column is thought-free, and shameful. LBJ spying on Goldwater is NOT the same as what Trump did with the President of Ukraine, and to say so is unfit for the NYT.
1
Fairly interesting and thoughtful. Except Andrew Johnson who was an racist with rabid pro black Congress action was taken against President who tried to throw elections and have illicit sex. Its hard to see how affairs meet Constitutional Constraint. Compared to war crimes like the phony Tonkin Gulf attack and Iraq's fraudulent WMD's these crimes pale in insignificance. The impeachment power has been a failure in curtailing serious Presidential misdeeds and its lack of application costs many lives, American and others.
1
The one truly amazing aspect of this column is that Mr. Douthat actually got these ideas published in The New York Times--home of "All Trump, All the Time."
I believe we are all overthinking most things about trump. The plain truth is he isn't that smart and he is nothing more than a bully and a second rate con artist. He is a toddler who wants what he wants and wants it now. He probably doesn't even know who LBJ or JFK were. And he probably thinks Mussolini is a brand of pasta.
The Democrats did it first.
A "less legislatively minded LBJ" simply ISN'T an LBJ of any sort. Johnson was Mr. Congress. It's much more accurate to compare Trump with Nixon.
"...letting Trump get away with his Ukraine maneuver would be a form of backsliding..."
Mr. Douthat, this is a terrible argument. Nixon showed us how Presidential power could be abused in service of re-election or indeed, any personal goal. After Nixon we put in place measures to prevent the sorts of abuses Nixon engaged in and for which he was rightly forced to resign - the first and only President to do so. The 1974 Impoundment Control Act, recently violated by Donald Trump, was one of them.
If we shrug off Trump's conduct as mere "backsliding" we abrogate the core of the project started by the founders - the search for a "more perfect union".
How much of this "backsliding" is tolerable? How can we define that? To accept any makes a mockery of attempts to restrain the accumulation of power by the executive.
Slavery was accepted at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, but it was made illegal by the Emancipation Proclamation and more firmly by the 13th amendment. Would we shrug off, say, slaveholding by a President? Of course we wouldn't. Why then should we let behavior prohibited by other later laws to be flouted by a president, no matter how duly elected? To give this president a pass on his behavior would send a far more dangerous message to future presidents than would Trump's removal to future Congresses. A motion of censure will not in any way restrain such behavior and is an entirely inappropriate response to it.
1
This attempt by Douthat to be Solomonic is yet another tedious exercise that avoids the central problem that confronts the Senate. I wonder why upstanding members of the media never ask why senators shouldn’t do the right thing, and hold a full and fair impeachment trial with witnesses and evidence. It’s easy to understand the media’s almost universal cynicism concerning the trial. Unfortunately, the unintended consequence of that cynicism is that it makes it easy for senators to turn what should be a solemn process into a political food fight. And, we, the people will be left trying to find a way to clean up the mess.
4
Ross Douthat entirely overlooks the implication of the second article of impeachment against Trump: the defiance of Congress's right to interview members of his administration and the withholding of documents bearing on the likely abuse of power. As the admirable Senator Angus King of Maine stated, if that behavior is let stand, the precedent it establishes renders impeachment a nullity hereafter.
4
He wishes. Trump has never worked an honest day in his life. He has no idea what actual hardship is, no idea of what ordinary Americans are even like. He's a business mogul, whose methods are slippery at best, and a reality TV star. He will never be LBJ.
11
As a Democrat, I really have to wonder why a Vice President's family getting rich off of said VP's public service is not a violation of every standard of decency in American history. Let's keep in mind that this would not even have become an issue if Joe Biden had not decided to run for president in 2020.
China's liberal-handed gifting to Obama's VP would have been a footnote for historians of 2009-16, but would have remained unexamined in this election cycle. Is casual gift-giving by foreign governments now such an embedded habit of American leaders that we can attack would-be detectives for exceeding or abusing their authority? Don't we want to stop this obvious conflict-of-interest-generating system that so closely resembles Payola?
5
@mitchell
The media is avoiding the Bidens because its coverage might corroborate Trump's claims and/or benefit him.
My guess is it's investigating the Bidens behind the scenes and creating narratives to demonstrate their innocence.
What the media avoids is often the most salient part.
3
Trump makes history.
Trump is the first President to ever be referred to as a "dictator" and "despot" in the Chambers of the US Senate without those references being demanded to be 'taken down.'
7
As stated past abuse doesn’t set a precedent for allowing it to continue. Whataboutism is a child’s defense, doesn’t work for them either. Trump tried to extort a foreign government secretly. If his scheme worked only a few of his cronies would ever know about it and so voters would have been completely in the dark about the Ukrainian investigation into the Bidens being a charade. If it wasn’t for a brave whistleblower we would be one step closer to being yet another Republic in name only.
3
Mr. Douthat's column has nothing to do with Trump's defense.
Mr. Douthat's column is about defending Republican Senators up for reelection Nov. 3rd.
Republican Senator will face political fall out for ignoring their oaths of office to protect the US Constitution and the oath administered by Chief Justice Roberts...
"Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, president of the United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you god?"
4
Your 'conflation' argument is a good one. But it doesn't address the obstruction of justice issue - the lying, hiding, ordered silencing and brazen noncooperation with lawful constitutional inquiries for information that is the more dangerous and impeachable behavior of this defendant.
5
The post Watergate world is the one that counts. Anything pre Nixon is simply of a different time. Since nobody, including Trump defenders are suggesting that Nixon really did nothing wrong, doing a side by side comparison between Nixon and Trunp, Trump is even more Brazen and corrupt than Nixon was. Remember, Nixon didn’t know of the break in until after the fact!
2
LBJ had a healthy modicum of decency, a trait that allowed one to overlook a little deviancy. Trump has no such advantage. Bad comparison, in my view.
2
I suspect Trump had never even heard of Mussolini and likely still couldn't say anything authoritative about the man and his place in history. However, once he won his squeaker election via the antiquated Electoral College, he saw that arrogant pose, gazing upward, jaw jutting outward, lips clenched in a determined pout - and adopted it for himself.
2
And what about his son in law's portfolio?
3
Yet another lame attempt to water down trump's law breaking by comparing it to something another Democratic President had done.
Only...Douthat has the same blinder all other conservatives seem to have - that of seeing trump's self interest being served.
Justice Clark had been appointed by Harry Truman, and LBJ simply exchanged a liberal judge for an African American liberal judge. Any sane person would have to search far and wide to see anything "unfair" about that save for the unfairness to Justice Clark.
The Democrats interests weren't advanced as they were when McConnell broke precedent and refused to interview Garland - or trump did when he nominated Gorsuch in Garland's rightful position.
Blackman's other example also failed to show an example of self-gain by Lincoln's actions.
trump is a sociopathic narcissist who has led a life time of serving only his own interests. When his power play benefits only himself, and not the country, the crime edges into a high crime.
Why can't conservatives see this?
4
His best defense is to remain silent and ask for a vote in the Senate where he will be acquitted.
2
Given that the McConnells of this world are utterly unable to be impartial, and let themselves be guided by the truth, and based on the evidence of Trump's criminality, it is very unlikely he'll end up where he belongs, ousted from the White House and housed in oblivion. And yet, what an example for future presidents who dare weasel above the law, however 'pure' their self-serving...at our expense.
3
This academic rumination is just that: chewing over half-digested mush. Spit it out and try again.
What would you agree to be sufficient cause for a President to be removed from office by Congress? Urinating on the floor of the House after the State of the Union. Having the IRS and the FBI launch investigations into MSNBC hosts. Ordering a missile launch on Paris over tech tariffs.
It is not really a question of "should" there be removal of a President, but rather "for what actions".
... and using the withholding of Congressional approved funds as leverage against a foreign government to denigrate a political opponent before the next election ...
that seems like it should be on the list - no?
2
Nonsense.
J. Edgar Hoover, Ramsey Clark, Thurgood Marshall and Robert Kennedy were all Americans serving American Presidents along with their domestic political interests substantially unrelated to campaigns and elections.
Nixon and Trump's sins go to defiling and defying the expression of the voting will of the people in our divided limited different power constitutional republic of united states. And Trump is much worse because he is collaborating, colluding, conspiring and coordinating with foreign powers from Beijing to Kiev to Moscow to Riyadh to Tel Aviv .
Trump is akin to the likes of Benedict Arnold, the Rosenberg's Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen and Jonathan Jay Pollard.
Moreover Trump hasn't the nation state governing and political experience nor the talent nor the intellect nor the temperament of a Lyndon Baines Johnson or a Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Heck even young Kim Jong Un and Emanuel Macron can beat America's rookie President in that regard. In addition neither of them is as lazy and low energy as Trump is in doing his job.
8
Bobby Kennedy’s great because he changed, he grew, not because he started out squeaky-clean.
I don't know why Douthat is gratuitously dragging President Kennedy's private life into his defense of Trump's corruption. JFK put his considerable inherited personal finances in a blind trust and donated his entire salary to charity. Case closed . . . . As for nepotism, RFK had managed every one of his brother's campaigns since his first Congressional run. He was his brother's closest advisor and virtually his alter ego. Is it possible to make a more ludicrous comparison than between Donald Trump Junior and Robert F. Kennedy?
5
Douthat keeps avoiding the closest comparison: Nixon.
5
Trump does not want to be LBJ or Mussolini. He has barely heard of LBJ and if he's heard of Mussolini he could not tell you who he was.
You say that "No modern President has imitated the Kennedy seraglio". Neither Kennedy nor Trump has had a seraglio. As far as I know, neither has established an actual harem within the White House.
Yes, of course Trump will not be convicted.
What's different here is what Trump has imposed on his party. The anonymous 'head on pike' quote rings true. This mirrors what so many current rulers have accomplished. Trump has emasculated the Republican Party just as Xi has done with the Chinese Communist Party, Orban in Hungary with Fidesz and Kaczynski in Poland with PiS.
But this is not normal in the United States. Until we get over this historic blip, we are condemned to Strong Man rule (Strong Woman in Bangladesh), with parties, majorities and democracy submerged. If "Only Trump" can save us, who will save us when he dies in his 80s after 3 or 4 terms in office?
Dan Kravitz
1
To say that Trump conflated the national interest with his personal interest is quite a stretch. There has never been an honest argument describing Trump's intentions in Ukraine as anything other than to promote his personal political interests. Trump was worried about Ukrainian corruption? That's a laugh. Pompeo said it himself that Americans don't care about Ukraine. Neither does the President, and neither does anyone in the Trump administration. God, I'm just so sick of this nonsense.
1
Trump's best defense is to say forthrightly that he is by nature a mentally and morally deficient man who was elected by millions of Americans who were fully aware of his deficiencies when they voted for him out of ignorance and desperation.
And that the Constitution of the United States of the United States does not forbid desperate and ignorant people from voting for
mentally and morally deficient men.
2
The real question here is how did a person who has been a criminal their entire adult life become president of the United States of America ?
8
Listen to the tape.
Listen to the tape of Parnas whispering into Trump's ear and it will erase all pretense of a comparison of Trump to LBJ.
A low rent political donor would never have goaded LBJ into firing an Ambassador soley on the unfounded accusation of having bad mouthed POTUS.
3
Once again we are subjected to this stupid argument that, because one side is corrupt it follows that the other side must also be corrupt. To even try to equate Trump with LBJ is and insult to JBJ and to the entire Democratic Party. Of course LBJ was concerned about what would happen to him, result of the Vietnam War as well as the Civil Rights legislation. But, in both cases, he did what seemed to him to be the right thing, and took the rap, for which the hypocritical Republican Party gain immensely in its infamous "Southern Strategy" of Lee Atwater, Paul Manifort, and Roger Stone, from which the US still suffers. Trump simply never takes the rap for anything, never apologizes for anything, never admits anything, and that's only the tip of the ego-centric iceberg.
6
I am not surprised that Douthat uses a standard Republican tactic of false equivalence in defense of his favorite President, Trump. That the difference between using the power of the office of the Presidency to effect beneficial social change or to force a foreign power to change for the better is not the same as abusing it for personal gain escapes Douthat is no surprise to anyone who reads his columns.
And of course he gives a sanitized version of the Clinton impeachment. No mention that the charge against Clinton had to do with oral sex with a consenting adult, not the false premise of the Republican witch hunt, the Whitewater Trump-like real-estate scam in which the Clintons, like all other investors, lost money. No mention that Republicans had spent six years and more than $100 million in today’s dollars trying to overturn the will of the people in not one, but two elections. No mention that many of the same Republican professional politicians and lawyers are arguing the exact opposite of what the argued two decades ago.
No, this is just another in the ever-increasing poisonous fog of dishonest attempts by Republicans to excuse the rancid, un-American partisanship and violation both of their oaths of office and to do impartial justice by Senate Republicans. Douthat and his fellow Republicans have sunk so low that they will lie, cheat and steal to keep a lifelong criminal and indisputable sociopath, their favorite president, Trump, in office. For shame!
2
Per you point: Lyndon Johnson 'induced' Clark’s resignation so that Johnson could then appoint Thurgood Marshall.
Did you forget that Trump asked Kennedy to step down and we ended up with Kavanaugh?
I'll take LBJ
3
Better than Nixon
Triple our pleasure, it’s all heaven sent
Pols venting daily, not making a dent,
He’s a crook, no he’s not, ad infinitum
Clever or brainless, Trump is an item
For media pleasure, comments so droll
We tune in to Rachel – this gal’s on a roil;
Final outcome – unknown: king of the hill –
Hope it’s the Trumpster, but some have their fill
Making argument of any sort in defense of Trump is just awful. Haven’t we figured out yet that he is corrupt, evil, self serving, and maybe a traitor? Maybe Mr. Douthat ought to apply some critical thinking to what Trumpism really represents to us, in both the near and long term. We need to get out from under this horrible mess. Our lives and future may depend upon it.
4
Ross, You may have something here but this particular man and this particular Congress will have none of your logic. Trump has no moral compass, he has always been corrupt and self-serving, will always be corrupt as well as self-serving, that is a fact. Therefore, your analogy changes nothing.
What makes this so dangerous is your Republican Party, they do know the truth but they run from it for the party and for the power. They cover themselves with lies and obstruction, to deny the truth from becoming visible. Someday the smoke and mirrors will fade and the truth will be revealed.
Bolstered by Fox, the echo chamber of lies that keeps on giving. Where can you possibly go with self-serving corruption?
1
" the Federalists cried foul, but there wasn’t even the beginning of an impeachment proceeding..."
This will get Dershowitz's juices running: "I had a client who committed perjury, and he wasn't even a charged for it! If they don't prosecute, you can't call it a crime!" ... and perjury is no longer a felony.
1
Trump tweeted this morning - " Shifty Adam Schiff is a CORRUPT POLITICIAN, and probably a very sick man. He has not paid the price, yet, for what he has done to our Country!".
Just curious-- if a Trump supporter decides to make Shift " pay a price" what responsibility would Trump have and is that an impeachable offence? At what point do we say enough is enough and not wait for an election to rid ourselves of Trump.
2
I believe I owe Republicans an apology.
Thousands of lies and crude remarks from Trump, and never a hint or a whisper of objection from them.
Now along comes Schiff with his head-on-a pike remark, and suddenly they are up-in-arms and full-of-objections to it.
I never understood before now how sensitive Republicans are.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/1/25/21071035/senate-republicans-adam-schiff-head-on-a-pike-comment-outrage
6
"The most terrifying aspect of the U.S. political drama isn’t the revelation that the president has abused his power for personal gain. If you didn’t see that coming from the day Donald Trump was elected, you weren’t paying attention.
No, the real revelation has been the utter depravity of the Republican Party. Essentially every elected or appointed official in that party has chosen to defend Trump by buying into crazy, debunked conspiracy theories. That is, one of America’s two major parties is beyond redemption; given that, it’s hard to see how democracy can long endure, even if Trump is defeated."
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/12/14/1905618/-Paul-Krugman-Goes-There-Modern-Republicans-are-irredeemable-devoid-of-principle-or-shame
I can only hope that history savages these people. Absolutely and completely savages them.
1
I don't think Trump wants to be either LBJ or Mussolini. He likely has little knowledge of what either did or said.
He wants to be Trump.
And that means being a self centered, immature, impulsive
head of a family owned company. Able to do whatever he wants to whomever he wants whenever he wants. And anything that gets in the way makes him very, very angry.
3
Donald Trump is a dangerous man. Donald Trump promotes conspiracy theories. Donald Trump uses obstruction and propaganda to stay in power.
LBJ, undone by Vietnam war, chose not to run in 1972. He had a measure of humility and decency.
Donald Trump is a completely amoral human being.
Your creative analyses are provocative, but somewhat untethered from reality. You should consider fantasy fiction.
2
Can we just admit we are at war?
Comparing Trump to LBJ is almost too ludicrous for words.
LBJ was, and wanted to be, a skilled wheeler-dealer career politician.
Trump is a con artist who wanted to run for president, not to become one.
If "wanting to be LBJ" were his "best defense," his presidency would be indefensible, because that "defense "is a patent myth.
Yet, his presidency is indeed indefensible. The rats going down on that sinking ship will be forever remember for their lack of scruples or lack of integrity or lack of myopia or lack of all three.
1
CORRECTION:
myopia or a combination of all three
not "lack of myopia or lack of all three"
You rest your defense of Trump on a defense already put forward in the most outrageous Times op-ed I've ever read as a former prosecutor by Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law Houston. Blackman did not argue, as you wrongly assert, about "the narrowing of the impeachment power” and the “difficulty of defining when politicized machinations shade into the abuse of power".
Blackman actually argued that Trump is guilty but as he's purportedly only guilty of attempted crimes, he's innocent. (With such reasoning anyone who repeatedly stabs a victim, yet the victim survives, cannot be charged with a crime).
Like other GOP hacks, Blackman outrageously asserted that Trump was trying to expose corruption in extorting Ukraine when it has repeatedly been proven a lie. Trump directly violated the separation of powers by hijacking the Power of The Purse which was given to Congress to prevent a despotic Executive like Trump from seizing power.
You are rest you arguments on lies of a law professor who teaches his students using debunked conspiracy theories as facts. It is horrific and the kind of disinformation North Korea uses in its state run schools.
I shudder to think what Blackman teaches in his law school classes, but it is not American Constitutional Law. You also pretend that debunked conspiracy theories are facts. It is all anyone needs to know in dismissing everything you write here.
"Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus"
(False in one thing, false in everything.)
1
Good grief! are you trying to excuse Trump's crimes as "normal" based on past alleged crimes by other Presidents? I need a few more glasses of good wine to go through the looking glass with you on this one.
On the other hand I wish you had not bothered and left early without writing this horrendous Op-Ed.
1
Of course the proof of the pudding will be the election in November 2020, which is not too many months away. The power of the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service grew during the 1930s with the perceived Nazis threat under Roosevelt. Allegedly
according to reports some of FDRs political opponents were selectively audited by the IRS, telephones were tapped, etc. After
the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor the nation pulled together in a common effort to win WWI. And then there was the internment of the people of Japanese descent, which was not considered an impeachable offense...etc. If Trump were much more popular than he is, and his GOP Party did not lose control of the House of Representatives in 2018, would the majority in the House have impeached Trump? Of course not. The GOP is quite correct in saying he is being impeached because Trump is very widely despised. In practical terms being widely despised is in effect an impeachable offense. Should it not be? This is a democracy after all.
I have a better example for Douthat. I think Trump's behavior is more like Nixon's when committed treason and he conspired with a foreign power to extend the Vietnam War.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/08/12/george-will-confirms-nixons-vietnam-treason
Always with the false equivalence, Mr. Douthat. If you think you are immune from what the fringe right-wing Republicans who run their party are planning for the nation, you need to wake up a smell the rot.
We have never seen the degree of mendacity being used in the service of any political movement in the hundreds of years the USA has been in existence. Trump is but a symptom of that rot. The Republican (aka John Birch Society) folks are in dead earnest about keeping their political power by hook and by crook. This is all out warfare against most of the citizens of our nation, even the ones who have been fooled by the thousands of lies.
You should get off you pedestal and read some real history and stop normalizing the beast.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/24/opinion/sunday/impeachment-fox-news.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
1
Trump wants to be LBJ? How can a master of nothing but the con be a legislative expert? OH, and somehow you entirely forgot what LBJ did for Civil Rights.
Please. Trump couldn't shine LBJ's shoes.
As usual Ross, thought provoking for a manic liberal who believes Trump is uniquely poisoning the body politic.
I would push back on the nepotism analogy though: Robert Kennedy was a highly educated and experienced statesman. Ivanka sells jewelry and beauty as lifestyle, Jared is a neophyte, and Eric and Don Jr. are troglodytes. Comparing the way Trump is turning the US into an extension of Trump, Inc. with JFK nominating his brother to a post for which he was eminently qualified is subterfuge.
The problem with Ross’s article is that Trump won’t get through half of it.
If one conveniently forgets or overlooks Trump's total entanglement with Putin, a known murderer of political critics, and his TWO, bundling but effective attempts to use of foreign power to interfere in our elections, his penchant to lie every time he opens his mouth and his constant racist rhetoric, his insanely intense meanness in targeting women and his constant use of threats, courts and lawyers to hide all aspects of his life, from taxes, college grades, health, weight, golf scores, and to attack political opponents, and finally his outright push to turn the presidency into a dictatorship, one might overlook the fact Ross is a blithering revisionist. Mussolini came first, the Weirmar Republic came thereafter. LBJ inherited a Nixon/Kissinger nightmare and his response though slow eventually was correct. Not even close to the outright subversion Trump and his fellow fugitives are promulgating.
I'm sorry but Trump does want to be Mussolini. He has stated that being President means that "I can do anything I want." He has rejected any degree of Congressional oversight. He lies constantly, even it can be easily proven that he is lying. He openly encourages the manipulation of elections. He has bribed big business with his tax cuts. Moreover, his entire life demonstrates that he has no principles beyond what he thinks is good for him personally. Myself, I would like to impeach him on the grounds that his denial of climate change is a crime against humanity.
1
Let me put it this way: If Obama had done what Trump have been doing, what would Douthat say, about impeaching Obama?
Ross you, as a Connecticut Yankee, can't accept that your Republican Party is corrupt and the actual cause of Americans’ present problems. Service to liberal democracy requires service to our political fabric and not self centered whataboutism.
No Mr. Douthat. It IS that he wants to be Mussolini, and to back him up and obstruct Congress from bringing forth his dirty deeds, he has a gestapo republican gang, a gerrymandered electoral college, Putin and his mafia thugs, a televangelist propaganda ministry with a big, red white and blue logo and bombastic personalities, a rigged Supreme Court, a fascist Department of Justice, a horde of white supremacists and Christian Taliban armed to the teeth from Virginia to Idaho, and Citizens United dark money forever and ever. Trump has no legitimate defense except to continue to declare war on the Constitution and citizens of the USA by whatever means necessary, even if that includes inciting a war and incurring more needless American casualties, ala Dick Cheney's playbook. After all, our troops only get headaches, right? Nothing major is what I'm told.
1
I’m afraid Trump doesn’t know the difference between LBJ and PBJ. You give him too much philosophical, political and historical credit, Ross. Donald Trump only cares about winning and keeping his job by any means necessary. His whole life has been a sleazy journey of cheating and lying.
The prima facie evidence of Trump’s obstruction of Congress is enough to ask for his removal from office. He refused to supply any requested documents concerning his Ukraine policy and he forbade any of his administration to testify in Congress and required those subpoenaed to defy those subpoenas. You might Ross be so enamored of Trump’s policy regarding religion that you are unable to clearly view this corrupt, bigoted, ignorant, cruel, mentally immature person, who is deconstructing American reputation here and all over the world.
LBJ, with all his flaws including the mis-prosecuted Vietnam war, signed the 1964 civil rights act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Medicare and Head Start
Trump signed an executive order to ban Moslems, threatened to cut Medicare, engaged in voter tampering and is in common plan with Russia.
Nope. This isn’t an issue of a President straying over the line in pursuit of occasional self interest. This is a relentlessly lawless President violating the Constitution, while fearful and self interested enablers stand by. All in plain sight.
As most of the American people -- Dems and Republicans -- sense, the "high crimes and misdemeanors" of which Trump is accused are small potatoes. Even the issue of "character" that has so stoked Dem outrage is small potatoes compared to Clinton (who received oral sex from Monica in the Oval Office) and Kennedy (off the charts).
The net effect is that impeachment, rather than rallying Americans to the constant outrage of Dems, has made the Dems look petty, extremely partisan (no R's support impeachment), and hypocrtically moralistic. The constant attacks on Trump from the Mueller report and Op-Ed columnists have only added to the perception that Dem leaders are simply bent on removing Trump.
Or, in the modern parlance of outraged social justice warriors, they want to "cancel" Trump.
The American people are now bored by the whole thing. As Maureen Dowd noted, no one is calling their Senators to demand harsh justice for Trump, and the Senate gallery is half empty. I can't imagine the ratings slump for radio and TV broadcasters who have devoted round-the-clock coverage to the impeachment proceedings: must be pretty bad.
Time for the Dems to get back to offering positive policy prescriptions, and putting their own corruption (Hillary, Joe and Hunter, the DNC) behind them. The best candidates to do this are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
2
Nominating Warren or Sanders will equal another term for Trump. This country will not trade in a far right President for one that is on the far left. Look to what happened in the U.K. this past December for a lesson. This country does not need Warren or Sanders at the helm.
1
Interesting analysis. One could argue that asking for the assistance of a foreign country to move an election in one’s favor would rise to the level of pretty big potatoes. One could also argue that this isn’t about ratings. The idea that this process isn’t justified because the people who have the outcome in the bag are bored is, frankly, pretty disgusting.
The ending of the comment kind of makes it all make sense. Love of Bernie is right up there for the true radical left, just like the love of Trump is up there on the right. You’re not a different kind of liberal — you’re just a left-handed mirror image of a Trumpist.
While I understand his attempted logic here, it ignores the roll the Senate and the house are meant to play when true corruption takes place. A censure is not impeachment. Impeachment that leads to removal is a wholly different animal. What we are seeing and reading here is an attempt at undermining the Constitution and the rule of law As presented in this as usual essay, Ross is missing the broader point.
1
I don't believe that LBJ, Kennedy or others asked the Soviet Union (then, our major (enemy) to help them cheat in their elections. The level of corruption and lies in trump's administration is so far beyond anything we've seen before in America, is far more dangerous than anything in the past. Let's take Bandy Lee's advice and simply have trump examined by recognized and n on-partisan mental health / psychiatric experts to ensure he has a sound mind.
1
Mr Douhat has served up a truly weak "analysis". Honestly, I thought that he as better than this. One particularly egregious observation:
"And since Trump presumably will not be removed, in practice we’re testing a more modest argument still: that whether it’s perjury or a “perfect phone call” with Ukraine, impeachment-without-removal can function like an act of censure, a punishment that restrains misbehaving presidents without actually removing them."
Mr Douhat somehow imagines that Trump's "misbehavior" (he and I have different takes on what constitutes misbehavior) will be constrained in any way by the proceedings. In fact, I shudder to think what "misbehavior" may ensue after the Republicans symbolically anoint him as
the King after acquitting him.
1
Kind of being an enabler here Ross, just like Blackman, sweeping Trump's blanket Obstruction of Congress under the rug. Nixon resigned after being forced to turn over the incriminating tapes, but he'd already turned over most relevant documents, and allowed his staff to testify. Trump hasn't turned over anything which upon his acquittal he'll gloat over like a madman at his taxpayer supported rallies.
L.B.J. never got on bended knee with Brezhnev and never sought his approval. Trump has done both with Putin. As far as I'm concerned, the first act of impeachment from the House should have been Trump's obsequious behaviour at Helsinki with Mr. Putin and his closed door meeting with him without notes or a State Dep't officer. Why do conservative commentators such as Mr. Douthat continue to gloss over Trump's bizarre and unfathomable relationship with Russia's leader? It is a monstrous national security risk, of which the manifestations can be clearly seen in Trump's languid withholding of military aid to Ukraine that they would have used to defend themselves against Russia. Trump appears to be doing Putin's bidding here. Why can't a conservative acknowledge that?
1
This impeachment trial has been a partisan effort with one side wanting to convict and the other wanting to acquit. The Democrats have been determined to remove President Trump from office since he was elected. They had the Russian collusion case and now the Ukraine impeachment trial. This current removal effort will fall flat but it will not be over for the Democrats. They will find something else to impeach President Trump with. The voters are paying little attention to the hearings which are quite boring and long. President Trump’s support has been inching up and we should let the voters decide if our president goes or stays in office. They are the ones who will have the final say.
Comparing Trump's conduct on Ukraine to LBJ's appointment of Ramsey Clark as Attorney General (as a maneuver to create a Supreme Court vacancy) is preposterous. L.B.J. was not acting in a way that was contrary to U.S. government policy. L.B.J. did not involve foreign government in his alleged scheme. L.B.J. was not expecting Thurgood Marshall to act in a way that would improve his re-election prospects.
L.B.J. did not repeatedly lie to the American public about his actions. And Marshall was a highly qualified nominee who became a justice only after Senate confirmation. This defense of Trump's conduct is almost as lame as the one delineated in Frank Bruni's column today.
2
There's actually a bigger picture here.
First, Mr. Douthat ignores the obstruction of congress charge, which was brought, not because the administration claimed executive privilege regarding this or that document or specific witness testimony, but because Trump immediately took the position that congress had no oversight authority and would not cooperate at all. Maybe Ross should reexamine the law on this, because this is pretty serious stuff.
Second, Ross implies that impeaching when it's likely there will be no conviction acts like kind of a censure. Not really. It focuses the electorate on what's gone wrong. And now we see with the GOP in the senate their attempt to sweep everything under the rug and not seek documents or witnesses.
This is why Speaker Pelosi's delay in delivering the article was so brilliant - it provided time for the electorate to absorb the issues, and helped define what is at stake, for both congress and the president.
This should bring a political price, i.e., while the election will ultimately determine Trump's fate, and the fate of those members up for reelection, what happens on election day should be influenced by the facts coming out about Trump, one way or another.
This is how democracy is supposed to work. Elected officials should be held accountable (or not) for their actions, both the president and congress.
“Allowing that Trump is particularly crude about it, all presidents conflate their own political self-interest with the national interest — and so deciding when a president crosses the line and betrays his office is almost always a task best left up to the voters.”
I hope this really isn’t the best you can do Ross. Of course presidents consider their political futures when they make policy decisions. What politician would chose to act in a way that would doom their reelection? But, assenting to that idea has absolutely nothing to do with with running a back channel foreign policy that not only engaged in extortion for personal political gain, but also conspired with corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs to bypass and/or remove highly regards career diplomats from their posts. These diplomats were the very people who were combating corruption in Ukraine. Really, there may be cases where it is difficult to know if a president has crossed a line, and that may explain why impeachment is so rare, but this is not one of those cases. Trump metaphorically shot someone on fifth avenue. It’s that obvious.
3
@Richard Frank I think we have been shot. I feel the bullets, Richard. Many of us do.
Trump is used to people charging him with crimes at at least filing lawsuits against him. He doesn't care about that, just whether he's found guilty or not, and if about to be found guilty, he'll then settle, but that's not a consideration as the GOP prejudice (in the truest form as they publicly announced they had found him not guilty before the trial began) will ensure.
2
Mr. Douthat claims that Trump opponents are changing when they invoke "founding-era rhetoric."
In fact, Trump opponents have ALWAYS invoked the founders. For example, whenever Trump lies (which is often) I quote John Adams:
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts."
-- John Adams, defense of soldiers involved in the "Boston Massacre", 1770
In fact I've even placed this quote into my recent article on entropy in the journal "The Physics Teacher."
3
I weary of the stream of "all the boys did it" arguments to explain away the current moment. Yes there are countless examples of politicians using corrupt practices to further policy goals. But for trump the corruption is the feature, not the bug. Over and over observers indicate he has no policy goal beyond himself. He may not have a brother as attorney general but Nepotism Barbie and the Ken in law are installed as consiglieri in the White House (on taxpayers' dime ) to look out for trump family interests. We cannot just wait for the election when he works consistently to undermine elections. The conclusions about corruption in the last election foundered on obstruction of the investigation by the administration and the legal problem of how to assign value to actions that destroy an opponent's reputation, which any middle school mean girl could have explained to them. And not enough people cared and nothing changed. So saying we should do it all again this year holds little interest for me.
3
@Susan R
thank you for providing us with the best and most succinct description of Trump's character disorder—"middle school mean girl."
1
You make the outstanding point that, after Watergate, We the People, through Congressional action, thought we put in guardrails against Presidential abuses of power. Trump's backsliding is thus not simply an analogous but a clear violation of law. And no one would compared LBJ to Mussolini. That analogies to Mussolini even enter the conversation shows how far we have fallen.
2
I agree that censure is a viable course of action, and might limit Trump’s inevitable prancing around the country, and twittering 24/7 that he is vindicated and completely innocent. Of course censure doesn’t guarantee Trump would be held back doing the above things; the Mueller report didn’t vindicate him, but millions of Americans believe it did. A normal person would take censure as a warning; Trump appears to understand it as an invitation.
5
The basic premise of your argument is that impeachment is not reasonable for such venality as trying to interfere with elections as Nixon did in 1972. Presidents have immense power and "we do that all the time" (Mulvaney). Perhaps these are Venial sins, but Trump, like Capone, can't be indicted for Mortal sins. So what are the Mortal Sins of DJT? Not tax "reform", not abandoning Kurds or assassinating enemies, but rather using a minority government to undo unity, comity and civility. Americans need to be united about something, how about being Americans All, not just the "right" side.
2
I take exception to Josh Blackman's thesis on at least two counts. First, he used Lincoln's order (request?) to Sherman to release troops home to presumably vote Republican. Blackman claims some sort of precedent in the fact that Lincoln was not impeached for it, yet there was never an impeachment process set in motion for it (at least Blackman offered no description of one). No process, no decision, no precedent. A simple analogy here: there have been many cases where a murder was committed but no case brought, though plenty of suspicion existed. So, since sometimes a case is not brought, murder is OK! Second, the Clark episode involves a President NOMINATING a person to be AG. The person had to be approved by VOTE OF THE SENATE and gave LBJ a gain for potential policy. How is that process analogous to the Executive branch acting solely on its own and clandestinely to bring about PERSONAL gain?
I give Blackman an B+ for a lawyerly presentation, but D for a constitution and ethics presentation.
2
A sensible route would be to do what is the case for any other crime - split the fact-finding and the sentence; guiltt as charged, then a sentence of removal and/or disqualification from future office, or censure. In Trump's case he would need to be removed or disqualified as he would quite likely try the same sort of thing again.
1
Really? It's for the voters to decide? Can the voters call witnesses? Can they make Trump himself testify?
If not, then that's a lot of hooey and you have handed Trump and the Republicans complete power to obfuscate, lie, hinder and hide while treating the presidency --indeed our country--as a fiefdom for the rich and connected. And the Democrats, to stay in the game, will have to follow suit.
Also---perhaps you don't remember when Governor Bush brother presided over President Bush brother's election? At least Robert Kennedy was highly qualified and dedicated to ethical concerns and civil rights, whereas the Trump children have vague "job" descriptions for which they are utterly unqualified and have virtually unfettered access to ....everything.
7
Trump will not be deterred from continuing his outrageous self-serving behaviour by the impeachment. Yet, there is value in staining his name in the annals of history. There is not yet another Trump on the scene to continue this tragedy, perhaps this will be the exception to the decline of our democracy.
2
Douthat’s argument presumes Trump’s self dealing remains purely political. But it’s not just a quill-pen-and-powdered-wig problem.
This behavior affects several levels of national security. It affects the name e of geopolitical power as Russia seeks the natural resources of Ukraine. It affects election security since the president can’t act on that without admitting somethings wrong.
2
Trump is in a class of his own. Comparing his behavior with JFK, LBJ and other past presidents is laughable. At no time in US history have we seen such blatant disregard for morals, standards, decency, or the rule of law. As the saying goes, he makes Nixon look like a choir boy.
He's basically a mob boss whose principle talent is avoiding responsibility for his crimes. He's spent his entire life practicing his art. Why does he think he can get away with shooting someone in Times Square? Because he's been building up to this for a long, long time.
His methods are tried & true: first and foremost, get as many people on "your side" as possible. Use flattery, coercion, tribalism, false promises, outright lies - anything - to garner support. Then test the support by constantly asking for praise or affirmation. And finally, when push comes to shove, make it very clear to your followers that choosing principles over loyalty will exact a swift and powerful cost.
And anyone who doesn't recognize the extreme danger this puts our nation in simply hasn't been paying attention.
4
At least give LBJ credit for this, Mr. Douthat: he actually cared about the United States. That's why he courageously signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, knowing full well that it would damage him politically and ignite white Southern flight from the Democratic Party to the GOP. He had the audacity to believe that protecting the rights of all American citizens was good for the nation.
Trump? Trump cares about one thing and one thing only: Trump.
As for your dismissive phrase,"twilight-of-the-Republic rhetoric of his impeachers," well, we are indeed in the twilight of our Republic when the Senate majority bestow upon their president a quick-and-dirty acquittal before even bothering to get to the bottom of the matter.
7
L.B.J. getting the goods on his Barry Goldwater is not analogous to Trump asking a FOREIGN country to interfere in our election by getting dirt on Biden.
The Articles of Impeachment didn't include the first instance of Trump asking a foreign adversary, Russia, to help him get elected which the Mueller Report outlined.
Trump will no doubt not be found guilty however he will go down as the 3rd US President to be impeached. He can't change that.
4
Did Caliban truly want to be LBJ and shred the safety net at the same time? It´s not a plausible argument. As for the comparison with Mussolini, let´s not forget that Caliban is sub-literate and in Munich, in the Fall of 1938, Mussolini was the only one who didn´t need a translator. No, Caliban is really much more like Berlusconi, and if, in a world turned upside down, I were a Republican, I would not want that comparison to get around.
1
Didn't get by the 1st sentence: Mr. Douthat wants to compare a broadening of the reading of "all men are created equal" with the complete disregard for writing of the time sketching a broad view of impeachable acts in order to allow the reprehensible betrayal of American interests to slip by? Good grief!
5
The problem with this view is that it ignores that Trump is denying everything. If the Republican Party would at least admit the facts, admit that the conduct was wrong, and then argue that it does not rise to the level of impeachable, I might take that seriously.
But no, the Republican Party wants to me think my eyes are lying to me, that I'm not seeing what I'm seeing, that black is white and white is black.
By contract, supporters of Bill Clinton all took his misconduct seriously, everyone unanimously admitted the truth; Clinton himself ultimately confessed and apologized to the country. It's unimaginable that Trump would do so.
1
Mr. Douthat offers us a partisan rant under the illusion of being "even handed". Intellectualism knows no boundaries of hypocrisy.
Ultimately, senators who support the mob boss chief via acquittal will be the ones who pay a severe price come November. The Republican party has become a mass of robots who pledge allegiance to party above all else.
It's time we the people vote the traitors out and adequately prepare for the untold violence their brainwashed voters will inflict. If I were younger I'd sign up for the national guard.
2
Quoting closing-"The power to define and condemn an abuse of power rests with the Congress, as Madison and Hamilton imagined. But how severely to punish the offender will usually be — as it will be this November — for the voters to decide."
This acquittal will occur with a Senator's representing about 40% of American people supporting the acquittal of President. This will occur, leaving the amassed (and growing) evidence old (and new) high crimes and misdemeanors and deep connections to goals and methods of Putin and Russia--out there on the table.
President's defenders intend to smear his likely opponent in the proceeding before resting, and Republican Senators are planning further roasting of any successful Democratic candidates. The knives are out too.
Why does the writer believe that the loser of the election, be it Trump or a Democrat, AND their supporters, will accept the results of the election.
That is the coming whirlwind. You cannot run a successful democracy for long when the majority does not feel represented in elections or even that they are fair elections. I fear Hamilton's prediction will come true.
"—It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may “ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.”
"...impeachment-without-removal can function like an act of censure, a punishment that restrains misbehaving presidents without actually removing them."
Not if you look at his behavioer each and every time he has been confronted with his excesses. Even with Zelenski bribe, as sooon as he though he was in the clear he did it again, publicly, with China, and tried also this past summer in Italy.
No, nothing short of losing his Senate support and eventualy getting voted out (there will be a fight over that as well of course), will stop him. The only move he has left is to be worse.
Douthat displays alignment with Bill Barr in continuously wishing it was 1954 again and blaming Democratic presidents for our current woes.
How many times is Douthat going to write about JFK, a president who was assassinated over 55 years ago?
Is this what we can expect in a post Trump world (whenever that day comes)- Trump was bad but JFK was worse?
Mr. Douthat ignores the elephant in the room:
The strongest reason to impeach and convict Trump is that he endangers our National Security by repeatedly and consistently aiding a foreign power, Russia.
Secretary Clinton pointed out that Trump is Putin’s puppet. Speaker Pelosi told Trump that all roads lead to Putin with him. They are both entirely correct.
Convicted felons Roger Stone and Paul Manafort know the details of this, but they will not talk because Trump promised to pardon them if they keep quiet.
Trump’s tax returns would also show that he is in hock to Putin-connected Russian oligarchs, which is why Trump is so desperate to hide his financial records. Mueller was prevented from investigating Trump’s finances by Rod Rosenstein, and William Barr terminated the investigation prematurely.
For further information on the Russian conspiracy, see The Moscow Project https://themoscowproject.org/.
Remarkably, virtually the entire Republican delegation in Congress is in complete denial of all of this.
The GOP has become the Gang of Putin!
4
I enjoy Ross Douthat - always well written and reasoned opinions. I am glad he writes for the Times. But his comment on the FBI and its misconduct in the Trump investigation is a bit overstated, especially in light of Comey’s handling of the Clinton email investigation and what the Hoover-led FBI did.
Can you explain where Iran-Contra fits into this view? Why wasn’t Ronald Reagan impeached?
2
Speaking of nepotism, how about Don, Jr., Ivanka and Jared Kushner--all, presumably, on the public payroll for doing... nothing.
and the only salient point Mr. Douthat offers is ...
"...Trump’s sordid behavior with Ukraine."
Mr. Douthat then devotes the next 500 or so words to obfuscating, ignoring and misdirecting from this singular fact that is grounds for impeachment and removal.
1
It's not complicated. Trump broke the law. Trump abused his power through obstruction. You can say whatever you want if your a Republican about process but nothing changes the facts above. Use whatever far out legal theory you want to justify not convicting Trump but the truth is such an endeavor is just simply the willful choice by corrupt people to ignore the facts. Republicans simply want to win using any means necessary. Cheating to get elected started with Bush II and has continued unabated. It is in the case of Trump though complicity to a man who is also guilty of treason in every sense of the word. You don't hide the facts if you're innocent. You are as transparent as possible because it proves your innocence. That's why all candidates for President from both parties have released their taxes for the last 50 years. When you prevent the Congress from investigating you beyond what even Nixon did you do it because you are simply guilty. So what does that make the Republican Senate? My god they could have Pence right now if they wanted him so why don't they? Maybe the corruption goes beyond Trump because why else take the risk that he might cost Republicans the Senate and the Presidency? Every poll shows Trump losing and that is before more, not less information comes out about the Ukraine fiasco, Trump's finances and other corruption. Parnas says everybody was in the loop. Get the popcorn, I am sure Ross will try to explain it all. Pence in the loop? Pompeo? You betcha.
3
Trump is being impeached for one case of abuse of power, but he happens to be a walking (tweeting) abuser of power, without interruption from early on in his life. He has never known any other way to be, and so now that he has managed to occupy the highest seat of power - mostly by abusing the system, with a constant stream of lies, incitements and insults - he is just incapable of refraining from this compulsion. The convoluted argument in this article manages to ignore this fact and the grave dangers associated with maintaining in office such a repulsive character, even for another day, especially since this will be enabled by Republican senators worried about seeing their "own head on a pike".
3
Ross's placement of Trump alongside JFK and LBJ is preposterous. JFK and LBJ were far from perfect, but to compare these accomplished presidents with Trump, whose narcissism, incompetence, ignorance, and impulsiveness continues to harm and endanger our international standing while promoting chaos at home, is disengnuous. Trump acts on impulse and cares about himself, first and foremost; he has no startegy, and clearly does not understand the Constitutional system of checks and balances.
3
Trump's best defense would be to plead incompetent counsel. They are falling all over each other to see who can tell the most obvious lies.
3
The defense most would believe would be insanity.
Frankly I can’t tell the difference between Obstruction of Congress” and “Obstruction of Democrats.”. It’s eerily reminiscent of the broad powers granted (administratively of course as it would never clear the legislative bar) to our police state - “If you don’t cooperate or lie to me, you are obstructing justice and will go to jail.”. and they get to define cooperation and what constitutes a lie.
1
Speaking of LBJ and election interference, consider the tape recording from 1968 of LBJ talking to his his old friend, Sen. Russell, about Nixon's covert attempt to undermine the upcoming election by undermining the Paris Peace Talks. The recording is here:
https://prde.upress.virginia.edu/conversations/4006111
Johnson dares not use information he obtained about Nixon's efforts through illegal FBI wiretapping, but he wants his old friend to know he considers Nixon a traitor.
LBJ was a skilled user of political dirty tricks, but deliberately undermining America's interest by convincing the South Vietnamese to scuttle the talks was to him the act of a traitor. 25,000 more Americans and countless Vietnamese died as a result.
As a teenager I shook LBJ's hand. His civil rights bills were extraordinary. Trump is no LBJ.
Bobby Kennedy may have been inexperienced, but at least he was a Harvard grad, and an actual attorney.
Not up to Trump's daughter and son in law's (har dee har har) qualifications, of course, but at least Bobby showed himself able to benefit from on-the-job training.
1
As a former long-time Republican, I think that Trump and his administration (including Barr and McConnell) will ultimately set the Republican party back for years.
These people are a grotesque, despicable and dangerous combination that works to the detriment of our Republic and our country. Censure should be the minimum penalty for Trump.
If Republicans do not permit witnesses and documents, even though they surely will vote to acquit or censure if that happens, history will not be kind to them.
1
Looking at history one can cherry-pick presidential behaviors. It does not look like many presidents lied near as much as Trump, but then again many others did not have 24 hr cable news and social media cycles--or twitter transcript availability.
This is not a usual trial in any sense that we understand it with respect to our judicial system. Both sides will attempt to use cable news and other media outlets to influence the November vote. I just hope the Democrats can swing the voters they need. It is a safe presumption that Trump will only be removed by the ballot box.
Presidential phone calls have not been recorded since 1970 in association with the Nixon era. We have gone to transcripts, but supposedly no one has attempted to politically edit those as much as the Trump White House: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2019/09/25/transcripts-presidential-calls-are-nearly-verbatim-not-exact-heres-how-it-works/ .
Trump has gone far beyond the "casual corruption" Ross references. His is an active, unabashed and purposeful destruction of basic decency and ethics. The facts have been laid out, despite his refusal to cooperate in the investigation and his orders of others not to testify or provide documents. Throngs of people associated with him have left the administration in shame or have been indicted or convicted. He is left with mostly incompetents and sycophants, who have neither the spine nor the intelligence to challenge him.
It is one thing to use power, as all presidents do. It is wholly another to be fundamentally and at one's core rotten and corrupt.
1
Russ,
Enough is enough. LBJ signed the Civil Rights legislation in this country that, in his own words, signed the "death sentence" of the Democratic Party in the South. The fact that he put principle and morality over party, and, on top of that, bucked the racist consensus of his own party changed that party and the country for the better.
Donald Trump is the antithesis of LBJ in every way. So please, quit trying to normalize him. The man is filled with hatred from brown people (though he loves black people, provided they won a ring or a grammy), he despises morality, and he places himself above the rule of law. In this sense, he is every bit like Mussolini, except for the fact that Mussolini was less prone to racist demagoguery, at least until pressed in this direction in 1936 by his German "ally."
Let's not sully the names of decent people by comparing them to this Ego in Chief.
3
Young Man, to even mention LBJ and Trump in the same sentence as a comparison is a sacrilege. Yes, LBJ had faults, but he did more for Civil Rights in this entire Country than any President since. Here’s your Comparison: Trump is the anti-LBJ. And also the anti-Obama. Besides enriching Himself/Family, his main goal to to undo everything Obama DID. It’s that simple. He’s like a rabid dog with a putrid bone. And the Bone is the GOP.
5
It appears both Ross and Blackman are saying that Johnson's motives for nominating Thurgood Marshall for the Supreme Court was solely to get himself reelected. Wow. How culturally and historically ignorant do you need to be to think that was a legitimate means to get votes in a country that was even more divided on racial terms than it is today? The best I think you could say was that LBJ was thinking of his legacy but the move to get an African American on the court meant far more for more people than himself getting reelected.
Your arguments fail miserably if you look at the situation realistically and not attempt to shield a corrupt party from failing to live up to their oaths. Trump is a narcissist first and foremost and his attempts to corrupt a foreign leader to assist him in his aggrandizement is clear and evident. He does not care what laws are broken, what rules are trampled, what means are employed as long as he wins. His motives are obvious, his intent is clear as day, his actions prove beyond a shadow of a doubt his venality, and yet you seek to normalize this perversion.
It is sad that it will never come to pass that those who have supported and aided and abetted him will suffer anything more than the rest of us, if that. They should know that they caged children, took babies from their parents, and are responsible for all the ill that will come of him. Sadly they will still hold power and like W. Bush will renounce him when it gets truly ugly.
2
Dear Mr. Douthat, you are undoubtedly a very smart person. But as far as I'm concerned it is time to stop using reason, explainations, thesis-antithesis-synthesis concerning anything that touches the current occupier of the White House. The man is totally inapt to lead the U.S. of A. as proven by his lies, tweets and actions. It is also clear that the so-called conservatives (I always wonder what they want to conserve, but that another topic) will gladly provide a 'get-out-of-jail-for-free' card to the occupier.
And as for the occupier trying to be L.B.J. and not Mussolini, wrong. The occupier wants to be the occupier, there's nothing more to that.
Mr. Douthat, you seem to miss the entire reason for this impeachment. It is so that come this November when we all go to vote, Americans have a fighting chance of having a fair election that is not manipulated by foreign governments because they were bribed by the President of the United States to do so. Last time it was the Russians and this time Trump tried his best to enlist the Ukrainians to do his dirty work. The founders clearly envisioned this peril when they were considering impeachment, as does anyone today who possesses a conscience and a brain.
5
Are the JFK and LBJ presidencies part of the modern U.S. presidency? Physically and culturally the U.S. may look almost indistinguishable from the America of the 1960s if one does not look too closely. However, we are living in a very different world and America is not only a lot fatter we are far more complex.
We need to view Trump's behavior in our own terms and it is pretty awful. What I don't understand is the sheer cowardice of the Republican Party. The ones that have backbones have all left the party, some of them are commentators on CNN and MSNBC. Why can't the Republicans simply remove a corrupt and potentially dangerous president? Why are they afraid of Trump? I grew up two miles from Trump. He is a blowhard bully. No reason to fear him. If you are man or a woman who should have the courage to stand up to a bully.
1
Far worse than his abuse of power :Trump is throwing our system of Checks and Balances into the circular file. Mr. Douthat stop with your attempt to create a not so subtle false equivalency with his predecessors. No president in our history has been close to as dangerous as Trump.
3
And of course let’s just completely forget about any sort of oversight of a President by the Congress, ever. Right Ross?
3
I am very bullish on our form of government; we the people will "Survive 45."
What does trouble me -- deeply -- is that there is such a large number of people who really do want to have a strongman in the office. That number seems to be growing, if anything.
1
If they leave this one to the voters to decide, then elected officials are worthless, spineless, do-nothings. If they leave this to the voters it says it is okay and it happens all the time.
1
Oh come on! Seriously? Mr. Douthat, it is simple. straightforward. The gaggle of right wing (more or why I didn't say "conservative" in a moment) writers here who are scratching out Impeacment columns are turning contortionist to say anything but the obvious. And it is obvious on the face of it that one side has a problem with presidential abuse of power and how a modern day Mussolini can in fact damage our actual democracy and another group who in benefiting from this turn a blind eye. It really has zip to do with how one interprets the Constitution. It's all so straightforward. Abuse of power or not.
So why not refer to you and your myopic brethren as "conservative"? It's straightforward too: none of you are applying actual conservative principals. Instead you are each applying either rhetorical gymnastics to make the discussion feel "fair and balanced" (great tag line huh?) or... or you are ginning up your articles with the sole purpose of generating readers as opposed to delivering actual helpful thought to discussion of the driving issues of our times. If the latter is true you are giving a hand to the erosion of the value of the press and so erosion of our democracy. But this is not "conservative".
2
Are you kidding me? Can you see Trump signing off on Medicare?
With all due respect and civility, you made it clear that the tax cuts were enough for you to vote for Trump. Remember?
So, why now Sir introduce the concept that "Trump’s conduct is indeed more historically normal than the twilight-of-the-Republic rhetoric of his impeachers." We progressives know Trump is siding up with the anti-abortionists to get more votes not for a moral choice. Trump wouldn't know a moral choice if "God" appeared and spoke to him.
You would at the very least listen to "God." Be careful though and titrate your Trump criticism in this "heads on pikes" times.
Trump's most honest defense would to plead not guilty due to insanity - or is it inshannity? Then we could see if Pence and 15 members of the cabinet would have the the moral gumption
to take him out under the 25th amendment.
Strikingly imbalanced essay.
Douthat really reaches to bestow a modicum of credibility to Blackman's egregious suggestion that Trump's Ukraine imbroglio was politics as usual. Hence Douthat's conclusion that presidents can be impeached but should be removed from office only by voters.
Now let us examine Douthat's characterization of Democratic presidents.
"Clinton's presidential priapism," "Kennedy seraglio."
Comical hyperbole.
"And despite Trump’s nepotistic impulses, even he hasn’t yet imitated Kennedy’s elevation of his own brother as attorney general."
Bobby Kennedy had considerable experience as a Justice Department attorney and is commonly regarded as one of America's greatest crime fighters.
William Barr anyone?
Even Douthat has to acknowledge that Edgar Hoover's F.B.I. was a little more incorrigibly corrupt than the F.B.I. that investigated Trump. In Douthat's imagination, however, the very apposition implicates the contemporary F.B.I. in Hoover's malfeasance.
Voters can only decide judiciously if there is no election tampering, the very donnée of this impeachment proceeding.
2
I had to look up two words in this please. Any guesses as to which ones?
Mr Douthat uses incidents where other Presidents utilized executive power to attack, investigate, or simply buy opponents to defend Trumps actions, but none of them involved using foreign powers to do so.
1
Mr. Douthat makes a very cogent observation of how President Trump may want to spend his second term, if elected.
I doubt that a 3% GDP, lower unemployment etc. will satisfy him. It would simply be more of the same.
He would be looking to leave a legacy greater than that.
One of the examples could be immigration.
If he can stop the illegal entry of immigrants, or at least slow it down to a manageable number, he could attempt to redo the whole immigration problem. And in a much more humane way than his actions up to now would indicate.
As Mr. Douthat indicates he could change things the way LBJ did civil rights.
Do not undersell his ability to get people who are now greatly opposed to things to change their minds.
The man could sell ice cubes in Alaska.
1
@RD The rate of immigration when Trump took office was exactly the same as it was in 2001, when it hardly constituted a "national crisis." The very idea that immigration is a national crisis is the ice cubes in Alaska that Trump is trying to sell.
He helped our economy at the cost of 3 trillion dollars added to the deficit. Normally, a good economy is when you pay down the deficit so you can increase it again when times are tough. Trump did the opposite. And he is already talking about cutting social security to reduce the deficit (a long-term far-right goal.)
Trump cares about one thing: himself, his ego, his re-election. He doesn't care about the nation, or he wouldn't drive up the deficit (to help himself) at the exact moment we had a chance to pay it down. There's no reason to believe he will ever think of anything or anyone besides his own wants and needs.
Here is the problem with: "deciding when a president crosses the line and betrays his office is almost always a task best left up to the voters." While that's a good sound bite, the truth is more serious. He has eleven more months in this term, and he has demonstrated that he's a dangerous person who puts us at risk in many ways.
1
What is more concerning than the presidents impeachable offenses, as described in senate hearings, is the static political division by members of the senate on the presidents guilt.
It is clear that regardless of the offenses no senate member will waiver in their entrench beliefs. This means that we are starting to see the failings of our democratic institutions - ones who are suppose to be robust and functional in times of crisis of our country.
This is much more worrying than the inane acts of the president - who - if we are being honest - does not surprise us with his need to cheat to win.
1
Be very clear in your statements. This is about replublican party senators and representatives putting party before country and all else. This is not about a general failing equally aligned to both party leaders and representatives. It’s not equal. Want to ensure that is crystal clear and explicit.
1
After a tour of historical false equivalencies, Douthat arrives where most Democrats were a year ago. Back in the day when inviting Russian interference in the 2016 election, felony violations of campaign laws, and obstruction of justice seemed to be Trump's most serious offenses, many Democrats were calling for impeachment. Not because they really thought he would be removed from office, but because it was the right thing to do and was the only meaningful way the peoples' House could say: "No, we don't accept this behavior from our president." Now, after Trump's even more astonishing crimes against political decency and the constitution, Ross has finally come around to that view.
6
Trump doesn’t want to be LBJ. That would involve hard, selfless work, and a sense of duty to the Republic.
Trump wants to be President Boss Tweed.
9
Mr. Douthat and other Republicans are correct: compared to other US presidential actions overseas this is pretty mild stuff. Heck, no one even died. Whether through brazenness or incompetence Trump’s actions, though, were done in the open, even, remarkably, in a press briefing. Republicans should recognize that there will be a cost to this victory. As China and the US compete for global influence, one of these countries will be seen as led by a president with absolutely no legislative check on his power, with disdain for fair elections, and hatred of a free press. And yeah, the other country is China.
Say what you will about LBJ, his ethics were shaky, etc. but he was a great deal maker, something that Trump is only in his own mind.
4
LBJ also had this habit of actually getting things done for the ol’ People. He was pretty much a good ole boy, womanizer and kind of a slob who used to give his morning pressers while ensconced on the john, and his early career in Texas doesn’t bear close inspection—but he also passed Medicare and all the major civil rights legislation and a ton of works projects, without taking for himself.
Then there’s Vietnam, though. Even if Nixon was worse—and he was—at least he tried to get out decently.
1
I agree. It was very important to raise the issue and the debate about our presidents and their behaviors. I am satisfied with the fact that in America we are trying to address these issues on time and not waiting for history to discuss and debate these issues. I doubt that it will change the way voters are going to vote but at least we are setting an example where there is a dialogue no matter how ugly it is. This is about learning that how important it is to raise your voice against the abuse of power. Not everything has to be about winning and losing.
LBJ wasn't such a great guy. Saying that Trump wants to be "another LBJ" is almost as bad as saying he wants to be another Stalin or Mao. Of course, it's all a fantasy world and Trump will never be another anybody. LBJ adversely affected the lives of millions of people. Trump was one of them. Too bad he wasn't drafted. It might have changed him for the better? in fact, you could imagine many ways that it could have changed the course of history as it did for more than hundreds of thousands of young men whose lives were changed forever...all because of LBJ.
3
@Alan LBJ was effective and did not act against his country--EVER.
He refused to run for a second term because he had lost the confidence of the people.
Like that would happen with Trump or any Republican.
1
@Alan
LBJ was the most competent POTUS whose only rival in that regard was FDR.
Your reading of the history of our war in Viet Nam is sorely lacking.
LBJ was continuing the policy of Eisenhower up until the Tet Offensive when he went all in to broker a peace deal with North Viet Nam and scutteled by Nixon and Kissinger's interference led by their emissary Anna Chennault.
@Alan
LBJ was the most competent POTUS whose only rival in that regard was FDR.
As I read the author’s comparison of Trump’s misdeed to those of past Presidents I see a heavy dose of sexual dalliance, a sprinkling of patronage appointments, an accusation of spying (Johnson’s on Goldwater, which is supremely ironic given Trump’s accusation of bugging by President Obama and Devin Nunes’ infamous midnight run which all amounted to a laughable event) and the Madison affair.
Compare these to the well thought through extortion of a foreign leader for personal political gain that was carried out over a period of months, covering it up and committing an actual crime against the Impoundment Act by withholding millions of dollars in aid approved by a bipartisan supermajority of Congress. This undermined national security. Trump’s misdeed was in fact an act of conspiracy committed in concert with Giuliani and indicted cohorts and apparently with the knowledge and perhaps assistance of a few senior cabinet ministers. This is comparable in magnitude ?
I was waiting for was a historical reference to a Presidential misdeed of truly similar magnitude. I didn’t see it. Not even close. Perhaps Mr. Douthat (one of the more interesting and thoughtful opinionaters on NYT) can expand his case in a follow up piece.
13
@WoodyTX
"Compare these to the well thought through extortion of a foreign leader for personal political gain that was carried out over a period of months..."
something the record argues Trump is not capable of devising on his own and clearly not something any of the members of his Executive Branch would have.
raising the question, "Who is Trump taking advice from and then acting on that advice? Rudy? Rudy is a basket case that can't remember the password to his iPhone.
"So who?"
2
Thoughtful and insightful. Makes me realize how fallible - human - all Presidents will be; and that we don’t yet accept this. Democrats and Republicans eventually decided that Clinton lying/perjuring about an affair was indeed a crime; but not worthy of impeachment. That is why the Founders came up with ‘high crimes’; but what that means must still be tested...
Trump can in no way be fairly compared to LBJ. Johnson had amassed greatness over the years through his masterful mastery of the levers of power and knowing when to pull them. He knew how and when to get results -- much of which earned him his rightful place as the Great Emancipator of the 20th century. He was able to enlarge the promises of freedom and self-governnance to millions of Americans who had been excluded since the nation's founding. He was complex, but intended good. And at times the complexity led him to err, such as with his disastrous Viet Nam War decisions -- the millstone, that will always hang heaviest around his neck. Trump has no intention to enlarge freedom for anyone except himself, and that is demonstrated in the most heinous ways every single day. For him, if there is any goodness, it begins and ends in Donald Trump -- and no further.
7
@Riley Temple ----so well said. elequent.
The Republican defense is very weak, claiming, as Ross does, that Trump’s behavior was pretty standard presidential stuff not rising to the level of criminality, and going further to assert that it’s perfectly ok for a president to overrule Congress as he sees fit to cover up misdeed.
This is very much like a school kid, caught in the act, claiming that Johnny did it and all the kids did it and why are you picking on me? Unfair!
The case of Trump, in which the facts are not much in dispute, only whether they were inside or outside the permissible range for a president, goes to motivation. Why did Trump attempt to extort (some say bribe, mostly because that word is in the Constitution) Ukraine? Why did he wait three years, until Joe Biden announced he was running and quickly moved to the top of the polls, did Trump decide he needed counterprogramming? For what reasons of innocence did Trump stonewall the House investigation?
Now, we have the Chief Justice presiding, but it seems I am in the majority of Americans in my ignorance as to what “presiding” means in the President’s Senate trial. It doesn’t seem like any court or trial I have witnessed. So, does Robertson do if something happens in one of a group of mostly elderly men, such as one or two “jurors” becoming incapacitated or dying before the vote is taken?
Once the trial excitement dies down and Mitch McConnell loses his re-election bid, I propose he be given a place of honor at the National Zoo’s kangaroo pen.
2
Again with the false equivalency argument! Equating what Trump has done to what LBJ did is apples and oranges, if for no other reason than LBJ's alleged machinations were conducted with other Americans, while Trump's have been with foreign governments and actors.
And isn't it convenient to use a Democrat for your comparison, rather than any number of Republicans that would've been closer to the mark. For instance, how about Reagan's "devil's bargain" with the Ayatollah and Noriega in hatching his plan to free the hostages, trading American arms for Nicaraguan drugs and money to funnel to the Iranians prior to the election? Really that was no different than what Trump has done - inviting a foreign country to tip the scales in his direction.
As intelligent as you appear to be, Ross, you can't possibly believe the contorted and hypocritical defenses mounted for Trump by his defenders. They defy logic and the facts. But in the end, let me ask you this: Do you believe that two wrongs make a right? Because that's the "defense" you're mounting here.
7
It is no stretch to imagine that Trump will, by whatever twist of projection, once again, take to Twitter and MAGA rallies, and whine about election rigging.
4
“Trump doesn’t want to be an American Mussolini so much as he wants to be a less legislatively minded L.B.J. — meaning that his conception of the presidency belongs to the middle of the 20th century.”
Take Trump’s sleazy act of extortion trading national interests for personal political gain, find a more or less historical exemplar, then pretend Trump “wants” him as his model and acts out of a “conception of the presidency.” Mr. Douthat’s historicizing doesn’t make Trump historically aware; Douthat’s conceptualizing doesn’t make Trump capable of conceptualizing. The magic of punditry: bringing intellectual comfort out of political chaos to the economically comfortable.
5
All very good points, and good arguments for having produced a robust laundry list of articles of impeachment. Based on Trump statements alone Ukraine is but the tip of a Titanic iceberg of high crimes and misdemeanors.
4
President Trump defied Congress, harmed an ally, aided an adversary, jeopardized our national security, and solicited a foreign government to investigate an American citizen. These are all serious violations of his oath of office. Worse, he committed these acts in order to skew the 2020 presidential election, and he has obstructed Congress's entirely legitimate power and duty to investigate his misdeeds. The Senate ought to remove him from office, but won't. The voters ought to vote him out in November, but may not. Regardless, it is highly unlikely that President Trump will completel his second term should he be re-elected. New details about his crimes emerge almost daily, sooner or later, truth will out.
7
Mr. Douthat is just another of those conservatives who will justify the actions of Donald Trump in any way they can. Sad!
8
Seems conservative columnists like Douthat today and Stephens yesterday abhor the idea of a liberal President so much they’re busily convincing themselves Trump’s behavior isn’t so bad after all. While they never overtly support him, they’ll have to stifle a grin if he’s re-elected.
6
Continuing down these false equivalencies between Johnson or Kennedy and Trump does a major disservice to the public. Trump has gotten two Supreme Court nominees confirmed after dubious political machinations by the Republican Party. Trump has a long track record of unfaithful, sexually assaulting, and misogynistic behavior. He was not impeached for these actions. The impeachment is about assaulting the Congressional power of the purse. Does a president get to supersede consensus decisions of our representatives for his own personal gain?
2
Thinking that this impeachment will be "a punishment that restrains" Trump is truly an absurd notion. It will be quite the opposite. We ain't seen nothing yet, especially if he gets 4 more years and the Senate stays in the GOP control. Like Pence said, he will be "unstoppable".
1
Trump’s outrageous behavior is exceeded only by the Democrats
utter incompetence in dealing with it.
Provided with @10 detailed examples of impeachable offenses for obstruction of justice by Trump in the Mueller report, the Democrats chose the politically convenient option of burying their head in the sand:
Faced with Trump’s refusal to comply with oversight subpoenas (pre impeachment), the Democrats blinked, and did nothing.
When they decided on articles of impeachment, they made the politically convenient decision to ignore the Mueller impeachment roadmap.
Confronted again with Trump’s blanket order to ignore impeachment subpoenas, the Democrats decided that it was more politically expedient to squeal loudly rather than trust the system-the courts.
And now, after boasting about their “overwhelming” case against
Trump, they demand that the Senate Republicans do what the House Democrats twice decided not to do-subpoena key witnesses.
Incompetent weakness in the face of transparent lawlessness—both for the sake of political expediency
Gotta love Mr. Douthat's normalization of Donald Trump - POTUS extraordinaire. The LBJ analogue is so spot on; it's hard to imagine why I didn't see it sooner. My excuse is that I wasn't alive during LBJ's tenure.
LBJ signed the civil rights act and the law which created Medicaid and other anti-poverty legislation, in my historical memory? Right? I guess that squares with Donny making his first priority taking away health insurance from over twenty million people out of nothing more than pure narcissistic impulse to undermine Barack Obama.
LBJ inherited the presidency in the aftermath of Kennedy's assassination. Donald Trump orchestrated a campaign built on lies about our first African American president being a secret Muslim and immigrants "invading" our nation while riding a wave of Russian propaganda meant to empower radicals on the right and issue in what is turning out to be the most contentious moment in our history since the civil war. LBJ did much to heal our nation's divide. Donny exploits and worsens it - again a nearly perfect analogue...
LBJ came from Texas Ranchers; Trump was born a New York trust fund baby. LBJ was elected to the state legislature at age 27. Trump was a riches first, politics second sort of man, and at age 27 probably a little more invested in NY nightlife and draft dodging than policy arguments.
Ross has been making a Trumpian normalizing effort for a couple weeks now. It must be exhausting work. Get some rest.
8
@PJ
and Ross is not alone.
the number of comments attempting to normalize Trump leads one to suspect this is not a coincidence but a social media tactic.
Bannon's finger prints are all over this.
3
Trump probably doesn't even know what country Mussolini ruled.
He may not even know that Johnson was a U.S. President.
But even if he does know about them both, he doesn't *want* to be anything except 1) RE-ELECTED; and 2) NEVER publicly criticized by anyone ever.
That is pretty much all that motivates Trump. Thinking there's any more to him is a complete waste of effort.
6
Trump needed to be censured ... the impeachment process in this case is turning out to be very ineffective ... and the timing is awful. Our Democratic candidates need to be in Iowa, note glued to their seats in the Senate.
1
As the House managers agued, accepting the canard that the voters have to decide means that DJT has another year to abuse his power, serve himself, and potentially corrupt the very election to which dolts like Douthat look for salvation. The argument is self-defeating for the reason stated--the principal is allowed to corrupt the very process the idealists count on to purge the republic of its miscreants.
Douthat, as always, tries to have his cake and eat it at the same time: he wants to pretend to be a friend to Republicans and a high-minded person of principle. He is neither. He is a political hack dancing on a high wire of specious argument and false assumptions about how people and governments work.
All of the points being made here as to why Ross is wrong are just a waste of time. Trump will not be removed from office in this impeachment. Are your dreams of removal, in fact, driven by your understanding of the certainty of Trump's reelection?
Actually, mine are driven out of an interest in reality, and a loathing of obvious nonsense from the Right.
I also like to have more on offer than the typical silly accusations of TDS—not that I don’t think it’s a real thing, but that since I read Charlie Sykes’ great editorial and saw the four thousandth example of Trump and Trumpists braying out the same crazinesses, I realized just who it was that suffers from it.
2
@Southern Man
To anyone who's been closely paying attention ( and I have!), there's NO doubt that the evidence speaks for itself when it comes to Trump's actions and his proven penchant to put himself above and ahead of all things at all times, including the Constitution.
And as long as there's an Electoral College, a Republican-controlled Senate and Russian interference in our elections -- Trump has every chance of reelection.
But that doesn't mean that he (or we) are winning.
2
Comparing the 'nepotistics' of the appointment of R.F.K. as J.F.K.'S A.G. to trump's appointment of jared and Ivanka --whatever they do (or could, w/o previous experience or achievement … or much 'in the way of' brains) -- as principal presidential advisers is as off-base as would be a comparison of Josh Blackman's So. Texas College of Law (or even that Antonin Scalia one @ George Mason U.) to a Tier 1 law school.
I could go on .... e.g., I bet that even Jaqueline would think that J.F.K.'s 'dalliances' were nowhere near as crass as trump's. And there was never a single allegation of 'non-consent' among J.F.K.'s … whereas there are 19 such, give or take, among trump's.
1
The difference between LBJ and Trump is that the former actually loved his country and did a lot of good - the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act, and decreased poverty levels in the U.S. While LBJ was a political animal, he used his skills and power to advance legitimate governmental goals. Trump does only what benefits Trump personally, regardless of the damage done to our national security and the rule of law. He has blatantly abused the powers of his office and obstructed Congress. Moreover, as the newly released Parnas tape confirms, Trump lies as easily as he breathes and acts like a Mafia boss when he thinks the world isn’t listening. He is a national security threat and danger to our democracy. How sad Republicans are more intent on maintaining power than protecting our system of checks and balances.
2
1. Read the "Congressional Record - House" of December 18, 2019, where Mr. Larson of Connecticut includes the "Articles of Impeachment (By Ralph Nader, Bruce Fein and Louis Fisher)" Pages H12197-12199. TWELVE articles of impeachment. Why focus on only TWO? Impeaching on all twelve would restore our democracy in a big way.
2. Do you hear a voice from the 1% that favors impeachment? Did Trump qualify as a presidential candidate? NO, to both questions. It is not: "God is dead, all is permitted." It is "Trump is president, all is permitted."
3. Poll results show the great majority wants witnesses. But, in this "Flawed democracy" (since 2016, "The democracy Index" EIU), 70% of the people have no impact on political decisions (Gillens and Page). We are indeed in trouble.
2
Next to global warming, the second most frightening prospect for America's future is an emboldened and term-limited second Trump Administration.
If you think the shamelessness and lawlessness of the first Trump Administration are bad, you haven't seen anything yet.
3
Let's face it; the truth is, Trump has been nailed, dead to rights. And the comments of "Ross Doubt it ," like Trump 's defense team, don't hold much if any water.
The reality, however, is that all of this is
pretty much moot, as even with any additional evidence, or witness testimony; nothing short of the political equivalent of divine intervention will change things, as the spineless cowardice of McConnell and the rest of the Republicans in the Senate will let him off the hook.
As long as Trump is being compared to a crime boss, why not muse if Sekulow and Cippalone have taken a page from Bruce Cutler's playbook?
First let's imagine a future President cutting off military aid to Israel and asking for an investigation into the leading Republican candidate for dodgy deals in Tel Aviv. Would fly? Think not.
So constitutional fine points don't matter.
America is not a democracy because the Constitution is a pre-built gerrymander.
And, just because people are ignoring this, the "Transcript" wasn't a transcript but a tidying up imagined by Trump staffers.
4
Give us a break Ross, comparing Trump to JFK and LBJ
is beyond ridiculous. They were presidents of consequence.
LBJ was a giant for civil rights that JFK began.
Ross never lived through their administrations. JFK gave us
inspiration and a trip to the moon. LBJ ended Jim Crow while
Barry Goldwater voted against that legislation.
2
Not to forget, JFK was our first Catholic President, which a big deal at the time and marked the end of the era of our government being an exclusively WASP playground. Surely,the Jesuits mentioned that?
Lyndon Johnson’s appointment of Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark’s son Ramsey Clark as attorney general, part of a maneuver to induce Clark’s resignation so that Johnson could then appoint the first African-American justice and consolidate African-American support.
At least Ramsey Clark was a quality Attorney General, unlike BillBarrBagman.
But there’s a striking parallel. Anthony Kennedy’s son was a high ranking executive with Deutsche Bank’s Private Client group, the last bank with an American presence to lend to six time bankruptee Donald Trump. Kennedy resigned, to be replaced by Brett Kavanaugh to consolidate support from the far right and evangelicals. But, unlike with the Clarks, the political motivation was accompanied by the potential corrupt cessation of investigations of Deutsche Bank. Is it OK to tie stopping an investigation to manipulation of the Supreme Court’s personnel? I’m going to go with a “no” here.
5
Ukraine, taken alone, may not be enough to warrant removal. But thrown on the rest of the pile of lies, deceits, insults, blunders (intentional and otherwise) is more than enough. It was a couple of years ago. There is nothing “populist” about boorish behavior. Then again, maybe there is.
1
Oops, you forgot something. Please name one other president who has told his staff that they can categorically ignore and subpoenas from Congress. Name one other president who felt that Congress and our entire system of checks and balances don't apply to his administration.
4
Actually many of Mr. Trump’s smirks, frowns, grins, "twitter" machine-gunning and disrespectful outbursts to constitutional bodies (“Crazy Nancy” he blurted once, referring to the Congress’s Speaker) indeed resemble Mussolini’s ones.
But, apart this, apart the right interpretation of the Founding Fathers Articles in the Third Millennium, apart Johnson’s behaviour in a time when cyber foreign meddling was not yet possible…
APART ALL: in the political debate lacks a recognition of the state of mind of the President.
And the behaviour of Mr. Trump is strictly coherent with what he clearly appears: that is, he suffers from AUTISM.
Which is not, of course, a “J’accuse” to the man, but a simple realization, which, should have been made by an accountable APA panel of psychiatrics, instead of complimenting his 2016 election, "pledging to work with his administration", which, in the aftermath, resounds as an unconscious “to work for him”.
The President of the United States of America (only Empire on the Planet, actually), must own less erratic parameters than those of Mr. Trump.
And, every 4 years, it’s up to the political parties’ caucuses to glean out the most adapt to the task.
For sure, on July 2016, the GOP - in choosing Trump as the Republican Party’s presidential nominee - surrendered its wits for a never ending series of bewildering charades.
The real danger for American voters in November 2020 will be to go on "pretending" not to see this “naked King”.
A poor excuse for spin. LBJ gave us the war on poverty and civil rights legislation. Mussolini created the corporate state putting industrial leaders in positions of power -- just like Trump. As a wise man once joked; everything in history happens twice, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Sadly the same small minded sycophants cling to and justify the arrogant power of those who would be dictators.
2
Ross You people on the right keep ignoring the specific word "bribery" in the Constitution. Here is the legal definition:
Bribery refers to the offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing the actions of an individual holding a public or legal duty. ... Bribery constitutes a crime and both the offeror and the recipient can be criminally charged.
What Trump did was to offer a bribe to the Ukraine for his own benefit. Pure and simple.
1
Ross, to compare DJT to LBJ is preposterous. With DJT’s thumbnail level command of history and political process, and his preoccupation to revere dictators, all one has to do is watch his behaviors to see that the only position he wants is total and absolute rule without accountability or conscience, which certainly puts him in the Mussolini camp. All of the Presidents you mentioned (even Nixon) had a sincere love for our country and what it stands for. This person is incapable of and void of these principles. He will do ANYTHING to ANYONE (and yes Mitch/Lindsey that means to you too) to feed himself.
We must use the impeachment process as a tool to protect our democracy.
2
The real danger in 2020 is McConnell. He has brought the Senate to ruin.... sitting on all the legislation the House has passed, refusing to bring it to a vote.... paralyzing the US Congress. And McConnell will protect Trump from being convicted, by controlling spineless Republicans.
When the U.S.-that-was is a dim memory, McConnell will be blamed. Convict and Remove Trump.... and McConnell.
2
@vermontague
I don't know that the Republicans are spineless. It takes steel to devote yourself to the destruction of the country you serve to protect. I think someone called this "the will to power" and the degree to which it has been unleashed is absolutely stunning. Big ups to the "might makes right" crowd.
1
Mr. Douthat is an apologist. He is not unlike the jurors who acquitted John Gotti in several trials prior to his conviction for murder.
He refuses to even entertain the question of how do you get evidence against a President who uses the powers of the government to hide that evidence; who uses his powers to threaten witnesses and change government records (cf. official government record of the Helsinki press conference with what was said and heard on tape).
Perhaps instead of using Russian propaganda rhetoric devices such as "what-about-isms" and false equivalency, he should use his column to explain just what he believes would warrant Trump's removal.
This country and the world face an existential crisis in terms of climate change and economic inequality. We need leadership that is supported by institutions that can provide reasoned, coherent policies, and is capable of understanding those policies and acting upon them.
Instead we have an illiterate buffoon, whose persona was created by a television producer and a disbarred lawyer for the mob, who has gutted those very institutions that we need.
We are one crisis away from a catastrophe, and Mr. Douthat fiddles.
2
Maybe this is his best defense but I'm not certain that all of the bad faith arguments have been exhausted. For instance I expect at some point to hear the argument that while it's possible to overturn an election that's happened it's not possible to interfere in an election that hasn't happened yet.
1
There you go, making sane statements, “impeachment-without-removal can function like an act of censure, a punishment that restrains misbehaving presidents without actually removing them.”
However bullies do not respond, or acknowledge, acts of censure. The bullying should be expected to increase with ever more entrenched gangs and higher rate of fear mongering. Entertainment media, like Fox and Facebook, have gotten ever better at targeting human emotions. We are at an unfortunate place in history where people are unwilling to recognize the manipulation. History has shown us that it takes years of abuse before a backlash response occurs.
It will be important in these next 10 months to push Trump to reveal himself, as he does through Twitter. Voters must not forget who Trump is; voters must not put on blinders to block the bombardment of divisive politics. Bullies become happy people when they get their way - they might even seem likable. An act of censure, the impeachment, fuels a bully into future action. Reference schoolyards everywhere.
It is important for voters to know the real Trump to make an informed decision.
Trump does, and will continue, to reveal himself on Twitter. We all have a responsibility to know his motivations and goals before voting. Push for Trump responses on Twitter for everyone’s benefit.
3
Mr Douthat speaks to the two hardest truths of this Age of Trump:
1. Our Country we live in, and everything it meant to us, is under attack if not in the shredder.
2. The Country we thought we lived in, never actually existed.
America wasn’t ever a reality. America was a dream of what could be.
Trump and the Republican Party killed the Dream.
6
@Chickpea They not only killed the dream they are killing us with EPA rollbacks, trying to dismantle Obamacare and throw it away, now saying cuts to Social Security and Medicare are coming and their plan to block grant Medicaid is in the works.
We are rapidly becoming a 3rd world country.
1
Using the office of the president to get someone appointed to a position (e.g. Bobby Kennedy & Ramsey Clark) or conceal personal behavior (LBJ, Kennedy, Clinton) is hardly in the same league as jeopardizing national security by withholding military aid to an ally and facilitating foreign interference in an election. I think the founders would agree.
2
Actually Trump’s best defense is for his lawyers (who so far all seem to look like the lawyer caricature from the Simpsons) to hold up a big sign reading 53-47. That’s it. Nothing more is required. If they want to get really creative they can hold up another sign reading 5-4.
5
The rest of us should hold up a sign reading: 25 45.
There's no reason to doubt that any defense proffered by Donald Trump will not alter the fact that he is bound to repeat the very same "high crimes and misdemeanors" he's been accused of again, because this is someone who must always win, and he's not about to let something like the U.S. Constitution stand in his way.
And since he has Mitch McConnell and the Republican Senate firmly in his pocket, there's also no reason to think they'll do anything other than acquit without so much as a call for more documents or witnesses who might testify against him.
All that makes him a lot more like a dictator than the president of the free world -- and a lot closer to Il Duce than LBJ.
6
This is an evenhanded assessment. Presidents have lied and abused the power of the office since the founding and the impeachment does come down to a warning that this behavior is no longer acceptable. The difference between trump and other presidents is the body of their work however- and the sheer gall. trump has been patently dishonest from the beginning and revels in getting away with it- presumably because he knows he can. That does not bode well for the future. The power of the presidency is already far greater than imagined under the Constitution and, combined with the slow erosion of the power of Congress and now the trumpian cult of personality, it moves the country closer and closer to autocracy.
1
"normal for J.F.K. and L.B.J."
Odd. I can't find any historical equivalent of LBJ or JFK behavior to what's in the Trump Articles of Impeachment. This has become another talking point of the defense designed to obfuscate and create false equivalencies, as a defense of the extreme behavior that has been allowed by this administration, the (acting) president and his private henchmen.
Not sure what your point is about Robert as AG, as he proved to be not only highly qualified, but built on a solid ethical foundation.
If it's the nepotism that raises your fur, you must be outraged by Kushner dictating middle-east policy (or is it family business?), Ivanka deciding Asia-Pacific policy (or is it business?), and of course the quiet re-writing of the ivory ban so Jr. trump could bring his elephant trophies home.
LBJ used his considerable political might and willingness to get in the mud to deliver the Civil Rights Act in a time of societal upheaval and against all odds. The Trump family uses its considerable power and political influence to further its own interests.
If you cannot see a difference, the Times should suspend your hallowed place at their table. There are more deserving voices.
6
@buddhaboy
Wait. I had not heard about the ivory ban change. I mean, I suppose that's why you described it as "quiet."
The awfulness of these people is more than elephantine in its tremendousness.
No! Trump is not normal and no amount of creative writing -- no matter how clever or distinguishable from editorial norms -- will ever excuse this nation for not removing him from office long before now.
He still hasn't accounted for the ton of money he raked in for his inauguration party.
Trump is what the electoral college was created to protect us from.
4
Although I agree with your assessment of the reign of Trump so far, I disagree about the Electoral College.
The EC was a compromise created mainly to insure rural states with a low population of eligible voters (property owning white men) would maintain a power edge over more densely populated states less dependent on the 18th Century version of industrial agriculture: plantations worked by slaves. It was a way to insure the continuation of slavery even if the majority of voters wanted it abolished, and to further limit the only national election we have to control by wealthy and educated white landowners by preventing direct election by popular vote of the ignorant urban lowlifes. It was a power grab not much different from the 3/5 rule. It was never meant to be democratic; it was meant to insure big planters would be a new American aristocracy much like the English landed gentry they so admired and copied.
This was on the Regents.
The Iran-Contra crisis is more germane. Though crimes were committed, North, McFarlane and Poindexter sold weapons to Iran to buy weapons to supply the Contras. Its unclear how much Reagan participated in the scheme but it violated his no negotiating with terrorists pledge and defied the Congressional ban on supplying the Contras. Clearly these were much worse offenses than Trump ham handed antics. Reagan suffered some political embarrassment but went on to Berlin to make his tear this wall Mr. Gorbachev speech. Trump when he is acquitted will remain an international embarrassment to the country.
4
Douthat writes this “impeachment defense” as though he already knows the depth of what has transpired. We don’t have all of the facts or testimony, yet. Obstruction is part of the problem, resulting in an important second article of impeachment.
4
So Ross - let me make sure I understand this. If a president asks a foreign country to hack the next election for the benefit of his/her campaign, and offered a waiver on tariffs in exchange - you don't think that president should be impeached?
Using the federal government's enormous power to rob Americans of their vote sure sounds one of the highest crimes imaginable.
Sounds like you favor a banana republic, not a constitutional republic.
4
Trump's even temporary denial of military aid to a U.S. ally, Ukraine, that was fighting a longstanding U.S. foreign enemy that is even right now attacking our elections, seems much worse than the typical malfeasance of nearly every American President.
If, and when the full truth of Ukraine-gate comes out it will show that Putin pressured Trump to not provide the U.S. military aid at all in exchange for help in making sure that tapes of Trump's Moscow visits with prostitutes remain safe, and especially probably making sure that Trump's Deutsches Bank/Russian oligarch records also never see the light of day. Trump fears prison more than being thrown out of office.
LBJ committed an offense far worse and more heinous that was/is not impeachable - he continued to send American soldiers to their deaths in Vietnam after he knew the war was un-winnable and that he also America was going to have to eventually abandon, and he did it for his own political reasons.
2
Ross says,
"LBJ did this, JFK did that, Nixon did this other thing. "
You have so shamefully missed the point. Which of them did so at the behest and direction of Russia? This is not a mere dictatorship Trump is creating this is a an American president doing exactly what Russia would want him to do.
He reminds me of one of the characters in Gosford Park who says, "What makes me such a good servant is that I have the gift of anticipation."
Donald Trump is a servant to Putin -- he anticipates Putin's every wish and he uses the American Government to grant it. (either than or Putin makes clear what he would like in the secret phone calls).
It is treason. Treason. Is that enough to remove a president from office Ross?
4
"and none have been removed"
We should also be concerned about corruption pertaining to plural pronouns, and government has a played a sinister part in it.
1
While using impeachment to censure "misbehaving presidents without actually removing them" may offer something to both sides, a Trump acquittal would nonetheless establish that future presidents can openly conflate their personal interests with the national interest. Our saving grace right now is that Trump is so inept at doing this. With the precedent that the personal and national interests of a president are one and the same, what happens when a "real Trump" comes along?
I am sure that Republicans, Fox and Douthat will be apoplectic when President Biden asks the president of Kenya to do us a favor and look into candidate Mitt Romney for bribery and other irregularities when he was at Bain Capital and in the Senate. Maybe he will throw in an additional $100 million of aid - taken from the Defense budget for upgrading bases. Presidential power, you understand, and everyone does it.
2
Trump is not a return to the 1950's or 60's style of politics, just like today's GOP has little in common with the GOP of that period.
Douthat may be right that the behavior of some institutions (including the President) did no live up to the expectations of people who really wish for honest government. But there is a fundamental difference today. Trump is the very essence of dishonesty and crass populism, and way too many Americans are fine with it. If this is allowed to continue the US will be entering a vary dark and dangerous historical period. The failure to remove him is an indication that the US lacks the antibodies to defend against gross abuses of power. If Trump is reelected in spite of a majority of voters sickened by his behavior it will be a sign that the American experiment in self-government has failed.
3
The republicans say Trump was sincerely concerned (guffaw) about corruption in Ukraine. I wish the Democrats had pushed a little harder on this. Trump’s solution, rather than push for an *American* investigation, was to promote an investigation of an American citizen by a foreign government whose very corruption was supposedly at issue! Why not make the Republicans sweat a little trying to explain this paradox?
2
Sorry Ross. Not buying this nonsense. We had the “perfect” phone call and I suppose we now have the “perfect” video tape. Impeachment and removal is appropriate. Even if removal won’t happen, it should happen. The shoes will continue to drop, drop, drop.
3
With the exception of Donald Trump;
None of the few presidents that have been impeached or resigned created any Constitutional crisis. Trump's impeachment is the most serious and important as it involves the Trump regime directly challenging and attempting to renounce, undermine and subvert the validity of the Constitution. Trump wants to be a dictator. king, or monarch. As he has been quoted many times as saying, " As POTUS I can do whatever I want" Spoken like dictator.
"Just three presidents have faced impeachment charges in U.S. history—Andrew Johnson in 1868 surrounding the firing of a cabinet member; Richard M. Nixon in 1973 for his Watergate cover-up; and Bill Clinton, in 1998-99 for charges of perjury and obstruction in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Johnson and Clinton remained in office, while Nixon resigned in disgrace." None of the previous impeachments created any Constitutional crisis.
Trump's impeachment involves matters of a Constitutional crisis; Where the Trump regime is renouncing the Constitution, where Trump considers himself above the law of the land; National security issues internally and with foreign entities; and internal corruption and obstruction of congress among other serious Constitutional concerns applicable to the Trump regime.
Trump is irrelevant. It is the Constitution that is on Trial in the Trump impeachment.
With Trump's impeachment, if Trump is acquitted; America and its Constitution are the losers.
4
Trump is nothing like L.B.J., J.F.K., or Nixon. The impeachment may look like a censure to most of us, and Nixon was shamed out of office to avoid it. But Trump will treat it like a win; just like he "won" his lawsuit against Trump U and his fake foundation. Trump will double down and seek to destroy the Democrats at all costs. His Republican enablers will again hold their noses and support him, as they stand to gain from Trump's mud slinging.
No, we cannot apply the same behavioral standards to Trump as the others. He's way outside the guardrails.
6
Of all the half-baked philosophies of conservatives, by far the most preposterous is the idea that they are constitutional originalists.
They worship the corporation. Corporation rights have evolved at a pace outdistancing those of the individual. Yet, we have to constantly hear how they, the “strict interpretists,” are beholden to the holy Constitution.
2
In 2018 the voters gave the House a mandate to be a watch dog over Mr. Trump and his potential and now actual abuses of power. The current defense invalidates that mandate as its recourse to implementing that mandate is impeachment. if anything it is the 2018 House vote that Trump and his minions seek to invalidate in not conforming to the impeachment process. The hypocrisy of the GOP in unending.
2
LBJ and JFK both believed in the system of laws they were evading, abusing, and stretching. So did Tricky Dicky and Slick Willie. Trump neither believes in nor understands the system except how to abuse it for his own interests. The second article of impeachment covers this, and is the real reason why Trump should be removed from office; by disrespecting Congress, he disrespects the Constitution.
2
If any ordinary American, let alone any American president, can proudly posit that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue in broad daylight and get away with it, then our Constitution is not worth the parchment it was written on. Yes, no man/woman is perfect, nor is any president. Yet somehow, legislative evil that discriminates against and disenfranchises millions of Americans daily is constitutionally commonplace under Trumpian law. Morality used to mean more than it does today and unfortunately
will mean much less every day this IMPOTUS remains in office and, with the continued interference by our most formidable sworn enemies, will cause the total destruction of our democracy within the next five years.
Lord Acton nailed it more than century ago: Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Is that what our Founding Fathers envisioned?
Wake up, America. Vote for your future.
3
Trump didn’t claim he could get away with shooting someone, he said if he did, he would lose no support among his base.
He was right.
Trump is also the crooked leader of a cult. Wait until he prescribes Kool Aide as an improvement to the crippled ACA or Medicare - see what happens then and if he can sell it to his followers as the Rapture.
Trump's actions regarding Ukraine and his coverup are not just corrupt. They threaten our Constitutional checks and balances, election and our national security.
They harm the the US.
Letting the voters decide gives our President more time to inflict damage on the US. At this point, conviction and removal of Donald Trump is an issue of American self-defense.
3
As some one who believes the Bible rather the Constitution should form the basis of our laws, Douhat, while publicly saying he doesn’t support Trump, loves the Christian extremists that Trump has appointed to the federal bench.
Conservatives like Douhat could care less about the Constitution. Glidead is more their cup of tea. A country where white men use the Bible to subjugate women, imprison gays and deny rights to racial and religious minorities.
So sad the Times gives him a platform.
2
@Sterling
One would think Douthat would be pushing for Trump’s removal and cheering on Pence for President.
Strange that Clinton's sexual behavior is compared with Kennedy's, but not a word about Trump's. So if trends are being imagined, is the assumption here that Trump's behavior is an improvement on that of Clinton in line with this mysterious trend? Moreover, did Madison try to pressure a foreign country to go after a political opponent or did he simply try to dig up dirt? Moreover, neither the Democrats under Bush nor the Republicans under Obama actually impeached those two presidents that they opposed. So where is the trend or proverbial slippery slope that apologist love to discover. Schiff's point that Trump will continue to put his interest above that of his country, that he will continual to abuse his political power holds based on all available evidence. Consequently, at a superficial level the article seems to be putting forth a reasonable case. On closer examination the argument self-destructs. A columnist can simply try too hard to make a point.
3
I sincerely doubt if Ross Douthat would have written this column in defense of a president in a similar situation - impeached by the House and in front of the Senate for judgement - if the president was Obama or a Clinton. Republicans have lost every sense of fairness and reasonableness and are completely blinded by pure partisanship. We all understand that Trump will not be removed from the office by this republican controlled Senate and any of the republican senators doesn't have the political courage to rebuke Trump for his behavior as they are afraid of the wrath that Trump and his republican allies media attack dogs - Fox and Breitbart - will unleash against them. So where do we go from here? Trump will be acquitted, he will gloat especially during his State of the Union address, and he will be emboldened to go after any democratic nominees by any means possible - including inviting Putin to interfere in our elections using social media and may be even more overt means. Are we sure we are are going to have fair elections in 2020? I am afraid we are going to have Donald Trump for 4 more years and then Ivanka Trump for 8 more years. in the White House You think this is not possible? I am afraid I have more faith in Trump-Russia-Saudi Arabia nexus in controlling our politics than Republicans in stopping the Trump tsunami that is about to be unleashed. I hope I am being hyperbolic!
2
MAGA folks have found their dog.
Investment in infrastructure and other relevant policies are not particularly relevant.
They enjoy the bark.
2
Since impeachment is assumed to be a political act, it has always commenced when the opposing party controls the House.
I'm guessing that Madison was not impeached because his party---the Democrat-Republicans---controlled the House as the Federalists by Madison's tenure were going the way of their successors, the Whigs.
It's also possible that we were at war with Great Britain when Madison did his dirty deed and wartime presidents have always been given greater latitude.
Regardless, what Trump did is without a doubt an abuse of power and his obstruction of Congress is unprecedented. The only thing saving Trump is 53 cowards in the Senate.
2
"Call a press conference and announce a fake investigation of our domestic opponent, so I can claim your country was behind the 2016 interference, and fix the next election; otherwise, I'll defy my legislature, refuse to send money that's been appropriated, and throw you to the Russians who are our own adversary."
Oh yeah, that's good-old LBJ and not a High Crime.
2
Based on Trump's campaign rallies he certainly wants to more like Mussolini than like LBJ. I can't remember LBJ encouraging violence at his rallies or suggesting the the 2nd amendment people will take care of things their way. Would LBJ have led a chant to lock up his opponent? Would LBJ had stood in front of an audience and claimed he could do everything himself as if Congress did not matter. The current world leaders Trump seems to admire the most are autocrats such as Putin and Xi. He seems to have low regard for democratic leaders of western European countries. The Democratic rhetoric in the Senate was not hyperbole. Maybe if Trump would reveal his tax returns and not do everything possible to prevent congressional oversight of the executive branch the attitudes of Democrats toward him might change but so far he appears to be much more like a fascist leader then a leader of a democracy,
2
So when the next Democrat is elected president and she thinks, ya know this thing about all these corrupt Republicans, it’s really bad and when she speaks with world leaders she says,”I’d like you to look into all of these Republicans cause it sounds horrible to me.” I’m sure Republicans (if there are any still left) will just say, that’s ok, we’ll get our chance again in 4 more years.
2
This is a “Red Herring”:“no modern president has imitated the Kennedy seraglio. The F.B.I.’s misconduct in its investigation of the Trump campaign was still nothing like the F.B.I.’s misconduct under J. Edgar Hoover. “, a logical fallacy: a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them. In fact this column is a red herring.
Logical fallacies are the stuff of persuasion when the facts and the evidence condemn. Republicans have thrown the truth into the gutter and embraced Putin, foreign interference, corruption, profit over pollution, cruelty and hatred. What do they really want? Trump? Do Republicans have any concern for America, or democracy? Do Republicans have any respect for our Constitution or law? Do Republicans have a moral compass anymore? Do Republicans want a king?
2
It's only going to take a few fewer votes in Michigan and Pennsylvania for Trump to be subject to criminal prosecution this time next year. That many Trump supporters have died of old age over the past four years, and they are being replaced with 18-year-olds who will vote Democratic for the rest of their lives. Trump will spend most of November, December, and January, pardoning mobsters. Which will make him kind of lonely in prison.
Mr. Douthat, we have an evil man in the Oval Office. Think about it. Of course Trump is like Mussolini. He's exactly like Mussolini. Exaclty.
3
One conclusion that need be taken during this time of such a serious disregard of the Constitution that is the foundation of any country's Republic and Democracy is just how outdated the majority are, this is quite evident not only thru the reading of this article but thru the televised trial presentations by both the Democrats and the (if one can call it) Defense team. We must remember that these constitutional laws were written and adapted during a period where trains, planes, automobiles(sounds like a movie) were not even in the forefront of Democracy, the advent of the internet has just compounded the reason as to why the Constitution of many Democracies are in dire need of an upgrade, when you go thru the internet to gather information regarding past impeachments you can see where it is easy for any layman to interpret this proceeding as they see fit with the assumption that in this day and age none would be impeachable, as in any trial facts are often interpreted differently between the Prosecutors and the Defense teams which is why it is so important to have judges who are independent of the parties follow law as written by the founders as opposed to legislators who want to retain power, priviledge in order to gain status, this is not what was intended thru the Constitution, this is why the conundrum of this time exists, it is a simple fact that the crimes of today and the precedents set during deliberations need be incorporated to reflect the times/century we live in
1
Except the presidency does not reflect the will of the people, it reflects the will of the electoral college. Trump could be defeated in the popular vote (again), meaning the American people decide he’s unfit for office, but still remain president because of your archaic system. So no, the President will not suffer the rate of the public because your system will keep him in power. Have fun though, while the rest of us build walls to pro text ourselves from your crazy, gun-loving, poorly educated and religious zealot neighbours.
1
Nancy was right to begin with, democrats should not have impeached him, Trump should have been censured. There was never any way there would be a super majority against Trump in our present political environment.
The only real question that needs to be answered about Impeachment is, “Is this thing having a positive or negative impact on my economic situation?”
What about you, so do you, it’s because of you, and forget you have been unacceptable explanations regarding ones conduct since the 3rd grade. As a matter of fact my parents and every institution I’ve grown up in have reinforced this since then. You are responsible for your behavior even when wronged is my experience.
This article essentially, while dazzling us with intellectual and even some historical context might just as well be saying “ They’re all crooked “.
Less articulate and twice as lazy but hey, welcome to my universe.
Well the Voters May decide to dump Trump by tthe Electoral College could keep him in office. How’s that for Democracy.
1
After the passage of Civil Rights Legislation and the appointment of Thurgood Marshall, Lyndon Johnson realized and publicly stated "the Democratic Party has lost the South for a generation".
He was wrong, the Democratic Party has lost the South for 50 years and the race hatred that has infected the South since the Civil War has spread to the Midwest and "heartland" of this nation. Not exactly a key to political power.
LBJ may have been crude, but after years in the Congress he knew how to push legislation. LBJ was a man who saw the unjustness of Jim Crow and class discrimination against the poor of every color. Lyndon Johnson worked for the people of the United States. That is what a President is supposed to do.
Leave him out of the sewer swim the Republican Party is engaging in.
4
Don’t agree at all in the theory that Trump is functioning more in the manner of LBJ than Mussolini. He is not supremely political. He is malevolent, power-hungry, and self-interested. LBJ famously fought against racial injustice and poverty. He had a strong domestic agenda. He cared about helping people who were struggling in this country.
2
It is to scream, and then to weep. Trump wants to be like JFK? His behavior represents a regression to some 1960's norm?
No. Really, no. Here, Mr. Schiff's point is important: the second impeachment article (obstruction of Congress) is most relevant. JFK wheedled, cajoled, and even occasionally lied, but he did not act as if he were the sole repository of power. Mr. Trump is a dangerous aberration, a precedent that should not stand.
Why does Mr. Douthat normalize Trump's behavior in this way? One can only conclude that he is infected with the same authoritarian prion disease as the rest of the Republican party. The oft-asked question is particular apt here - what would you write, Mr. Douthat, if Mr. Obama had acted this way?
2
This is guilty of the Mueller fallacy: stick to the details, and relativize the matter into oblivion. Ignore the larger context, where Trump is obviously a uniquely corrupt individual.
Step by step we pave the way to authoritarianism.
1
The argument (prayer?) that Trump is more LBJ than Mussolini assumes that Trump has gone about as far as wants -- a little election interference, 16,000+ lies, undermining the FBI, coopting the DOJ, etc.
With no moral compass, no detectable levels of human empathy, emboldened by the sycophancy of the Republicans, purposefully ignorant enough to be convinced that Article II gives him unlimited power ... How do we know this it? Why would expect the descent into the Trumpian authoritarian abyss to stop NOW?
The truth is that there is NO bottom to Trump beyond what the law strictly enforces. Take that away and ... well let's just hope the electorate steps in where the Republican party utterly and unforgivably failed , and makes sure we never find out.
2
Mr. Douthat,
".... Trump doesn’t want to be an American Mussolini so much as he wants to be a less legislatively minded L.B.J" ??
This miserable comparison to LBJ is a whitewash of Trump's violent rhetoric that has spurred actual violence - psychological and physical - to people in our country and elsewhere.
Perhaps you are not recalling Trump's suggestion that the ‘Second Amendment People’ could act against Hillary Clinton if she were elected, "Very fine people on both sides", "the press is the enemy of the people", the invocation of the "second civil war" if he is impeached, the threat of executing the whistleblower, threatening Marie Yovanovitch during her testimony etc etc etc
Of course Trump wants to be like Mussolini, or like one of his dictatorial contemporaries Putin, Duterte or Kim
2
Every impeachment is unique in a all aspects but one: the oath to do impartial justice.
The final verdict is not yet known.
2
Forgive my elitism, but I just had to look up the ranking of the South Texas College Law School, from which the legal scholar who defended Trump's anti-constitutional criminality cited by Mr. Douthat hails from. Depending on the program, the school ranks variously from 146 to 192 in the nation. Where is Liberty University when we need it?
As for Ross's conflation of LBJ with DJT, we should not dignify this assertion with a comment.
3
If Trump "only" wanted to be like LBJ, he would make the decision that holding onto power at all costs was just not worth it, and declare that he was not running for re-election. Does anybody see that happening?
2
The question remains, how does the nation deal with a modern imperial president. In Trump, America has a man who would be king. Although he might want to be like Johnson and/or Mussolini, he couldn’t identify either of them or find Ukraine on a map, none of which matters. What Trump has done is converted America into a Poland or Hungary. He has, with the support of a dedicated base coerced the press, Federal Reserve, Supreme Court, and sensible Republicans into allowing him destroy the norms that had made the US the most admired nation. As a result of his constant attacks on norms, everyone has become desensitized to a series of impeachable acts. Even though written in the 18th century, the Constitution’s notion of high crimes or misdemeanors still apply today. What people forget is that we “hired” this guy to run the nation. He is running it into a deep ditch. He needs to be “fired” now, not waiting until he bribes the board of directors into making him leader for life.
1
"Allowing that Trump is particularly crude about it, all presidents conflate their own political self-interest with the national interest — and so deciding when a president crosses the line and betrays his office is almost always a task best left up to the voters."
I'm mystified. What is the national interest in ensuring Trump is free to use public funds to ensure his political rival is slandered?
1
In these matters, like the old saw about chess, the threat is more powerful than the act. Our history rather proves this: zero removals and one resignation in the face of likely political execution. Revving up the clunky old engine of impeachment was a mistake in both the Clinton and Trump cases and the remedy has suffered greatly for it.
1
What I fear is that Trump will see acquittal by the Senate as exoneration, not as censure, and he will continue to think and act as if he can get away with anything. If the conclusions of the Mueller report did not cause him to moderate his behavior, it's hard to imagine that this will. Not to mention that his sense of personal grievance and vindictiveness will be unrestrained.
4
Nothing will make Trump change. He needs to be removed from office. The man's a crook, pure and simple.
I'm not sure Trump is at all politically astute. He has no grand strategy other than his Tweeter rages, which demonstrate his feelings of extreme vulnerability and bottomless insecurity. LBJ was the consummate politician who had an agenda and worked the system to get what he wanted, most of the time. At least, LBJ could accept losing and move-on. When Trump doesn't see himself as the center of attention, always the winner, then he lashes out as angry and vindictive. But in the end, voters will decide, hopefully.
The bigger issue is the obstruction of Congress. Whether or not you agree removing him over the Ukraine stuff is right, it was a valid investigation. And Trump decided to completely stonewall it, which eviscerates a critical part of the constitutional checks and balances.
6
In the Post article the author concludes :
"The cycle didn’t end well for early Americans, and it won’t end well for us. The problem then and now isn’t partisanship. It is the tendency to see our political opponents in their worst light, which justifies seeing them as capable of anything. We can fight fierce partisan battles without resorting to such distortions. If we insist on making criminals out of our political opponents, we will reap the destruction of our own democracy, without help from foreign powers."
Two wrongs do make a right. BTW--- Tell me the story about " Mr. Barr and the DOJ" -- you know where the AG and POTUS conspire to get the goods on ----- his political opponents.
2
I would argue that this a strong subjective tendency in Republicans, while Democrats actually have much more of an objective ground for thinking so.
"Allowing that Trump is particularly crude about it, all presidents conflate their own political self-interest with the national interest."
Boy, is Trump's "particular crudeness" doing a lot of work in that sentence. It may be that "all Presidents," as Douthat claims, believe that striving to realize the national interest is also in their own political interest. That was LBJ, for sure. But Trump has no conception of the national interest that is distinct from his own interests. Trump behaves as if his personal interest comprises the national interest.
The norm for Presidents has been that if the nation flourishes, I'll flourish. That's American politics. For Trump, it's if I flourish, then the nation is flourishing. That's l'etat c'est moi. That's an authoritarian cult. That's what Douthat is a glib apologist for.
1
The examples are weak and insignificant.
Appointing a Supreme Court Justice's son to attorney general and your brother to attorney general (albeit experienced on the Hill) aren't within themselves impeachable offenses.
Extorting a foreign power to interfer in our elections is without question a break of trust with the Constitution, bar none and no arguements will ever prove contrary.
7
No one defending Trump seems to be defending what Trump did. This whole nonsense about letting the election decide his outcome seems to be based on some medieval notion of trial by combat. The argument is further undermined by the fact that his crime is rooted in trying to influence the outcome of that election by unethical if not illegal means. It's like removing the notion of fouls and referees from a basketball game and then saying let the final score decide what's right and what's wrong.
5
If anyone's behavior mirrors that of a dictator, it's not Trump but Michael Bloomberg. He actually changed the laws to allow himself a third term.
Soon none of this will matter to democrats, just as it didn't when they voted for Hillary Clinton, one of the most morally challenged politicians of our time.
The earth's axis could tip from the 180's done by partisans.
1
Trump attempted to blackmail the President of Ukraine with taxpayer dollars already allocated to defense.
I am baffled by the “grey area,” and the questions of bribery or influence. Blackmail - unlike cloudy terms such as improper influence - is illegal. There’s no question that’s what Trump tried to do.
Where’s the debate?
2
Republicans keep saying blithely, “Let the voters decide,” which evidently means, “Let Russia decide,” or, “Let China decide”, because Trump has openly invited them to hack Democrats to help him win again. They are saying that inviting foreign nations to hack our elections, both figuratively and literally is no worse than sexual peccadilloes and to say “Tut-tut” and be done with it.
Trump’s offense doesn’t involve vague personal benefit like nepotism; his offense and Republican support of it is open war on Democrats and on election integrity and security.
8
You are forgetting the second article of impeachment. While honest people may debate the merits of the abuse of power charge, how can any intellectually honest person rationalize their way around the obstruction of Congress article? Trump defied the US Constitution. Period, full stop. Without our Constitution, America is lost.
4
LBJ, but you know without the civil rights, aid to the poor and health insurance.
5
This is one of your best, Ross! Trump is vile, but the system is containing him to a large degree. And the system has also evolved over time, although perhaps not as much as it should. Well done!
1
There's something to be said for this argument. Personally, I would have favored a motion of censure for the Ukraine business, rather than impeachment (of course, a vote of censure would almost certainly have failed to pass the Senate). But it's clear that a president can be impeached for virtually any misbehavior, since the language of the Founders was so vague.
Clinton was impeached for lying, not cheating on his wife. Why should any president, male or female, be impeached for having sex outside the bonds of wedlock? The author however seems to imply that that's an impeachable offense. Only in America. The Europeans laugh at us for good reason.
1
About two months ago Trump was found guilty and forced to repay over 2 million dollars he had stolen from a charity meant to aid combat veterans. Nearly three years ago his fraudulent Trump University settled for 25 million dollars to students that he had cheated and lied to.
Donald Trump knowingly and willingly defrauded and stole from students and Vets.
How can anyone in their right mind speak in Trump’s behalf or legitimatize any aspect of his being? How?
6
Mr. Douthat ignores the elephant in the room:
The strongest reason to impeach and convict Trump is that he endangers our National Security by repeatedly and consistently aiding a foreign power, Russia.
Secretary Clinton pointed out that Trump is Putin’s puppet. Speaker Pelosi told Trump that all roads lead to Putin with him. They are both entirely correct.
Convicted felons Roger Stone and Paul Manafort know the details of this, but they will not talk because Trump promised to pardon them if they keep quiet.
Trump’s tax returns would also show that he is in hock to Putin-connected Russian oligarchs, which is why Trump is so desperate to hide his financial records. Mueller was prevented from investigating Trump’s finances by Rod Rosenstein, and William Barr terminated the investigation prematurely.
Remarkably, virtually the entire Republican delegation in Congress is in complete denial of all of this.
The GOP has become the Gang of Putin!
4
@AACNY The "system" deserves all the blame we can heap on it as a vestigial mechanism to enshrine the political power of chattel slavery. As for impeachment, it is intramural sports for the Acela Villagers. For the rest of us, Eugene Debs said it best a long while ago - "The Republican and Democratic parties, or, to be more exact, the Republican-Democratic party, represent the capitalist class in the class struggle. They are the political wings of the capitalist system and such differences as arise between them relate to spoils and not to principles."
1
It's been clear to me for a long time that this is an important part of the mindset of the American right: a deep resentment that in the past, successful Democratic presidents got away with things that the American people would rightly have found wholly unacceptable, if they had known about them at the time.
But it's become equally clear in the last twenty-five years, and especially since Donald Trump emerged as a political figure, that Republicans' resentment of that misconduct comes entirely from their lust for the kind of power these presidents had. It has become abundantly clear that their past expressions of moral disapproval were thoroughly hypocritical and dishonest.
I almost always think Ross makes important, thought-provoking points, even when I disagree with him. But I really can't see what he's trying to say here. That we're all being too naive or innocent? That other presidents did awful things, so why should Trump be held fully accountable now? If we have the chance to hold the president to account now, and in the future, like we should have in the past, for God's sake, let's do it.
I also think it's important in this case that, to my knowledge, no president in any era has ever put our national security on the table his corrupt dealings the way that Trump has. Or that he stands accused of, if you think we need more evidence and testimony to be sure of the facts.
Nothing in the defenses Mr. Douthat has put forth support Trump's requesting a foreign government to aid and abet him in disrupting an American Presidential campaign and election. Douthat's examples of LBJ and JFK are irrelevant and perfidious. They carry less weight than Trump's "hoax" claims.
4
Douthat ignores reality here, where what Trump has allegedly, knowingly, and admittedly done, and is being impeached for, aren't relevant to his consideration.
Instead, Douthat employs a false equivalency.
Here, the reality of Trump's behavior and the reality of the impeachment charges against him are not relevant—they’re not even mentioned, let alone considered in specific detail, meaning, and implication. Of course not: you can't engage in false equivalency if you truly compare and contrast real actions and facts.
Instead, accordingly to the equivalency, Trump is merely like LBJ, or Madison, or fitting the "norm" of mid-20th century bad behavior by US politicians and presidents in the pre-Watergate era--you know behavior that was bad but not truly, corrupt, not abusive of the office, not anti-democratic and authoritarian like, say a fascist dictator.
So, no, he implicitly argues, ‘come on, Trump isn't Mussolini, he's merely Madison or LBJ. That's not so bad. It’s sort of bad, but par-for-the-course routinely bad by presidential standards.'
In other words, ‘no big deal, let’s move on from this.’ By the way, lets ignore the Constitutional issues, because, you know, people interpret the Constitution differently, therefore, there’s no reason to consider it or that bigger picture.’
2
While this is a nicely thought out column it neglects to address the central point of Trump's corruption - that he is attempting to cheat in the the next election thereby negating the voters ability to throw him out for his crimes.
6
This is 2020. At present special interests fuel elections. Do some time travel, the DuPont family was responsible for supplying gun powder during part of the revolution and war of 1812. Were they sitting at the table with illustrious statesmen while they determined what to do with a rogue President? In 2020 our fate is determined by a person unfit for the position, domestically and internationally, who does whatever bidding his donors want while conducting US policy at his personal businesses. The tape of the donors dinner at the Trump hotel he demanded a US Ambassador be removed at the request of Lev Parnas through hearsay. There is no defence for that atrocity. Rename the Congressional Republicans what they are Trumplicans. Their donors define our fate as well.
3
Although Trump isn't being explicitly impeached for ALL his transgressions, in a sense his impeachment is something of a culmination: of the acts of the man, yes, and even to some extent his party. A party, by the way, which is now poised to clear the president and thus hand down corrupt and corrosive precedent to all Trump's (and McConnell's) successors.
It was Mr. Douthat himself, after all, who when recently reflecting on the decade just ended, spoke of the "rot" in the Republican Party.
Pressuring a foreign country under official color to seek dirt on a political opponent was just the final straw, an egregious one at that. But this presidency has been nothing if not an across-the-board assault on essential norms and institutions.
You have to be pretty dense to not understand that Robert Mueller found obstruction of justice but necessarily deferred to other constitutional remedies like the one now unfolding.
The Washington Post has now tallied more than 16,000 false and misleading claims by the president. Are we willing to tolerate a president who lies constantly?
The president routinely attacks and undermines core essential institutions such as the judiciary and the press. A free press that has the confidence of the citizenry is absolutely essential to freedom and democracy.
Trump's constant lying and assault on our institutions is an assault on reality itself. Can a society that doesn't know what's real endure? Mustn't it take extraordinary steps to protect itself?
4
Sadly, “impeachment-without-removal can function like an act of censure,” is utterly meaningless when the president enthusiastically views his near-certain, predetermined senate acquittal, sans an actual declaration of censure, as total vindication and license for openly embracing additional corruptions. The saddest outcome, of course, will be that the constitution becomes more irrelevant and the president’s acquittal rewards his manifest ignorance and disdain of it.
2
Of course character matters. It always did. The difference today is that we have cable news channels devoted to scrutinizing every word, tweet, and action of presidents. Consequently, what presidents can get away with becomes a bigger issue in our polity than in previous eras. The press in prior eras was pretty much a 'boys club' with 'boys club' ingrained views of male behavior, i.e. the whole 'boys will be boys' worldview. I agree, Trump is trying to take America back to that era (so, we'll all be great again, I gather).
I do believe that Trump is more like Mussolini than LBJ. Trump is pompous, vindictive and hyper-sensitive. He can't tolerate criticism of any sort from the press and he will extract his revenge if he gets the chance. I believe Mike Pompeo's dust-up with the NPR reporter is the opening move in Trump's attempt to defund NPR completely. That will be a great loss for America; but not surprising, given Trump's belief that Article II gives him the authority to do whatever he pleases. I just don't see LBJ sinking to such a petty and venal level.
1
Really? Trumps wants to become LBJ? Only difference is that Trump promotes a War on Immigrants, rather than a War on Poverty. Trump gives agency to White Nationalists, while LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act.
Yes, LBJ used hardball politics to get difficult laws passed, but as far as I know he never involved a foreign country. Listen to LBJ on tape. His words are nothing like the Trump imitation of a Mafia movie. "First I need a favor."
2
Thank you for putting Trump’s behavior into a proper historical context.
Refreshing to read a rational explanation versus the typical partisan view
Do you really think Trump has a mid-20th century conception of the presidency?
And do you really think he knows enough about LBJ to somehow model his presidency after him?
This idea-- that this president is somehow informed-- in a way this is either meaningful or substantive or even just worth talking about-- by *history*-- strikes me as partly hilarious, partly reckless.
Oh, and it also strikes me as *dishonest.*
And I personally wish, at this particular historical juncture, that the smart people who are chiming in right now would start being a little less smart and a little more *honest*.
2
No.
LBJ was not the head of a syndicate that was mostly self-seeking. Don Trump is.
The fact that Ross doesn't even touch that dimension of the current situation exemplifies the moral blinkers he's chosen to blind himself with.
2
The problem is that Trump has been crossing the line from day one.
Name another president who required the Secret Service to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars staying at his own resort, where that taxpayer money would end up in the president's pocket.
Name another president who pushed through his son-in-law to take a major role when the son-in-law couldn't get security clearance and was texting with a Saudi leader shortly before the Saudi leader ordered the murder of a journalist who'd been investigating him.
Name another president who would accept bizarre conspiracy theories over the evidence of his own national security advisors because the conspiracy theories helped his re-election, and then would promote those conspiracy theories, contrary to all evidence?
It's obvious that the House chose this to impeach Trump on this matter because it was an open-and-shut case of corruption, easy for the public to digest, while the constant ongoing corruption was harder to pin down because it was constant, non-stop, and 24 hours a day. (Look at the Mueller investigation, which accused Trump of all kinds of problematic behavior but gave no single slam-dunk example.)
Picking whether this is "serious" enough to impeach him is silly. Every action he's taken to gaslight the American public and lie constantly and make millions for his family has been serious enough. But taking it all on at once would make the House look silly. They picked a simple example of a constant pattern.
1
I have never heard a conservative, that party renowned for its demands for individual accountability, say that people should be excused for their bad behavior because others have gotten away with it.
Let me amend my statement. I have never heard any of them say that, except every time one of their own has been caught breaking a law.
Could it be that they only believe in that deep, personal accountability when it allows them to dismiss or accuse others?
1
Historians caution about using today's standards to judge the past. The Founding Fathers also allowed slavery, and a bizarre way to apportion Congress. Does not make it right... by today's standards. A lot of what the Founding Fathers thought does not work in today's Real World.
I agree Ross. I’m an independent voter. It seems to me that, as elegant as the House Managers were in laying out their case, there was not enough acknowledgement that all Presidents look at political implications when carrying out foreign policy. They could have then explained why Trump’s behavior falls far outside of the usual approach. When Jerold Nadler talks down to the Senators and tells them they’ll be part of the cover up if they don’t call witnesses, his arrogance drives them away. So far the two sides seem to be talking about two completely different cases.
Mr. Douthat, This op-ed is an apathetic shrug. What it seems you are saying is we have to define what level of corruption we are willing to settle for from our leaders--and once that standard is set, we'd best just live with it. Oh and hope the voters care enough one way or another to vote said politicians out. So it's business as usual. I've never thought Trump would be removed in this process. Censured yes, removed no. This whole process has been about not normalizing Trump's behavior--which you seem to want to do.
7
Ross lays out a nice blueprint for the Imperial Presidency. Trump's impeachment is a form of censure, but by the time he delivers his SOTU address, Trump will likely be acquitted and claiming "exoneration from the impeachment hoax."
All precisely according to McConnell's plan, even though every Senator in the room knows Trump is guilty of the charges. The clear message is the President can do whatever he pleases as long has his party controls the Senate.
3
The correlary is the Senators of the President’s party must always place party loyalty above their oaths of office and the interests of the nation. Honest women and men would not agree to let their party’s leader get away with anything at all just because he’s one of them or knows of all the skeletons in their closets.
Ross would have a point if the GOP would censure Trump. By letting him off the hook completely and complicity preventing witnesses, it would reinforce Trump's belief he can do what he wants to pursue the Trump-first agenda regardless of the damage to the US.
290
@kathryn
To be fair, I'm starting to be convinced that he actually CAN pursue his personal interest over those the US. He has been doing so and has allegedly managed to convince his supporters that his interests are theirs as well.
I say "allegedly" because I can't be certain that the folks at his rallies aren't the old "crisis actors" in a change of outfit and channeling that infomercial audience spirit. All the beleaguered white folks who thought that "there has to be a better way!" sure bought a lot of baseball caps.
14
@kathryn if the Republicans in the Senate want to do a service to the American People instead of simply wanting to protect Trump, they would say: bring it on. That all the relevant witnesses & evidence. For my part, it is crystal clear based on the case the House Managers already presented, & from the little I heard from his lawyers, they are just grandstanding, w/lots of pauses in between. Whereas I was totally engrossed in the House Managers case. Plus, I just heard the whole dinner conversation from Lev Parnas, or rather his colleague, Fruman’s cell-phone. Not very flattering. Sort of like “Off w/her head”, as to poor Ms. Marie Yovanovitch. Mr. Parnas is now trying to save his neck. And Ms. Yovanovitch’s integrity can never be smirched. One cannot have it both ways. Someone has to stand up for truth, right, & justice. Not sleaze. Just because she was associated w/the former Clinton administration, so it says in the tape? Too many examples of collusion, misconduct. Are Americans too busy flush w/their economic boom to understand, to take a step back, to THINK? Do they just want to sleep-walk or to be spoon-fed into the next election? From an observer.
26
@kathryn
When President Trump asked President Zelensky to look into allegation about the Bidens, he was referring to the Kulyk Dossier, which was compiled implied by the Ukrainian prosecutor assigned to the Burisma investigation. In an October article, the New York Times noted, “When the Ukrainian prosecutor Kostiantyn H. Kulyk compiled a seven-page dossier in English that accused the son of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. of corruption, he helped set off a political firestorm that has led to the impeachment investigation of President Trump.”
Republican senators don’t want to censor Trump; they also to find out what’s in the Kulyk Dossier.
1
Given a choice between Mussolini and LBJ, Trump would doubtless choose Mussolini, hands down. His admiration and even adoration of "strong man" leaders is well known and unsubtle. Come on, Ross, do you seriously expect us to go for this?
In addition, Trump withheld badly needed money for Ukraine to defend itself against Russia, i.e., the land of Trump's most favoritest "strongman," and he has expended loads of energy in denigrating Ukraine and vaunting Russia.
Does this make the case for Trump's deep desire to emulate LBJ? I think not.
530
@Sarah D. Do you not remember LBJ and Vietnam? Direct killing of others at the hands of Americans is really of the same moral sense as withholding funds when the USA did zero internationally to block Russia's takeover of Crimea.
3
@Sarah D.
I think you miss the point. LBJ was decidedly in the "strongman" genre of leadership, using out-and-out force and intimidation to push his agenda, albeit a politically left-leaning one.
Douthat's comparison focuses on Mussolini being right wing and championing a militaristic, rigid social hierarchy authoritarian ethos, whereas LBJ favored using governmental power to challenge "unfair" (as deemed by the left) social (including economic and racial) hierarchy, and LBJ's orientation favoring vastly more social and cultural openness of course. But LBJ and Mussolini both adhered to a "strongman" leadership style to advance their contrasting agendas.
And both were decidedly unsqueamish about using the military aggressively to achieve foreign policy objectives and projecting American power abroad.
2
@Sarah D. Trump gave Ukraine military aid unlike Obama even after russia invaded Crimea. Trump has acted to prevent European countries from buying energy from Russia and put economic sanctions on Russia unlike Obama.
"But how severely to punish the offender will usually be — as it will be this November — for the voters to decide."
The problem with this argument is that voters are not acting as jurors when they vote. They vote based on all sorts of issues that affect their pocket book other policy concerns. As jurors they have major conflicts of interest. And they have not been compelled, as senators have, to listen to and consider all the facts of the case, and make a judgement only on those.
We elect senators to be adults in the room. In this instance, that means judging only the merits of the case, as jurors have to.
155
@Nate : The voters did not get to choose in 2016.
16
@Nate exactly! Where is it written in the articles of impeachment that voters should take the helm? It's such a lame argument that Trump's legal team is mounting, but it (and maligning the prosecuting team) is all that they've got.
10
@Nate Presidents have 4 year terms, and are limited to 8 total. Voters do decide. What we need are 12 year term limits for House and Senate and all federal judges including SCOTUS. Power corrupts more when "service to the nation" turns to "self service." People don't spend millions of dollars and devote years of their lives to win an election to serve for nothing. And every politician who campaigns on giving free money or stuff is, in effect, vote buying/rigging, but we accept that corruption as normal.
5
Ross, please, "when a president crosses the line and betrays his office is almost always a task best left up to the voters"??? Really?
To paraphrase Sen. Howard Baker during Watergate, when a president uses foreign influence in an election to Covertly undermine his leading opponent 16 months before a reelection vote, the question becomes 'what do the voters know, and when do they know it?'
If the Trump-Giuliani covert op had gone off as planned, the voters in November and next week in Iowa would have known Nothing about it except that a cloud of suspicions hung over the Bidens about some investigation in Ukraine. Suspicions corrode truth, as Hannity knows so well. Whether disinformation comes from Putin or directly from Trump, a disinformed voter cannot cast a fair vote.
305
@SpeakinForMyself
Nevermind that Trump's "crossing the line" was a direct attack on our elections.
12
@SpeakinForMyself
You express very well the insidious corruption of our electoral system that is at the heart of the matter. It's worth remembering that a "cloud of suspicions" is exactly what Trump and the right-wing media used against Hillary Clinton in 2016. The Benghazi, email, Uranium One and Clinton Foundation scandals all turned out to have nothing to them, yet it created enough doubt among swing voters to tip the election to Trump. He was trying, and still is trying, to use exactly the same playbook in 2020, except now he has the power of the presidency to utilize.
17
@fbraconi
Exactly! As and defense attorney knows, we speak of 'the Presumption of Innocence'. Instead being on trial, or being repeatedly accused, actually creates in juries and in voters the presumption that the accused must have done something wrong, or they wouldn't be on trial or being investigated.
That is the basis of 'The Big Lie' principle in propaganda. Create a false narrative, and then have many voices repeat it.
9
I think that the best comment that I have read on this is that Trump's impeachment is like the case of Al Capone. Capone was guilty of so much, but they could only get him on tax evasion, so that is what they did.
Trump's abuses of office are legion, far more wide-ranging than those of Johnson, Kennedy or Nixon, justifying Trump's removal ten times over. The impeachment process is narrowly focused, because the case on those narrow grounds is so strong.
797
@John Evan - Good luck to us with this. If this presidency was a class at 'you-know-whose' university, we would all drop it. It drives me nuts that he is not being impeached for an encyclopedia of charges.
27
@John Evan
This is just another sad and ham-handed installment of a long running gop tactic that is outlined in todays editorial page (Scandalize, Repeat)
So, since Truman he playbook is to completely ignore gop crimes and malfeasance, just say it does not exist.
Then, point the finger at any and all Democrats and Progressives, touting their misdeeds, then exaggerate and
outright fabricate lies, repeat to the dim-witted and voila!
Works every time, doesn't it?
29
@ggallo
The problem is that each and every charge would need to be investigated, and voted on, in the House.
We don't have 4 years to conduct an impeachment.
16
I missed the part where LBJ conspired with a foreign power to interfere in our election, withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to an ally at war with our enemy and told congress he is not subject to any demands by them for information on his actions.
380
@JT - John Tucker and asked some non government shady operatives to remove a US ambassador who he believed was critical of him by saying "get rid of her.... take her out",
Trump, as president, had the power to fire this ambassador, so just what was he asking guliani's thugs in suits to do to her when he told THEM to "take her out"? we all know that answer, don't we.
the next question becomes, are we going to live ruled by a mob boss and criminal ?
28
LBJ had a rich wife.
DJT has sketchy foreign creditors.
Apart from a short time as a teacher, JBJ spent years cultivating his chops as a pol.
DJT is amateur night in Dixie.
LBJ, for all his many faults and missteps, was a patriot who tried to benefit the country and help America live up to its lofty ideals.
DJT is pathologically selfish and notices others only when he needs something from them, like money or adulation, clearly repeating the scenario of his dysfunctional childhood.
LBJ is long dead and buried, the good he did interred with his bones and his evil still resonating.
DJT is still alive and kicking everyone in the teeth.
Why should he get a pass? Is he the king?
19
@JT - John Tucker Well, Trump has engaged in a fake war to murder millions like your lovely LBJ and Vietnam. Nor was Nixon impeached for spreading this lying of a war to Laos and Cambodia, so if you lie about starting an investigation of possible corruption is worse than mass murder lies, well, just wow.
2
The Constitution does not say a President cannot be impeached and removed from office in an election year. Trump already has been rightly impeached by the House, and it is the Senate’s responsibility, not the voters, as to how to punish him.
A better comparison would be to Nixon, but Trump’s impeachable actions are actually worse. He coerced a FOREIGN government to intervene in our elections with a scheme that involved a number of government officials. He’s publicly invited China and Russia to do the same. There is no way he can be trusted not to continue this during this election season.
He’s not just a “misbehaving President,” and his “ain’t misbehaving” defense is not credible. There is plenty of evidence already that he has earned his stain of impeachment. He deserves to be removed from office and barred from ever holding office again.
Trump and the Americans people deserve a real trial. If the Senate cannot conduct a fair trial with witnesses, then any acquittal will not resolve his guilt, or his innocence. Leaving it to the voters to decide is not only a cop out, but surrenders any power the Senate has to put a check on Presidential Power.
There is another solution. Like Nixon, Trump could resign before the trial is over. Pence would President.
8
Impossible. Trump would step out of the White House and into civil custody for the crimes he can evade while in office. Besides, there’s still a little cash in the Treasury and a lot more profitable environmental despoiling to be done.
The problem with the idea of waiting it out 'til November and allowing the electorate to decide this "president's" fate goes to the very heart of the articles of impeachment that were drawn up against him. Trump/s misdeed was to try to influence the election by coercing a foreign leader to investigate (or at least to pretend to investigate) one of his opponents along with the son of that opponent. How in heck can voters anticipate having a fair election under these circumstances? And is anyone convinced that he won't try it again?
803
@stu freeman
I think it's quite obvious that Zelensky won't do anything of the sort since he won't know who will win in November. He needs to be on good terms with the winner whoever it is. Pretty much every voter has an opinion on the Bidens by now, and if Biden isn't the nominee it's a moot point.
3
@kwb
If Biden hadn’t entered the race, Trump wouldn’t have bothered with investigations into corruption. It was never about corruption in Ukraine; it was all about dirtying up Biden.
29
I’m not worried about Zelensky helping Trump in the next election. It’s all about Putin and any other country that is happy with the chaos of the last three years.
10
If Clinton got impeached for less egregious sexcapades than JFK's, and Comey's putting his thumb on the 2016 election is a less egregious misuse of the FBI's power than J.E. Hoover's decades of secret surveillance, infiltration and agitation of dissident groups, and dossier collection on perceived enemies, then the arc of history is, indeed, bending towards a more-moral exercise of government power.
Or is it?
Mr. Douhat writes, "despite Trump’s nepotistic impulses, even he hasn’t yet imitated Kennedy’s elevation of his own brother as attorney general." Really?
Say what you will about JFK's appointment of his brother Robert to the Attorney General post, but at least RFK _earned_ a law degree. Furthermore, RFK was confirmed by the U. S. Senate.
Trump has given his daughter and son-in-law positions of authority and responsibility in the White House. Ill-defined and fluid though their duties may be, neither Ivanka nor Jared demonstrate the slightest scintilla of ability, aptitude or capacity to perform them. Their distinct lack of accomplishment over the past three years is evidence thereof. Indeed, neither could pass a background check for appropriate security clearances.
387
@A. Reader
I think they, Jared and Ivanka, have accomplished a lot. Tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars for themselves.
54
@A. Reader
Also, I don't think it was Robert Kennedy who established the Justice Department policy of not indicting a sitting president.
Robert Kennedy was also not the Attorney General who sought to act as the president's defense counsel.
16
Mr. Douthat is getting just about everything his political movement wants from President Trump: conservative or right-wing judges, anti-choice laws supported by Trump, lots of talk about the government funding private (i.e. parochial) schools, executive orders about prayer in schools, and recently a lot of noise abut cutting back on Medicare and Medicaid. There is not much more Douthat's faction can hope for; even lower taxes and a rumble with Iran, maybe? In light of these "achievements," I wish Douthat would lay off the argument that Trump sees himself as more LBJ than an "American Mussolini." So far, the only evidence to support Douthat's argument is that our trains aren't running on time.
4
Ross you're leaving out the most cogent arguments of all made by the House Impeachment Managers: abuse of Congress.
Donald Trump is the first president in US history to refuse to allow Congressional oversight. He's stonewalled, ignored subpoenas, forbidden staffers to comply with subpoenas, and essentially stripped Congress of their power of oversight.
This has never been done in our history. This most lawless president is simply ignoring our separation of powers clause, and acting as if one half of the branches is illegitimate.
If that isn't a "high crime and misdemeanor" from someone who swore to uphold the constitution, I don't know what is.
667
@ChristineMcM And yet, the Senate will acquit. The difficulties facing our republic are vast and deep.
45
@ChristineMcM
Abuse of Congress has been part of every impeachment, and presidents have been accused of abuse of Congress in every administration in living memory. Historically, such accusations have been a regular part of American politics. Obama, Clinton, both Bushes and Reagan were all accused of subverting the proper prerogatives of Congress at various times. To take one example, Obama's Dreamers executive order, which bypassed a law passed by Congress to redefine immigration policy.
So no, he's not the first. Nor will he be the last.
12
@Tom Meadowcroft
Oh, come on! Trump is only the third president yo be impeached and both documents and witnesses were produced in the other two cases. No reason to complicate things with executive orders, which can be a legitimate topic of discussion at another time.
30
I think you've veered off-course here,
To compare Trumpt to LBJ is.....a long stretch, putting it mildly. LBJ was a drastically flawed character, as is made clear iin The Best and the Brightest, and of course his presidency derailed over the Vietnam War. Nevertheless he was more concerned about, and did more to alleviate, poverty than perhaps any other president in history. He had a conscience, flawed though it was. Trump has none.
Trump stole the last election, and got caught trying to steal the next (although it's uncertain whether Biden would have been his strongest opponent in any case). Nixon was driven out, before impeachment, because he tried to cheat on his re-election as well. You seem to be overlooking those basic facts. You've overthunk this one.
n a fair country, a president who tries to cheat in his re-election campaign, especially when it compromises national security and thrwarts the bipartisan will of Congress, should be thrown out on his behind. It's just that simple.
238
@Just Ben
Yes, it's shocking that a NYT columnist is that desperate to normalize Trump's actions by writing a column designed to say "just like LBJ".
Trump ALSO encouraged a Supreme Court Justice to step down so he could nominate a corrupt and dishonest man - Brett Kavanaugh - who proved his fealty to Trump when he was introduced and lied: “No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination".
But Trump was NOT impeached for that. Trump was impeached for illegally holding up foreign aid to extort a foreign leader to publicly smear his political opponent, using exactly the words that Trump's own personal errand team wrote for that foreign leader.
However, certainly this column reflects the NYT presentation of impeachment, in which both sworn testimony and blatant lies are presented as having equal weight and who knows what is true.
16
By parroting the GOP talking point that it should be up to the voters to decide in November, you essentially remove impeachment as a legitimate process. Comparing Trump to LBJ or Kennedy by saying each sanctioned specific abuses intentionally ignores the depth and breadth of this President’s mendacity in countless areas.
Here’s a more relevant comparison: Ross Douthat and Lindsey Graham. Both understand the need to impeach a Democratic President for improper personal behavior, but draw the line when a Republican President is impeached for attempting to rig an election, withholding Congressionally approved military aid, politicizing and weaponizing the Justice and State departments, and openly obstructing the Congress from performing its constitutionally mandated duties.
Is there anything incorrect about that comparison, Ross?
5
Ross, sounds like a reasonable rationalization for the House’s impeachment until one thinks further and forward. And realizes that this new, low-bar standard will then be used by virtually every House majority to attack the opposition’s President, making impeachment a trivial political tool.
It seemed clear months ago and obvious now - Censor and move on to letting the voters decide was the smarter course.
2
And, on the other side, asking foreign countries to investigate political rivals in exchange for aid will be the new normal.
4
By “censor” do you mean do not remove Trump from office, it do take away all his powers and authority and make him sit in the corner wearing a dunce cap for the rest of his term? Or do you mean give him a slight wrap on the hand, careful not to damage his manicure?
At least we've laid to rest several of the democrats' weaker claims, such as the charge that Trump put Ukraine's security at risk. Hard to make this claim when Trump sent them weapons.
Another is the "fairness" charges. Turns out democrats played fast and loose with their subpoena allegations. They didn't even respond to requests for clarification on hearing dates. They even withdrew the Bolton subpoena rather than open it up to judicial review. Then they claimed,"obstruction".
We certainly don't need any more of these machinations. Let's hear what republicans have to say and end it.
4
Oh please. Now truth is lies across a broad swath of Trump behavior and attitudes. Lie and bully until the competition gives up, and just tunes out discourse; this is the 'perfect' place to nail Trump. In normal times highly theoretical issues like, "Is the correspondence theory of Truth still operable?" "Did truth become what I said it is based on what I want?" This is the essence of identity politics that now both sides practice. There is a solution to this. There is no such thing as a private language, such that only the speaker of it understands it. To communicate is to join community for your understanding. The community of the We the People must emerge now, for the past is no longer prologue; we need new ways to go ahead. A new way we have yet to achieve a way whereby peoples who differ radically from each other
2
Granted Lyndon Johnson, Nixon and Trump share one common trait: attempted domination in the exercise of executive power. There the comparisons end. Johnson not only talked about helping the common man, women and minorities, he did so. Trump mouth the words to his adoring audiences, then turns around and signs a regressive tax "reform" bill helping himself and his rich buddies. He hammered away at two key civil rights bills until they became law.
I see nothing good or progressive coming from this misfit who broke laws to try to hurt a Democratic opponent. He's not LBJ, but he does resemble Nixon. And that's the comparison historians will issue in due course.
6
Over time, historians might word it a bit differently: Nixon wasn’t LBJ, but he did resemble Trump.
Kennedy faced three major issues while president,the Cuban missile crises, the growing involvement in Vietnam, and the integration of Old Miss. I, for one, was glad he had his brother with him. Ivanka and Jared are not paid for what they do for Trump. They provide him trusted help. He can discuss things with them without one of them speed dialing the press so they get nice words written about them later. Nixon and Trump had one thing in common. Nixon who won 49 out of 50 states and Trump who won 30,were both impeached by a Democrat controlled House. But in Trumps case he took both Houses of Congress with him so they had to wait two years to go after him. I didn't think Clinton should have been should be convicted and kicked out of office. I was for him having to wear the "dress" around his neck like a scarf for the remainder of his time in the White House. We don't know if Biden would have been mentioned by anyone if he had not described, during a televised interview in 2018, detail in 2015, how he got the prosecutor fired. Trump didn't ask that anyone get anyone the prosecuted. He wanted to get the Ukrainian explanation of the events. This has noting to do with high crimes. It's purely political. The hearings provided a string of Trump haters with a microphone, especially those in the State Department. The vote would have been the same on day one as it was the final day. The same for the Senate. It has a waste of millions of taxed dollars that came out of our pockets.
4
LBJ and Trump have one thing in common, disdain for the truth. LBJ was well-known for the convenient lie, although the press of the day was not very good at fact checking.
5
Douthat strikes out again.
Trump isn't remotely seeking a presidency modeled after L.B.J., or on "casual corruption. " Trump, surprised at the gullibility of voters, surprised that he won the presidency, decided to see if he could get away with running the presidency from his comfort zone a la the Gambino crime family. And Republicans decided to enable him to do it with impunity. It's as simple as that.
14
Both the Senate and Mueller confirmed Russian interference in the 2016 election. Mueller, a prosecutor, made the indictable case for obstruction. A conservative appointed AG rules the President can't be indicted for obstruction.
A day after he was exonerated by Barr he asks Ukraine to investigate a debunked conspiracy theory that shifts blame from Russia to Ukraine along with announcing an investigation to smear his strongest challenger.
This corruption is different. It benefits not just our President but Vladimir Putin.
I suspect if either JFK or LBJ where forcing a foreign ally to push a conspiracy theory that benefited Nikita Khrushchev and the Soviet Union, Republicans might have had a very different take.
Censure might be okay for the reprehensible and curropt act of asking for the Biden investigation. Removal is reasonable for treason against our democracy and aid and comfort to the enemy.
8
Soliciting foreign interference in the 2020 election is a high crime. Supreme Court ruled on witnesses and evidence in united States vs. Nixon. Executive privilege may extend to trump himself refusing totestify, but not to his staff nor the evidence. Strong Arming an ally while Russian troops threaten Ukraine is bribery. these are high crimes as is threatening a whistleblower. What's not to impeach, convict and remove?
6
Let’s suppose Biden wasn’t running. Was investigating his past actions legitimate? Let’s suppose Trump was only investigating general Ukrainian corruption and held back the founds? Would that be legitimate?
Trump is actually being impeached on a supposed motive of trying to get rid of or hurt Biden. You can’t impeach on a possible motive
Plus the breaking of the law by withholding congressionally appropriated funds and covering it up. Let’s not leave the crime out of it.
1
Trump has one interest .....power. It is his shark-like, killer instinctive pursuit of power that has won him the loyalty of the GOP. His legislative and regulatory accomplishments represent the wish list of his targeted audiences; his tactics are intended to bolster his image as strongman and leader; he sees tribalism and divisiveness as means to his survival.
LBJ was a master politician who could twist arms enough to cause pain to Democrats and Republicans alike. After nearly yanking some arms out of their sockets to pass Civil Rights legislation he famously confided to Vice President Humphrey that the south would be lost for a generation. His goal was righteous justice,,even if divisive.He was right about the south...but his policies were right for America.
As Trump wields his power without a righteous purpose, we are in the verge of losing our entire Democracy for ever. Were his tactics to achieve his “wins” worth it?
2
My view of the Trump presidency is much darker than Douthat's. Trump remade the Republican Party so that its organizing principle is hatred. He ran as somewhat of an economic populist, but the fact that he has delivered nothing on this front disturbs his supporters not at all. He has encouraged his supporters to be cultural vandals against the values of modern openness. The pervasiveness of conspiracy theories on the political right reveals a readiness to utterly disregard the truth in the lust to amass more power. It is in this context that Trump's antics must be viewed. Political shenanigans among political actors who otherwise are not representing the forces of darkness are much less damaging. Removing Trump would be a declaration by the nation's elite that the sum total of Trump's barbarism is morally out-of-bounds. Blessing this behavior by acquittal will whet the appetite of the far right to push its agenda of hate.
5
The problem with comparing Trump's extortion of Ukraine to LBJ's appointment of Ramsey Clark is that appointing Clark as Attorney General was legal. As the GAO has confirmed, withholding the aid to Ukraine was not legal. Furthermore, this argument completely ignores the second article of impeachment - Trump has blatantly obstructed the investigation into his malfeasance.
The Constitution is very clear in assigning the power of the purse to Congress. Trump has both refused to disburse money as legally required (the Ukraine matter) and spent money not appropriated for that purpose by Congress (the bogus emergency to build the wall).
Donald Trump believes himself to be unconstrained by law. This is the very essence of what impeachment is for.
9
Regarding the second article of Trump’s impeachment, Obstruction of Congress, Ross’s column is plain wrong. Every president who was impeached, and a number of them who weren’t, opined that the House needs to be supplied with every scrap of paper it demands in an impeachment proceeding. Andrew Johnson said it, Bill Clinton said it, and Richard Nixon said it, with on glaring exception. Nixon refused to turn over his Oval Office tapes, and that obstruction of Congress was added to his articles of impeachment before he resigned.
Turning over to the House what it demands during impeachment is an important protection for the republic, and God help us if we lose it. For Trump’s broad and brash reach for dictatorial powers will bring forth many copycats, whether he prevails or not in impeachment and re-election. Lyndon Johnson didn’t even come close to this perilous cliff.
11
@Charles B Z
Exactly right.
The Republicans broke impeachment by hounding Clinton for years (for matters that took place before he was president) and finally impeaching him for fibbing about a consensual sex act — in a grand jury proceeding, where he was not represented by counsel, and had no right to call or cross-examine witnesses.
Trump is being impeached because he has proven that he is willing to enlist foreign assistance to tamper with our elections — the only remedy we have to rid ourselves of him other than impeachment.
And he utterly stonewalled Congress to achieve this, refusing to turn over any evidence or place himself under oath.
6
This piece makes me wish I knew history better. Comparing RFK and Ivanka? Geezzz. I don’t know Mr. Douthat.
Being old enough to have lived through several of the administrations mentioned (not Madison’s) I have to say this is situation is qualitatively different. Consider what happened when Nixon’s crimes were clear. Senators put country first in the absence of a “official” network to plead the president’s case to the public. Sorry. It’s different now. Apparently Americans think the enemy is the other side rather than that the enemy is lawlessness and corruption. Basic understanding of law based country is missing now. Love for country has been replaced by hatred for the other side and it seems that everyone one both sides is trying to make a case that they are really the biggest victim.
This can’t end well.
10
We do indeed seem to have tightened things up with respect to presidential power--nicely laid out Mr. Douthat. The question that comes to my mind though, is whether or not the time is right for push-back from the constrained.
Ideally, there is a healthy give and take between behavior and formal rules. Are we making the job of the President too constrained? I would suggest, no. Not because Trump has become tangled up in them. He came in swearing to test the rules, and based on what I have seen so far he has failed this test. Obama, however, tried hard to work within the rules and he was severely hamstrung also. The difference between the two--after Obama took the oath of office he defended the constitution while Trump has defended his, and his benefactors, fortunes. So how do we distinguish between one's motivations--until we have a black box capable of doing that we are stuck with those darn messy elections.
2
If Democrats held a 53-47 majority in the Senate, I don’t think the Republicans world be unanimous in their support of Trump.
9
@Nat Ehrlich
Yes they would. The only thing motivating Repub Senators is fear of backlash by the Trumpian voters in their states.
Unfortunately it really is that simple. They will stick with him until it becomes a political liability.
I can't help but imagine that the entire impeachment effort might have been cut off before it began, had the Senate Republicans admitted Trump's (utterly obvious) perfidy, and offered to pass, with House Democrats, a Joint Resolution condemning it.
Would that not have been the (politically, as well as morally) better move for everyone, possibly including Trump?
4
Mr. Douthat's column is without foundation in either fact or law. The defense that Trump is merely seeking to be a president has been advanced and rejected in a federal criminal case involving another government chief executive.
Like Trump, Providence Mayor Buddy Cianci led and association-in-fact of grifters and hangers-on whose core goal was the perpetuation of Cianci in office. Although not convicted of any substantial offense, a jury convicted Cianci of racketeering conspiracy.
Cianci complained to the trial judge that he had been "convicted simply of being the mayor"; the trial judge agreed and then sentenced Cianci to 60 months in prison. See, United States v. Cianci, 378 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2004)
8
If our democracy is based on the belief that the people decide whose president, it would follow that using the power of the presidency to knowingly deceive the public from making true assessments, attacks the foundation.
23
Attention has been paid to the anger of the white working class at 'their' country purportedly 'being taken from them,' and to that anger, rather than crass and corrosive racism, misogyny, and ignorance, as the basis of our current presidential predicament.
Less regularly celebrated is the view that the country proposed each July 4 to be the land of the free, tolerant, literate, and Constitutional is under siege by people who regard contemptuously the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and all other post-60s and '70s efforts to mitigate white supremacy.
That Douthat, confronted by overwhelming, undisputed proof that Trump impeached himself, must resort by way of a defense to attacks on Democrats long removed from power may offer some insight into what animates Trump supporters. That is, the man who says what they want said on race and gender in the way they want it said is omnipotent, and innocent.
The nation is somewhat East of Eden.
18
Based on Trump's patterns of behavior, nepotism as such is hardly likely to bother him. He would probably have loved to appoint a family member to the position of attorney general, as JFK did. The only reason he hasn't is that his adult children don't have law degrees and he's had to be content with Javanka being "special advisors". If he gets a second term, and Tiffany graduates from law school on time....
5
But without congressional oversight there is no article one at all. And if there is no timely judicial oversight, justice delayed is justice denied.
13
If it is ok for a president to ask a foreign government to investigate a political opponent under false pretenses why did we have the Muller investigation. If Ukraine agreed to investigate the Bidens one would assume they would privately inform Trump of the results. Is that not conspiring with a foreign government in an election issue. So again why did we have the Muller investigation.
7
May the fantasy of voters having the power to decide go away. The Electoral College decides.
17
My thought exactly
While it's a completely dissatisfying conclusion, I'm afraid Mr. Douthat is right. The best that can happen at this moment is a form of severe censure. You really don't need any more than the transcript of the phone call between Trump and Zelensky to know that the president was behaving like a mob capo telling a small business owner that he had a nice building and it would be a shame if it burned down.
The next thing that has to happen is that everyone who is appalled by this president has to put aside all ideology and get out and vote for whoever turns out to be the Democratic candidate.
18
@PDXBruce what we need is a moratorium. The public refuses to work with the government. Do not pay your taxes for Republican-corrupted government.
There is just no comparison with what 45 has done any ANY other president. No other corruptions mentioned in this article and even others not mentioned compare.
As far as I know, NO other president in our short history has enlisted the aid of a FOREIGN POWER to help him, ( yes, all men) to win an election.
Let us not loose sight of that while all the constitutional scholars ponderously discuss and all the intellectuals, both conservative and liberal debate the issue.
This is why he is, and will be forever Impeached.
That he is going to do it again is why he must be Removed. And
yes, this is the reason he is not fit to run for office in the US of A!
10
@mouseone
Not only sadly, he will do it again, but he also knows that Americans have the attention span of a gnat and that American attention can be greatly diverted over nonsense.
Unfortunately, they decided wrongly in the first instance. Aided and abetted by Russia absconding w/the DNC server, now that I understand the whole controversy over the e-mails. I should think he prefers to emulate Putin than L.B.J. I understand the gist of the argument, although I beg to differ. Ukraine is at the front-line. Post-Soviet Russia will still try to sabotage. You can’t have a business as usual President always being protected by the likes of Eisenberg. Career civil servants know when to sound the alarm bells, better than the voters. We should want to correct the first mistake, if we can. That being said, thanks to the meticulous preparation of the House managers, the voters have been warned, but is that enough? Now we have his Middle East push for an elusive peace. He still wants that coveted prize.
4
The difference between then and now is the Internet. We have had lost or stuffed ballot boxes before, but that nefarious work was done by Americans in America. With the Internet, foreigners can manipulate elections, not just in this or that precinct, but in one or more states. In that light, Republican shenanigans to tolerate Trump's abuse of office to secure his own kind of "foreign aid" is a quantum leap in a threat to democratic elections and governance afterwards by a compromised candidate and winner.
10
In another column, one commenter states that "Trump has added a stipulation to the release of the money to the Ukraine govt. that says they cannot use the missiles against Russia." The missiles are restricted to the eastern border of Ukraine, not where they are needed. What was Congress's intent when allowing the US to fund arms to Ukraine but to protect them from Russia?
This is a clear sign that Trump is a Putin stooge, nothing more. And, it is a serious breach of law.
16
Sorry, the western border. This leaves the Russian front to Putin.
Let Trump America have Trump.
They stopped having efficacy and taking responsibility in their own lives a generation or two ago and the expectation that they are able to own the consequences of their decisions isn’t realistic. Just like their leader/avatar.
As long as we continue to subsidize their failure the hard work of rebuilding their culture and economy won’t begin.
Both parts of America need to move forward in separate compacts that respect the cultural and economic realities of these new entities.
5
The voters can only decide if they have all the information. If the Senate acquits without finding out more information that is easily accessible, then they are not giving the voters the information they need to vote.
20
@David Smith
That's pretty funny considering democrats only provided partial witness testimony. The republicans are now filling in the missing pieces and context.
We don't need more witnesses. We need the full story from the witnesses already called.
2
@AACNY
First of all, total hypocrisy to claim that the trial is unfair because not all the evidence has been heard, while preventing witnesses with first hand knowledge to testify (Bolton, Giuliani, Pompeo). Secondly, why are Republicans so afraid of what said witnesses might say?
17
@Mary K
I agree. Not all the evidence has been heard. This is why it's so important for republican to provide the evidence that democrats withheld, particularly with respect to witnesses already called.
1
I don't think that Mr. Douhat has been paying attention. He writes that the "act of censure, a punishment that restrains misbehaving presidents without actually removing them." maybe be a palpable alternative to removal from office. However, Trump would wear "censorship" as a red badge of courage and continue shredding the norms and institutions that gave legitimacy to our global leadership in the 20th century.
16
Enough already with the "but everyone else does it too" rationalizations of Trump's abuse of power!
An analogy:
The speed limit is set at 40 at a dangerous spot for safety reasons. Of course, most people don't obey speed limits.
A cop pulls you over for speeding. Your defense: "But everyone else was speeding too!"
Sorry, but you still deserve a ticket; and the "but everyone else does it too" will get you nowhere in court.
Laws are inconsistently enforced all the time. No one would claim "Let's raise the speed limit and ignore the safety concerns because no one follows it anyway." No one claims "Some people get away with cheating on their taxes, so let's abolish the IRS."
But that's precisely what Trump's enablers are arguing: "Trump doesn't deserve to be accountable to the law because other people have done similar things."
Even when a law isn't enforced on every breaking of it, laws serve as deterrents, and prevent (or lessen) misbehaviors. Some people do follow 40 speed limits; and it at least prevents others from driving recklessly at 70.
Furthermore: "Impeachment without removal" is no more effective than indicting criminals but never convicting and punishing them. In fact, that just emboldens them to do it again, and keep pushing the envelope to more egregious crimes.
Trumpistas' and Deplorables' argument boils down to: "You shouldn't punish our guy when he got caught; and it's OK for our guys McConnell and Kavanaugh to flout the law as long as it benefits us."
39
Letting the voters decide the issue is maybe the best option. The problem is that Trump is trying to rig the election. That, and the fact that those same voters elected Trump in the first place.
20
Doesn't your point come down to nothing more than a case in favor of censure rather than impeachment as a constraint on Presidential power? Shouldn't we be concerned that a failure to convict in these circumstances will embolden, rather than constrain, future abuses of power?
16
So, in summary, because past leaders have been corrupt or self-serving or of questionable morality we should give Trump a pass? Sorry Ross. I feel we should be better than that.
41
Letting the voters decide has serious flaws! We're not actually running our government as prescribe by the original constitution. The founders were well-read and understood Plato's warning about the dangers of too much direct democracy. They didn't place everything in the hand of the voters for a very good reason. The purpose of the electoral college was to allow educated & informed electors to actually select the president. That system hasn't functioned as planned, and over time it evolved into a system where the typical elector just "rubber-stamps" the popular vote. The uneducated and ill-informed have a major input, which was not the intent. Likewise, state legislatures were to elect senators, but that was changed by the 17th amendment to allow citizens to directly elect senators. So instead of statesmen that were elected by state representatives, we have cowering, pandering politicians that seem to worry more about facing a primary than good government. We are witnessing the worst fears of the founders every day.
10
@Jeff -- I'd like to point out that in this country, the people are afraid of their government. whereas, in France, the government is afraid of the people. I really like that about France.
If voting were required by law, and election day was a federal holiday, voters would be better informed, and turned out. But, in any case, they are better informed than you give them credit for. The stupidos usually vote against their own interests, which makes then vulnerable to corrupt, bribed representatives. Every citizen, however, has a right to vote, regardless of their understanding. EVERY voter. Registration should be automatic, at age 18. Get the big corrupt money out of politics, and make every campaign publicly funded.
14
@Jeff well, was not this President actually voted in by the Electoral College? Trump or his advisers were clever enough to use Cambridge Analytical to get them over the top, by targeting susceptible, I-don’t-know-yet voters in three States, that got him the necessary votes. It’s a crapshoot, but there you have it. Mix the Russians in and you have a very heady brew. At least no one can predict the next election, but certainly I think there is a point to removing this President. He’ll just go back to being Trump, but just not in the Oval Office, which would be a good thing.
4
@Jeff
It may originally have been a good idea, but state legislatures did not generally select statesmen. Prior to the adoption of the 17th amendment, state legislatures were easily corrupted and often selected stooges.
As Henry Demarest Lloyd wrote in The Atlantic in 1881, “Standard [Oil] has done everything with the Pennsylvania legislature, except refine it.“
Douthat's argument might have some merit but for the fact that Trump's offenses are aimed squarely at the integrity of the electoral process, thus eliminating elections as the ultimate remedy.
58
People choose to define everything based on their own desires for power and control, profit, equality, safety, self-interest, compassion, etc. Mr. Douthat has carefully outlined how men who have been in control of the US for over a hundred years have defined the powers of the US President. We can see lust for power and control, profit, and hermetically sealed self-interest in these definitions and the rationales supporting them. We can see that the heirs of those men, those who control this country right now, have zero intention of surrendering one iota of their power and they are masters of the distraction and deception needed to keep their positions intact and safe. I am not talking about the GOP or the DEMS, I am talking about both. The voters, manipulated as we are by both sides, are no better selectors of a man to rule us all, than the seasoned courtiers who make, bend, and judge laws. This is a sad state of affairs. If we are to transcend these issues, we each have to work on our own minds such that we cannot be manipulated by those driven by out of control lust for power and control. That is a hard row to hoe, as any person who has fought addiction or aggression can attest. I wish us all the best of luck. We will need it.
7
@TDHawkes Tough call. Am I being manipulated or have I been told truth? Manipulation of them might have its contrapositive in my rendering of truth, but how can I be sure I am looking at reality?
It's going to take more than luck. And more of our time and energy than we normally give to rooting out truth. My rule of thumb, if it's only a sound bite or a bumper sticker, it's manipulation. The truth is nuanced and trickier and not necessarily simple.
Reading helps. Questioning more than bloviating. Evidence can be found for what is real, and the loudest isn't the one with the answers.
More than luck, we need engaged citizens and hustling journalists. Leisure and our sports teams may have be be our secondary involvement.
4
The voters already decided in 2016 - roughly 3 million more of us did NOT want Trump in office.
24
Although many will disagree, I think this is an excellent analysis. And, it confirms what many have said (in one way or another): this impeachment is a Rorschach test: people project their own beliefs onto an ambiguous process. Perception IS reality!
6
@stevevelo
And why it should be ended. Preaching to their choirs should not consume our House and Senate.
Let them get back to work.
1
If only the voters could decide. But with our Electoral College, and our unrepresentative Senate, a small portion of the voters will decide, even if there is no manipulation of the vote. And manipulation of the vote—through gerrymandering, voter suppression, dark money, and the interference of malign domestic and foreign actors—may indeed further limit the ability of the majority to express its will.
We can argue all we want about what impeachment should or shouldn't do. But this is like arguing about the colour of the kitchen cabinets when the house is burning to the ground. The very legitimacy of our government is in question now. Whatever happens with this impeachment, the crisis will continue until we address the fundamental problem. Our democracy no longer works.
20
@617to416
Our democracy worked in 2016, albeit with awful results. HRC ignored Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Arrogance and overconfidence.
The House impeached Trump, a correct and constitutional action. The Senate will acquit him, an immoral but legal act.
And, hopefully, 2020 will usher in a resounding electoral defeat for DJT and several Repub lawmakers.
The worst thing voters of good conscience can do is cynically avoid voting this Nov. or vote for 3rd-party candidates.
Together we can right this terrible aberration.
I never understood how JFK could appoint his own brother as Attorney General; points well taken regarding pre-post Nixon. However, isn't the real distinction the involvement of a foreign government? And how far can a president go to claim that he doesn't have to produce documents/witnesses unless the House has voted to impeach him - that he doesn't have to produce anything during an inquiry? When Trump is bloviating during the State of the Union, we will clearly see the distinction between him and other presidents.
21
wants to be LBJ and not Mussolini? This is the core of the hit piece and why it was selected as the headline. It normalizes Trump and the republicans by asserting (falsely) their desire to emulate other leaders of the opposite party who achieved major success at civil rights for americans. It posits a desire away from an obvious problem with a hand wave. It also serves to distract from the actual facts.
Much like the Blackburn piece Mr. Douthat mentions, its a distraction and half truth.
The real core is Russ Douthat is a Trump supporter, a Republican Party power supporter and this is right in the overall theme of dsitract and hand wring and make false comparisons to normalize. It maintains power and that's the goal.
24
@Nathan Root thank you for that. Appeasement of sorts against very serious charges.
Trump's obstruction of Congress guarantees the final arrogation of absolute power in the President. This is not the "casual corruption" in the violation of the emolument clause, or the blatant nepotism, cronyism and self-dealing that every administration in history engaged in--from Lincoln's blind eye to the corrupt practices of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, to Clinton's Lincoln Bedroom B&B for campaign donors.
Even the illegal withholding of allocated funds to a government in return for a promise to smear a political opponent--a high crime and misdemeanor that is arguably impeachable--is not as bad as the obstruction of oversight by Congress.
If Trump gets off, what's to stop him from declaring November's election results illegal and invalid? This is not a rhetorical question. This President has already stated his belief that Article 2 allows him the power to "do anything he wants." So tell us, Ross, what new precedent of a Senatorial exoneration of Trump excludes that outcome?
30
@John C
"If Trump gets off, what's to stop him from declaring November's election results illegal and invalid?"
We must be ready to fill and occupy the streets, shutting the country down if necessary should this happen.
11
@John C . . ."If Trump gets off, what's to stop him from declaring November's election results illegal and invalid?"
And abolishing term limits on the presidency!
Then he can be the King.
We can be prepared to hit the streets, call general non- violent strikes. Study up on Gandhi's techniques for non-violent protest. We might just need them.
5
@Al M
But first, every voter of conscience needs to turn out in Nov. and vote out DJT and every skunk Republican who supported him.
Forget cynicism, forget 3rd-party voting. Forget who gets the Dem. nomination.
We can right this wrong.
1
It's "been apparent for a while" that committed professional Republicans will say absolutely anything in defense of their brand, including Douthat's novel insistence that it's "been apparent for a while" that all this comes down to Mussolini v. LBJ, and therefore Democrats did it too.
Is no Republican in the land responsible for what the party, with or without Trump, has become? It's "been apparent for a while" that Ross Douthat doesn't think so.
23
Impeachment is what a current House of Representatives says it is. Conviction and removal from office depends on what the Senate decides. The members of Congress have to answer to their constituents for their decisions. That is what Democracy is.
You could say JFK and LBJ's greatest offense was sending US troops to die in Vietnam for the principal reason that neither wanted to be accused by rapid anti communists as being soft on communism and "losing" Vietnam and thus endangering their political future.
But at that time the House and the Senate and the American public with few exceptions agreed with the decisions. So impeachment for these very grievous decisions was never considered.
W Bush sent US troops to die in Iraq and destabilized the Middle East based on lies about weapons of mass destruction and his need to show America his strength against the the Muslim world, to cover up for the intelligence failures that led to 9/11 and to help his low poll numbers going into mid term elections.
Again most of the House, the Senate and the American public in the aftermath of 9/11 agreed with the terrible decision to invade Iraq. So there was no appetite for impeachment although the consequences of the errors are still felt today.
The current House decided Trump's behavior was impeachable and voted to impeach him. The Senate is unlikely to convict and all members will have to answer to their constituents for their decisions.
It is not that hard to understand.
8
@Edward B. Blau It makes one wonder what action would be considered offensive enough to lead to removal of office. Especially when all of the actors who decide are in an inherent conflict of interest. History seems to indicate that the framers of your constitution really didn't think that one through, but I suppose times were different then, and they were certainly breaking new ground.
@R Leighton They did think it through as ultimately a bottom up decision. If enough of the constituents of Congress were opposed to impeachment for wrong or right reasons then impeachment and conviction would not take place.
The executive can always be removed by defeat at the polls and his behavior was illegal during his term then he or she can be indicted and tried in a court of law when he or she is no longer president.
I do not understand the comparisons drawn between Trump's behaviors and JFK or LBJ. Neither made light of a foreign government's interference, neither threatened national security by acting against congressional legislation approving aid, neither worked to enlist a foreign government to help them win an election through a deceit of the US citizenry. Nor did Nixon or Clinton.
47
@JC . . . of course! You are exactly correct. We are not talking about corruption as much as endangering our national security.
@JC: I clicked to recommend your comment even though I think you’re wrong about Nixon. Didn’t he secretly negotiate with the North Vietnamese to extend the Vietnam war for his own political purposes?
@JC Have you seen Ken Burns' documentary on Vietnam? Nixon committed treason according to your Constitution; LBJ knew it, but wouldn't reveal it as he was bugging the office of the South Vietnamese president, also illegal.
I am outsider. I understand judges and law lecturers speak of the spirit of the laws, a vague phrase perhaps referring to the original purposes for which a law was made. I think not giving Trump a proper trial with witnesses is somewhat debasing. How can his past action be truly tested without testament from other parties involved? This is a travesty of a trial; their is no proper legal process here, just the farcical American democratic charade process on show.
I am observing from a Southeast Asian country, where there have been numerous coups over the years that US diplomats at times have looked down upon – or so-gently criticized – with awesome correspondence. The one God, bless this superb America!
9
@M. C. Major I am but an outsider who occasionally posts nonsense, who believes there must be no right legal process when ready witnesses remain uncalled – but I have no real interesting opinion. I would like to see a proper impeachment trial. I humbly request you repeat the process – with respect to due process.
If we did not live in a era in which your side must be totally right and the other side totally wrong, and all differences must be resolved in crushing, total victory, we'd have impeached, agreed to censure and closed the process.
We wouldn't be defending egregious behavior or creating a precedent in which the President is above Congress's power to investigate; above the law.
But we do live in an era in which truth and fact are non-existent, propaganda is king, and in which the only way to appease the crowds is to toss a lion into the forum. Total crushing victory or total crushing defeat, and nothing in between.
I am turning into one of those nostalgic types who look back at the days when truces were negotiated and hammered out and people accepted compromise. When people could accept that their guy was wrong, and take the hit.
When our public figures acted in good conscience at least occasionally, and did not feed the beast.
30
@Cathy
As Republican policies that destroy the middle class and endanger the planet, all to further enrich an already obscenely wealthy tiny elite, become more and more unpopular, Republicans are driven to ever more desperate means to preserve their power.
The core of Republican support is the Confederacy, which was not shy about brutally exercising power to maintain white supremacy.
Ross,
The president has urged foreign nations to affect the outcome of American elections. The relativist argument in support of the president is weak and not up to your usual strong points. Points I often disagree with but still respect. This piece couldn’t possibly have missed the point more.
18
@Stephen S.
Totally disagree.
The "relativist argument" is not in this article proposed to support Trump. On the contrary it is shown that although many of his predecessors behaved badly, there was some hope of an improved standard.
That hope is dashed by the Leader of the Senate.
1
No one has done more to perpetuate the relativism most self-proclaimed Conservatives rail against than Conservatives. Cries bemoaning "Post-truth" are weakened by positions just like this article tries to strike. This is why I left both Conservatism and the Republican party.
Joe
22
Ross, while your right wing views are extremely well represented in your columns here in The New York Times, I think that most readers have assumed that there is a core of decency at the heart of your philosophy.
I don't think it's possible for me to assume that any longer, since you are still defending the indefensible. It's amazing that you can conflate LBJ and trump to give trump cover for his dictatorial actions. Your defense is "corruption as usual, nothing to see here, let's move on."
None of your apology here for trump is applicable, for many reasons, but the primary one which invalidates all of it is that Johnson, for all his faults and rough edges, demonstrably cared about the country. LBJ was an actual patriot, and actual civil servant, an actual decent person. Trump is none of those things. The only reason Trump does anything is to advance his personal interests, or wound a perceived foe. I honestly cannot understand someone who would embarrass himself in public like this claiming otherwise.
78
Douthat sketches out the cognitive dissonance festival that is the Trump impeachment admirably. The real motivation of the Democratic leadership is completely legitimate: to pin Trump down so he cannot recruit foreign governments beholden to the US to manufacture kompramat against his political rivals. If he doubles down and does it anyway, at least there will be consequences. Maybe. The fact that the impeachment evidence may also persuade some small sliver of voters who were leaning Trump to decide he is not worth the risk -- we assume it is going to be a very close election -- is an extra added bonus.
But most voters realize that convicting Trump and removing him from office is the worst possible outcome. It would create a fissure in the body politic that could last a generation and would possibly lead to guerrilla war in certain areas of the US (and I mean that literally). The intent of this impeachment is exposure, not ouster, and it is working quite well in that regard.
But maybe Trump's impeachment will be seen by history as similar in intent and effect to Bill Clinton's. Clinton's "triangulation" scheme was working very well and his approval ratings were impressive. Newt Gingrich and others wanted to hobble Clinton because they hate effective government as much as anything, so they impeached him. But in the end, the only effect of that impeachment was a boost to Bill's approval rating.
History is a ways off yet and we do not know which way this baby is gonna bounce.
8
I drives me nuts that opinions like this "analyze" the "strategy" behind trump's thinking - when all the available evidence is that there is none, and all explanations are really after-the-fact justifications.
64
So Douthat is still hanging with Trump while most other conservative intellectuals have abandoned that tack.
Sure, you can always twist words to try to spin Trump into a real president like Johnson, but what do you say about the lies? The shear number of thoroughly documented lies? What do you say about the nepotism? The raw absolutism of Trumps pronouncements? The refusal to listen to advisers? The lack of historical or geopolitical knowledge? The self-dealing? The list of Trump's anomalies goes on.
No Ross, Trump is a lot closer to Mussolini than to any actual American president. Indeed, he's probably historically closer to a pre-Enlightenment King, say a Henry VIII or Louis XIV, or maybe even the English King George against whom we fought our first battles for Independence.
25
@Henry Crawford You only have to go to the last century. Trump is Kaiser Wilhelm II.
Let's compare. LBJ spied on the Goldwater campaign and obtained advance word of policy proposals, then used that knowledge to take the wind out of them. DJT extorted a foreign government, an ally at war with a larger, predatory enemy, by withholding military assistance critical to its survival. The aid was only to released if that government announced an investigation into DJT's most feared political rival. The road behind the DJT runaway van is littered with lies and crimes, so many that each new one is a distraction from the ones that preceded it. Thus has an epidemic of indecency functioned as its own perverse defense. That road is also littered with equivalency claims, not-so-bad-isms. The Congress and the Fourth Estate need to do more than follow the DJT runaway van. They need to run it off the road.
37
What is particularly infuriating about the argument that impeachment requires a crime is that the Mueller report was filled with evidence that Trump obstructed justice, which is indeed a crime. The Democrats, in their zeal to put the impeachment question behind them quickly for political reasons, chose to exclude Mueller's findings. While Pelosi asserted accurately that the House has a constitutional duty to impeach, the Democrats are just going through the motions of fulfilling that duty. If they truly cared about the constitution more than their own political advantage, they would not have skimped on the evidence or rushed to impeach before the 2020 elections grew closer.
9
@Neil Grossman I agree that there should have been more articles of impeachment or more charges under the articles. However, as there was no way that the House could get the needed witnesses to appear or the requested documents released without lengthy court proceedings, the only path forward was to get to the Senate trial where hopefully at least 4 republican senators will have the decency to vote for witnesses and more evidence to be presented.
3
@JC truth. Trump would have played the court rope-a-dope. Creating long delays awaiting court decisions. Not necessary if the Senate were not minions of the Trump regime.
It's an odd argument to use Kennedy as an example of a president misusing power without any repercussions. They shot Kennedy.
As for trump wanting to be LBJ, trump just wants the power without having to put in the time. LBJ was flawed, but cared deeply about the country and made decision good for the country, but terrible for his political future.
While Kennedy and LBJ flirted with the mob, trump is a mob boss. Better to compare him to the Gambinos, or any other leader of a criminal enterprise than any past president.
23
@Zeke27
Please do not put LBJ on a pedestal. This is a President who used the Gulf of Tonkin incident (which involved lies and coverups) to allow himself to send troops to Vietnam without a declaration of war. His record on Civil Rights MUST be balanced with his actions that caused so many deaths and an unnecessary and unwinnable war. It also laid the ground for the Iraqi war.
None of this is a defense of Trump, but we are still suffering the aftereffects of the LBJ Administration and cannot whitewash that.
3
Those "18th-century quotes" didn't come out of thin air. They are in response to earlier arguments by Trump supporters that Trump would have to commit a crime in order to be impeached. It's coincidence that there are so many arguments going back to the discussions when the Constitution was adopted to support the position that the founders would have thought Trump's actions were impeachable.
13
The voters "spoke" in the 2016 election with HRC winning the vote. Yet here we are for the second time this century with a president elected by the minority. Could happen a third time this year. While I will again eagerly vote it clearly doesn't mean much if my vote is muted by the effects of a few hundred "electors".
29
Having a mean reactionary judiciary is one promise Trump is fulfilling. This probably helps explain Ross' muted tone here.
23
In short: impeachment is provided for in the constitution, but in practice it's just a symbolic gesture - censure, not removal, no matter what.
That's just swell. It's like the Pythonesque argument: "he can't actually have babies, [but] he can have the right to have babies."
16
The point that Mr. Douthat overlooks is that we are now in the midst of an ongoing constitutional crisis. The Republic envisioned the Founders is strong, but the Democracy they envisioned is failing. Our nation has faced the same issue throughout our history,
Under our Constitution sovereignty is shared by the federal government and the states. The President is elected by the States and not by the people. We now have fifty states. The estimated population of those fifty states in 2019 was 326.5 million, but the eleven most populous states had an estimated population of 165.4 million. A majority of our population lives in only eleven states.
The impeachment trial of President Trump is underway in the Senate. A two-thirds majority is required to convict and remove President Trump from office. Since 42 states have elected senators from the same party, a party line verdict will be, in essence, a verdict not of the people but of the states. Whether Trump will be removed from office on November 3, 2020 will be decided by a majority of the states, not a majority of the voters.
It has become fashionable to characterize the impeachment as merely a reflection of political polarization. Unfortunately it is worse. We have no mechanism in our Constitution to submit the federal government and the President directly to the verdict of voters. That weakness produced the Civil War and it continues to threaten the Nation.
24
@OldBoatMan We need to amend the Constitution as you imply, including rethinking Article II. Having a POTUS is a vestige of monarchy.
"We cannot let the voters decide."
Unfortunately, this seems to be where Adam Schiff and democrats wound up. When democrats made it about not allowing voters to decide in the next election, they made a strategic error. They opened themselves up to charges they were trying to influence the outcome of a presidential election.
Americans already suspect democrats want to negate the votes of 60 million voters. Schiff slipped and allowed their suspicions to be confirmed.
7
@AACNY Perhaps we should address the real issue, that the Electoral College negated the votes of 63 million voters? And not for the first time this young century.
33
@Steve Bruns
The real issue, it appears to me, is that losing an election has led people to blame the system. I suspect they will again blame the system when Trump is acquitted.
They want to impeach Trump, Barr, SCOTUS judges and who knows who else. In other words, they seek to destroy whatever they perceive stands in the way of their victory.
That's a damaging perspective, and the country has paid dearly for it.
7
@AACNY
Riiight. Let the voters decide if their president is corrupting the election.That's the McConnell theory that states that Congress shouldn't make any decisions in an election year turned around.
The election meme is trump's only defense. Removing him doesn't negate the election. Clinton won't become president, Pence would, duly elected in 2016.
The attacks on Schiff are a good sign that he speaks truthfully. Republicans don't like the facts, and so attack the messenger.
24
A censure measure would have had more general acceptance with the public and would have shown a measure of restraint from the democrats. Instead they gave us a partisan food fight that even democratic voters aren't paying attention to.
3
@Chris The GOP Senate would not have approved a censure measure either. Their view is that a GOP president (unlike a democratic president) rightfully has the power of a dictator (until voters decide otherwise - except, catch22, the Electoral College plus widespread GOP imposed voter suppression- ensure that the voters cannot).
13
@Chris
Censure would have been a better option because democrats would have had a better chance of convincing the public, which still remains their biggest obstacle.
1
@AACNY and yet polls on whether Trump should be removed from office regularly show that the public believes that he should be. Even a Fox news poll showed that to be the case.
11
With the exception of lifting his dog by its ears, or showing off a scar from gall bladder surgery, the public LBJ was one of presidential decorum. Despite his ill-advised slide into war in South East Asia, Johnson's biographers saw him as a man from humble origins driven not only by needs for himself but to be a second FDR and lift up the old, the poor, the non-white and the dispossessed. Like Andrew Jackson, a man to whom cruel intentions can be inferred, but also a man who could face an opponent in a pistol duel and take a bullet before firing, Donald Trump does not match the measure. Trump's "greatness" is fantasy, but his whims are policy.
20
The argument equivocating nepotistic appointments of JFK to Trump rings hollow. RFK was a young US AG and lacked an extensive career practicing law, but he was surrounded by a highly qualified team and was an advocate for civil rights and social justice and aggressively fought mafia corruption. RFK left behind a powerful legacy. Is Douthat trying to say the same about the extensive portfolio granted to Jared Kushner by his father in law? And what does Ivanka do exactly? They hold no concrete qualifications for the positions they hold. Their mere presence in the Trump Admin enforces the very definition of the Banana Republic the US is becoming.
29
To me, the argument seems to go again onto the original Constitution’s adaptability to all situations having revolved around all aspects of time and eras having deployed after the original. The problem may be this adaptability, because Constitution should not carry, in theory, I think, adaptability or flexibility which would differ depending on adaptable situations. Douthat analyzed the arguable elements with historical examples here, which directed me to a more clear understanding about what is and will be going on. Besides, parallel is the word that came to me, which means there is no cross point between two lines, unless voters draw a new line.
The only benefit of this impeachment fiasco is the light it sheds on the meaning and application of Impeachment itself.
Hopefully, it will forestall such purely politically inspired misuses in the future.
2
Trump has committed and is continuing to commit crimes which strike at the heart of our system of governance. If you lie about sex, if you lie about even starting a war in the Middle East, those are things that the country can recover from eventually. When you do what Trump has done and is continuing to do, which delegitimizes our election process, you threaten the very existence of this country. When people lose confidence in the electoral system, and one side has captured the means to manipulate that outcome, this country is on the road to open dictatorship. You may not mind that, given that your guy's in the White House, but know that the doors have been thrown open by these crimes and the cover up playing out in the sham Senate trial.
If we last long enough to see another democratic president in the White House with both houses of Congress turned democratic as well, you may rue this support for the most corrupt president ever elected. I'm not even sure I would disagree that the next democratic president should use every bit of the power trump has arrogated to himself, and more. If we do have to have one side in charge of the country, at least I know mine is driven by facts and common decency.
1
Michael you state the party line while dismissing the fact that he cheated is cheating and Continues to shamelessly cheat with the help of a captive senate.
To have to go back to those examples that far speaks volumes. Think of the future careers of Ramsey Clark and RFK and the comparison wilts. The gap between the national and personal interest here is wide and was wide and will continue to be wide. Advancing a black man of such stature to the SCOTUS was an act of political courage. William Barr vs Ramsey Clark-please. Rightly or wrongly. JFK hired RFK after the Bay of Pigs disaster and thankfully he had someone he could and did trust during the 13 days in October. RFK. showed courage in pursuing organized crime.
Trump is not a Profile in Courage.
Thankfully this law professor is not a judge.
16
Is it really still possible for the American voters to decide?
I am afraid the 'Republican' calculus is as follows:
'Thanks to the electoral system, there won't be a Democratic President or a Democratic majority in the Senate in the forseeable future.
Therefore, it doesn't matter anymore if we abide by the rules. A day of reckoning won't come any time soon.'
19
Did LBJ EVER hold back military aid to an ally in order to force that government into announcing an investigation of a political rival? Did LBJ EVER refuse to honor congressional subpoenas because he did not like its procedures?
Are Douthat and the professor he is quoting missing the point of the corruption of our government that is happening before our eyes on purpose or are they just plain dense?
35
@Valerie Elverton Dixon
LBJ would do anything to get his way. He makes Trump look like an angel.
2
I find it somewhat amusing that a strong Catholic moralist, is now evaluating Trump's presidency like Tevya in Fiddler on the Roof. And the standard is, well, fluid depending upon the president in the past to whom Trump is being compared. And if one's personal history matters; LBJ spent his early youth teaching Hispanic youth in a Texas school. JFK sought to serve in WW ll. These two at least sought to serve others in their career. There is no evidence that service to anything but himself has ever crossed Trump's mind. Bottom line is that there is no moral bottom line that Trump and the GOP will not cross to push their own interests. Practically, service is for losers in their mind.
40
Very good point but why insult Tevya? “Tradition!!!”
A couple of things to mention.
Prof. Blackman's argument that all presidents do political self interest completely left out the ingredient that Trump held up the aid as leverage and in so doing threatened our own national interest, hardly conflating that and his personal interest. That part of it is what colors this act as impeachable.
And, Jared Kushner is no Bobby Kennedy. Kennedy was young but he already had significant accomplishment as a Justice Dept. lawyer, and had proved his political value in managing JFK's campaign. His appointment was valid, it was more than merely nepotism. You suggested he was way more of a nepotistic nothing than Jared.
16
Now we know censorship instead should have been implied and now all facts that lead to this ordeal will be drowned out and a jubilee of a glamorous reelection of President Trump is almost certain to happen, get used to another four years with much less opposition. Psst In my opinion when looking of what happened in the previous election it's electorate is certainly out of sink and could use some psychological help'.
"Trump’s nepotistic impulses"
Classic word games from the right wing.
Is this similar to Trump's bribery impulses or Trump's name calling impulses or Trump's threatening impulses?
Ross tumbles down the slippery slope to normalization and other horrors.
35
This is great historical reference. Ross hit it out of the park with this one. It is indeed all relative. He is impeached and I pray removed from office by the voters.
1
Certainly, legal arguments are essential to the impeachment trial, but we must not forget that the law is supposed to be the instrument of justice---of what is fair, proper, and true. No Republican has yet stood up for justice, though a few coyly hint that they might support allowing witnesses to testify. The vast majority of Republicans show no inclination to allow justice to proceed. As their colleague, Lindsey Graham puts it, they want this trial to die a quick death. But no less than Trump, every senator is on trial, too; not for high crimes and misdemeanors, but for his or her dedication to the rule of law and readiness to defend and protect the constitution. Unfortunately, the Republicans show themselves to be every bit as guilty as Trump as they scorn justice to protect him from its reach.
19
Despite the nepotism issue, Robert Kennedy had experience in the Department of Justice and other government legal and prosecutorial positions, and was actually qualified to be Attorney General. The same cannot be said for Javanka or, in fact, most of the members of Trump’s cabinet. Aside from jeopardizing American security with Saudi Arabia and soliciting foreign loans for his failing real estate projects, what has Jared actually accomplished the past three years? Aside from securing Chinese trademarks for her private fashion business, what has Ivanka actually accomplished the past three years?
35
@1954Stratocaster Well, like all the Trumps she’s managed to do some kind of no description job and collect a ridiculous salary.
The "best defense" turns out to be the use of very weak analogies. Appointing the son of a Supreme Court justice to be attorney general, believing this would cause the justice to resign, so that LBJ could gain political points by appointing a different Supreme Court justice, is an example of performing appropriate governmental actions that ALSO would benefit LBJ. Not the same as extorting a foreign government and simultaneously violating the law regarding the disbursement of money the Congress voted to spend, so that Trump could secretly get the foreign government to smear a political opponent. Not within a light year of being a fair analogy.
23
@CitizenJ
How about Justice Anthony Kennedy, (whose son was Trump's private banker at Deutsche bank, the only bank that would lend him money after all the American banks cut him off because he was a fraud and thief) who resigned so that Trump could appoint Kavanaugh?
1
Ah, Douthat serves up vintage conservative pecksniffery at its finest. The Republican strategy in all its many manifestations seeks to trivialize.
The value of the Senate proceeding, if any, is that it paints a coherent and detailed portrait of Trump and exposes the moral emptiness of the Republican position. For those citizens who have not been paying close attention, a simple and emphatic picture has been drawn along with a moral framework for understanding it.
Whether in some historic sense the present dynamic is more akin to LBJ's manipulations than to the kind abuse of power feared by Madison is a pedantic concern of no interest to the average voter. For better or worse, the November election will provide a biopsy of the nation's viscera -- whether a lethal malignancy will be recognized and removed before its spread becomes irreversible.
It is a question of mortality and survival. No amount of erudite pettifoggery can be allowed to obscure that.
48
@woofer
Thanks for the addition to my vocabulary! Pecksniffery is *the* word to describe this "Administration."
Woofer: winner of the "I have the best words" award.
2
@woofer well said.
@woofer
One could wish it were only pecksniffery and pettifoggery.
"lethal malignancy" - nothing but the truth.
Thanks for the words.
1
Almost every time I read an article by this author, it seems like he goes through terrible contortions to make issue X really about Y.
The question is whether the conduct in question is serious enough to warrant removal through impeachment. Why all this fuss about how much Trump would identify with or compare to this person or that? It lacks relevance. Yet this author manages to make clear issues muddled, that all issues somehow have to do with something a liberal did once or the redefinition of traditional family or declining religiosity.
Please let issues be what they are instead of twisting them to try to make them about your favorite subjects.
72
" . . . impeachment-without-removal can function like an act of censure, a punishment that restrains misbehaving presidents without actually removing them."
Except Donald John Trump who has no sense of right and wrong and absolutely, no impulse control. We saw what he did after Robert Mueller's testimony to the House. The very next day was his "we need a favor, though" conversation with the president of Ukraine. If he is not removed from office now, the 2020 election will be completely corrupted with foreign interference not only from Russia but also any other autocratic leader around the world who wants a favor from him.
There is no equivalency between lying about cheating on your wife and destroying our most validating franchise as Americans - the right to a free and fair election.
Of course, the franchise probably doesn't mean nearly as much to Republicans as Democrats, because it is they who have been legislating for a generation to diminish the vote of people of color and other groups that are reliably Democratic voters. This year's attempts at purging citizens from voting rolls by Republican legislatures in purple or almost purple states is proof of that.
So, vote blue no matter who in 2020 if you want to save our democracy from this president and the Republican majority in the Senate.
40
Blackman's argument that Trump merely acted to benefit his re-election as would any other politician, makes no sense. There is a difference between an exchange of favors and extortion. An exchange of favors is one of the ways people create political relationships. Extortion is a crime. The difference between an exchange of favors and extortion may be close, when there is a difference of power between the actors. A request for a favor by the more powerful actor may mask a demand or a threat issued to the less powerful. However, in the case of Donald Trump, the difference is not close at all. Trump asked the Ukrainian president for a favor: announce an investigation of Joe Biden and his son or I will withhold military aid which Ukraine desperately needs in its war against Russia. This is not a request for a favor; it is extortion. Extortion is defined as the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats. Trump threatened, and withheld hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid from Ukraine to obtain an announcement of investigation of Biden. Trump did not make his threat to obtain money, but the announcement of an investigation had enormous value to Trump’s election efforts. When an individual extorts another, it is a crime. When the president extorts another, using public funds, to realize a private benefit, it is an abuse of office, subject to impeachment. Nothing could be clearer regarding extortion and impeachment.
32
Mr. Douthat seems to be in the "never Trump unless he supports my pet issue" camp, along with a lot of his fellow Republicans. Rather like the Democrats in the "I'm not voting for (fill in the blank) because they don't support my pet issue" camp. Both will help to get Trump re-elected.
7
"impeachment-without-removal can function like an act of censure, a punishment that restrains misbehaving presidents without actually removing them." - Is a statement that might apply to someone who has restraint in their vocabulary. I believe that Trump will see acquittal as a green light to do whatever he wants.
I also disagree with the notion that Trump wants to be LBJ rather than Mussolini. I doubt very much that Trump knows anything about LBJ, other than he was President in the 60s. I could picture LBJ giving a concession speech if he had lost an election. Can you picture Trump giving a concession speech? Think hard! No. Neither can I.
19
There is a common fallacy in recent Republican dismissal of Democratic allegations against Trump. Let me illustrate the fallacy with reference to a different sort of case. In a child custody case the father’s lawyer might claim that the mother is neglectful because she made their son walk home from school in a blizzard without any winter clothing. If the mother’s defense is that lots of children walk home from school, then the fallacy has been employed. Stripping an accused action of its bad features does not at all leave one with an equivalent action
Douthat commits this fallacy when he lumps together Trumps’ actions regarding Ukraine with all sorts of other presidential misdeeds such as JFK appointing Bobby as attorney General.
10
Ross,
Where is your evidence that Lyndon Johnson "appointed the first African-American Justice [in order to] consolidate African-American support?" Johnson heavily invested in the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts knowing that he had probably handed over the Southern electorate to the Republican Party for generations. I think it more plausible that Johnson felt true and deep concern for the inequities suffered by black Americans up until the time, and thought that a black SCOTUS Justice would be a lasting lodestar image for pride and ambition for all black Americans. Johnson's "Great Society" ambitions to boost the prospects for the poor, very much including blacks, was never much of a success, but it was of a piece with all of his civil rights leadership. He probably hoped that blacks would support him and the Democratic Party, but they were less than 10 percent of the voting public at the time, so their vote was not much of a motive for the actions he took.
It's really one of the greater tragedies that Johnson was ensnared in the Vietnam war and the political groupthink of the time and could not leave the legacy he seemed to have wanted.
22
@cowboyabq
Thanks. You said it better than I could. Johnson, the vulgar and sanctified person that he was, will always be a hero of mine.
Thank you for the dose of perspective, Mr. Douthat.
The clear-eyed focus and lack of self-righteous indignation stands in admirable contrast to most participants in this impeachment drama, including my fellow commenters and most of your Opinion colleagues.
6
@Tom Meadowcroft The easiest thing for someone who holds an immoral position to do is to declare that the person holding a moral position is "self-righteous." Right. Abraham Lincoln was "self-righteous." The North during the Civil War was "self-righteous." People who complain about the Holocaust are "self-righteous." Women who complain about being raped are "self-righteous." Wake up, man. There is right and there is wrong here, and realizing that and speaking out against the wrong is not self-righteousness. It's good judgment.
...Wonderfully reasoned and beautifully written, to my mind...
--
What more to say? Only that it's this kind of commentary that keeps the electorate, as well as the participants, constrained with respect to actions and judgements, and also keeps us all on our toes.
--
Well done!
5
@ppromet What more to say? I'd say that the right wing does what it always does: make false assumptions, then asks you to "agree" without any evidence.
Yes, the voters will decide. But if this Impeachment was about anything real it was about showing how unfit Republican Senators really are.
We knew they were lame, but we didn't know how desperately dependent they were on Trump's not getting on their bad side. It's truly amazing and all together unbelievable how spineless they are!
Trump and the Republican senators are now bound together in the same newspaper-wrapped pile of fish guts, smelling bad and deserving being thrown out.
Flipping the Senate gives the Democrats many of the bills thy have passed this session and perhaps more than that, a chance at rejecting the electoral college.
If that electoral anomaly is undone, Gerrymandering is repealed, and voting rights are restored, then the Democrats will rule for years, as long as demographic strata allow, which could be for a long time.
So the point of Impeachment will not be a partial housecleaning, it will be a complete moving out and relocation of political power to the cites and to the coasts.
16
@Dennis
Republican Senators snoozed through three days of exposure of vile corruption and obstruction—“so what?”—and were stirred to outrage only when the “heads on a pike” comment laid bare their political cowardice.
That says a lot.
The problem is, this is just the tip of the iceberg for Trump. We have no idea of the depth of his corruption or the level of compromise he is involved with due to severe obfuscation.
Trump is a man that has had business failure after failure, loan default after default, countered with lawsuit after lawsuit, unable to get funding by American banks. Then he goes to Europe and has great success. Great like Trump has never seen before, as he might say, yet he refuses to show his assets and liabilities, as all other presidents in recent history have done. Ironically, of all the same presidents, he is the most vulnerable to compromise as an international businessman and not a typical career politician. Yet, Don the con, as he's been called for ages, refuses to provide documents, allow witnesses, or share conversations with Putin, our enemy.
What Douthat does here is what Trump does in perpetuity - mirror and project unto others. Trump is on trial here, not anyone else.
Actually, no, the GOP is also on trial. They need to stand by their duty to have and hear all the evidence available for the trial. Yet they submit to Trump's stonewalling.
If Trump is be censured but not removed, Trump is going to have to at least answer to the one article of impeachment that he stop obstructing Congress and present the full evidence requested by the House.
I just don't think he will do that - because regarding corruption, I'm afraid this IS just the tip of the iceberg.
29
"...for the voters to decide."
Except the voters don't decide, do they? Every Republican president for quite a while now has lost the popular vote, but still managed to become president, either through the electoral college or the Supreme Court. Add in jerrymandering, voter roll purges, ID laws, the closing of polling places in student and minority areas, and you have even fewer voters deciding. Going to the polls and punching one's card or pressing buttons is becoming a hollow exercise in an openly fraudulent system.
60
Ross, I normally can track your arguments at least, if not agree with some element of them.
However, to refer to President Trump's misdeeds as "casual corruption" or as "more historically normal" goes way beyond the pale.
Consider one searing irony:
Trump has the Republicans in congress so beaten down, that they have become tools of Putin's agenda, even though they hate Putin's agenda!
This is not about whether Trump makes a few tainted bucks at his DC hotel.
It is very much about Russia stealing massive amounts of land in Donbass and Crimea from the Ukraine, the deaths of many Ukranians, and the betrayal of an ally on the front lines.
86
Unfortunately, I agree. Clearly Trump would not have even been investigated if the House majority was Republican. I am glad Democrats are in the majority to bring impeachment charges. And though I would like conviction on the basis of the charges, the Constitution was designed towards inaction unless a super-majority in the Senate votes for conviction.
Americans incensed by feckless Senators can vote to change both the Senate and and the President. I am not as persuaded as some that Trump's acquittal will irrevocably embolden future presidents, but the coming election will reveal much about America's character. Are we willing to become like citizens of openly corrupt and brutal dictatorships, cynically acknowledging corruption in government up to the highest levels and leaving policy to go to the highest (or dirtiest) bidder? Or do we redouble efforts to root out corruption and promote a (little d) democratic republic patterned after the aspirations of the Constitution?
9
@SeekingTruth
Unfortunately, the Constitution was designed in part to protect the rights of slave states, which now make up the core of the Republican Party.
Although I typically enjoy Ross's columns, the entire premise here is woefully short-sighted.
As much as many Dem-leaning voters loathe Trump, the question of "how severely" to "punish" Trump is of little relative concern.
The concern is the long-term *precedent* set by allowing this authoritarian behavior to be endorsed by the Senate.
As a Dem-leaning voter, as soon as the Senate endorses these tactics, I will have no choice but to implore my party and candidates to respond in kind with these kinds of tactics. Sell out to China and give them a wide range of policy concessions in exchange for hacking Trump, Pence, and every GOP power player for decades to come. This is not a road we should go down, but, once this impeachment trial ends in "acquittal," it's gloves off, post-democratic values, pure power games from then on out.
13
@Milton Lawson,
I am with you completely. The Democratic party could, for instance, support foreigners entering our country, by the millions, illegally in order to gain more representation after each census.
If the Republicans can ask countries to look into our politicians in cases of potential corruption the Democrats should be able to undermine elections by flooding the country with illegal immigrants.
Fair is fair.
3
@Willt26 A great fallacy, Dems opening floodgates for more representation. If residents are illegal, they aren't registering for the census and thus being counted and they aren't voting, cause they can't and it would not be in their best interest, giving themselves away and getting deported, despite what disinformation is being dispersed on conservative media.
8
Quick question - how do undocumented and illegal immigrants vote in an election? How does that happen? And your point?
1
He didn't withhold aid until he got approval for Trump Tower Kyev. He withheld it to get help from a foreign government to corruptly win the next election. Even soliciting that help is a crime. And the cover up is not something confined to the Ukraine affair. Where are his tax returns? Where is the Mueller grand jury testimony? When will McGahn appear? How is it that the whistleblower complaint only made its way to the intelligence committee weeks after it was due, by law. You don't need to be an originalist to see that Trump is a repeat offender, protected only by his ability to cover things up and the fear he has induced in Congressional Republicans. Having Barr as AG doesn't hurt Trump. It only hurts our system of government, respect for the rule of law, and some standards of truth and evidence.
80
However, the problem with Ross' argument is Trump will feel empowered to cheat more and coerce foreign influence in our election.
23
"...it’s been apparent for a while that Trump doesn’t want to be an American Mussolini so much as he wants to be a less legislatively minded L.B.J."
Apparent to whom? Ross, please read Robert Caro, volumes III and IV and then try to make this absurd argument. Johnson was a politician, he had a vision of a just America, and he passed a humane program designed to revive the decency of the New Deal. He was hardly perfect as a man or a president, but to compare him to Trump is just another version of the Republican game of diversion through false comparison.
I find it rich that Republicans--the party of moral absolutists--and Ross is among them--have suddenly become moral relativists.
And: quoting the Constitution hardly makes one an "originalist." I'm a little surprised that so many Republicans confuse citation with fundamentalism--II, iv is the starting point for charges of abuse of power or, in Trump's case, treason, not the end point.
May I also point out that the GOP has used other tactics aside from impeachment to keep Democratic presidents from governing, e.g. McConnell's pledge to insure that President Obama--also duly elected--would never pass a law. I strain to remember Mr. Douthat's column objecting to this obstruction of the electorate's will.
155
It's the frequency of scandals or near scandals. This is why the Clintons were hounded - they were doing things that skirted the edge of the law. I think ALL rich people do this, either directly or through their proxies without knowledge. But people's levels of integrity vary.
Few people with ambition also have integrity. Carter is the only President I can think of that I can say "yes, he has it" and I'd count Obama also next to Carter.
9
How about the emoluments? Has another president taken in so much money to his businesses while in office? Hotels renting rooms to US and foreign visitors trying to curry favor with the POTUS seems awfully corrupt to the observer.
38
"...and so deciding when a president crosses the line and betrays his office is almost always a task best left up to the voters."
So let us be sure the voters have all the available information; the kind of information that comes from testimony and document evidence presented at a proper impeachment trial. That is the kind of impeachment trial the Republicans will do anything to avoid.
Better a kangaroo court than to allow the truth to be publically established.
22
Ugh. More defense of the indefensible. Why does Ross do it?
Trump joins the March for Life and all is vindicated? That sounds like a Quid Pro Quo.
123
Mr. Douthat, you are correct that there is some irony in Democrats arguing from a Constitutional Originalist-intent standpoint. However that arises not from hypocrisy, but from realism. Democrats all understand what Trump did was wrong. Using the power of the highest office--and the monies appropriated by Congress as a guaranteed loan to leverage extortionist maneuvers to bolster one's campaign-- simply can't be right. By putting forth the Originalist arguments, what the Democrats are trying to do is appeal to those who they need on the other side of the aisle. After all, we hear a great deal about Originalism from Replublicans. If rationality is to play any role in convincing the skeptical, one must use the framework of ideas that are most comfortable to the skeptic. If my ideas can't convince you, perhaps yours can.
14
@Ian Jordan
You wrote; "If my ideas can't convince you, perhaps yours can." We're about to see a gigantic example of pure hypocricy. The GOP oath takers will never be persuaded by their own words. Or the words of the oath, itself. Orwell, our we too late?
3
Mr. Douthat, like Mr. Blackman, never mentions withholding aid from Ukraine, something the GAO has deemed a crime.
I agree with Mr. Douthat that’s it would be nice for the voters to decide. Read today's Ezra Klein piece on how the deck is stacked against Democrats with gerrymandering and an electoral college that foster said minority rule. If Trump wins again it will probably be without the popular vote. As both Trump and Sanders proclaim, the system is rigged. Sander said wants to reform it and let majority rule. Trump wants to rig it even more so minority rule is entrenched.
10
@Philip
Step back. "Withholding aid from Ukraine" didn't happen. Democratic managers allege this was Trump's" intention". Saturday republican lawyers provided context to Trump's temporarily withholding aid.
They demonstrated it was a pattern, laying out several similar cases where Trump expressed displeasure with providing money when others weren't ponying up (in Ukraine's case, Europe) or it was not being used properly (in Ukraine's case, corruption).
Quite frankly, regardless of both cases, the aid wasn't withheld. More importantly, Trump did, in fact, provide the more important "aid," which was weapons, so the democrats' argument that we somehow jeopardized Ukraine's safety was shown to have been baseless.
2
The pattern they demonstrated was of ANNOUNCED holds on foreign aid, not secret holds revealed only to those with a "need to know". Trump knew the criterion for lifting the hold was untenable.
I can't help but be surprised with pundits ascribe to Trump--"...he wants to be a less legislatively minded LBJ ..."--skills he has failed completely to demonstrate. Even suggesting that his approach is "crude" is to state that he has Machiavellian impulses similar to previous occupants of the Oval Office, but he's less nimble in his approach. Let's be clear, Trump has no understanding of or interest in the historical workings of the presidency or the federal government. He's crude because he's single-minded and purely self interested.
At least LBJ had the sophistication to promote an arguable societal good by appointing the nation's first African-American justice, even if had selfish motives. At least Clinton and Kennedy were merely covering up their insatiable appetites, not selling out the nation. At least Madison could argue a legitimate national interest in exposing potential saboteurs, even if he personally benefited. You'll be hard pressed to identify any public goods Trump can point to in conducting the Ukraine affair. That's because there aren't any.
Mr. Douthat, your argument has some validity in the abstract, but Trump is of such abysmal character that it finds no purchase in reality.
43
I generally agree with Mr. Douthat here however, on the score of nepotism I think we need to acknowledge an important distinction between JFK's elevation of Bobby Kennedy to be Attorney General, an appointment which required the approval of the US Senate and Trump's use of Jared Kushner and his daughter Ivanka as his representatives on a variety of matters, all without the approval or scrutiny of the legislative branch. Akin to this, although not nepotism precisely, is the rather his nonchalant use of Rudy Giulliani, who again has been officially appointed to no government office, to conduct complicated, and I would add distinctly personal, interactions with representatives of foreign governments.
26
The problem with Mr. Blackman's argument is that he never mentions the withholding of much-needed money to Ukraine. If you want to know why Trump has committed an impeachable offense and should be removed from office, follow the money.
6
When considering anything in the Constitution that needs to be interpreted (such as "What is a high crime or misdemeanor?"), the key is this - while it may be interesting to know what the Founders thought, it's ultimately irrelevant. It's irrelevant because it's not THEIR Constitution (our Founders), it's OUR Constitution - what matters is what we think. We are under absolutely no obligation to think, act, or live our lives the way they may have chosen to. What do WE (all of us) think is a high crime or misdemeanor? That's what matters.
5
Trump has taken abuse of power a great step further than ever before. He has endangered our national security and the security of Ukraine, our ally, entirely for his own personal benefit. And the question remains, what will he do next? Rep. Schiff was right when he asked: can anyone trust this president? Everyone knows that we cannot, including the Republicans in the Senate and including Mr. Douthat.
65
"...impeachment-without-removal can function like an act of censure, a punishment that restrains misbehaving presidents without actually removing them."
It could if you were dealing with a normal human being with a capacity for feeling shame, but this is Donald Trump we're talking about. He will characterize his acquittal as exoneration and only be emboldened by it.
120
@Rick Exactly which is why some of us had high hopes that our Speaker would stick to her guns and not proceed with D.T.'s "self-impeachment" as she put it. Alas, the Left wing of the party, and some donors and the righteous scribblers in the media and academia and some (not all) in the Black caucus insisted, and here we are.
He is a non-reader, a TV watcher and a carnival barker. It's all a stage for him and now he will shortly have his role as comic book hero deflecting the arrows of those who tried to reverse his election, in his telling. I wish our party had gone for a censure, and let the voters decide.
3
So the McConnell led Senate proved its bonafides as an unprincipled cabal interested only in acquiring and maintaining political power with its handling of Obama’s nomination of Judge Garland to SCOTUS.
Given the state of the Senate, which will be roiled in the fullness of time when the objective history of this period of American politics is written, I’ll take the chapter and verse of Trumpo’s defalcations so aptly laid out in Adam Schiff’s oration which would make Cicero proud.
28
This is one of the more cogent and thoughtful summaries of where we are in American politics and governance that I've read. I very rarely agree with Ross Douthat but I think he's correct here.
Let's move on. We have an election to win and we need the candidates out on the campaign trail.
5
"...a curious partisan reversal has taken place. Trump’s opponents are suddenly constitutional originalists,... Meanwhile, his most persuasive defenders are more likely to invoke a kind of living constitutionalism,
Impeachment is well laid out in the Constitution where we do not need penumbras and emanations to understand it. And wasn't it just 20 years ago when it was the Republicans who were the Constitutional originalists on impeachment.
"... all presidents conflate their own political self-interest with the national interest —..."
A president has a personal interest in getting re-elected, sure, but it is well established that quid pro quo using political favors (vote for my bill and I'll endorse you ) is NOT a crime.
"In this sense, Trump’s conduct is indeed more historically normal than the twilight-of-the-Republic rhetoric of his impeachers would suggest."
This is NOT the sense Trump is operating under. It is far more serious and illegal than what LBJ or JFK did. Again, political horse trading is NOT a crime.
"...that post-Watergate America very clearly tried to establish rules against precisely the sort of behavior that was normal for J.F.K. and L.B.J."
Post Watergate behavior was designed to prevent Nixonian behavior.
"But how severely to punish the offender will usually be...— for the voters to decid
What if it was Trump's second term. WHAT voter decision then?
13
"all presidents conflate their own political self-interest with the national interest"
This statement well sums up the error in both this column and the Blackman column published earlier. If Trump had merely "conflated" his interest and the national interest we would not be where we are. Such a conflation, as in the LBJ example would mean one policy which serves two purposes, or perhaps just one real, but hidden purpose, while purporting to serve another false, but public interest. But only one policy.
That is emphatically not what Trump has done. Trump literally created two policies, one operating out the State Department, publicly, which supports Ukraine in its and the U.S. interest, and basically aligns with long-standing U.S. policy. The other policy, the one he is on trial for, operated out of the White House, secretly, solely in Trump's interest, and -- critically -- in direct opposition to the clear, public, long-standing policy of this country toward Ukraine and toward (all roads lead to Putin with Trump), Russia.
Trump did not merely use the power and dignity and money of the government that belongs to all of us for his personal gain. He did so in direct opposition to the policy his own administration and the U.S. Congress repeatedly declared to be U.S. policy, in the national security interests of the United States. Trump is not just on the far end of he scale of political cheating. He is in a league by himself.
157
@Josh To expect a Republican to go against his Party, a Party that is about to deliver a fatal blow to women’s rights to their own medical decisions and a decision that is near and dear to Douthat’s Christian morality is to expect what never will happen.
Douthat dissembles as well as any Republican Senator, as well as most actors. He uses the same Republican argument of “equality of low behavior” in excusing Trump’s Constitutional violations because his priority is anti-abortion — not a Constitutional Republic. Like other Republicans he is blinded by the light of Trump’s godhead.
8
@Josh Important because the 'official' Ukraine policy was already anti corruption and one of DOS witnesses testified that US policy is NOT to direct specific investigations but to encourage institutional changes that promote anti corruption changes in country's government. Zelensky ran on reformer platform and had already encouraged several changes in Ukraine laws to fight the corruption.
Unfortunately for the country and democracy, Senators dismiss facts and US policy as boring and irrelevant to their power hungry, mendacious careers.
5
Ross, I'm a lot older than you, and have watched, read, and listened to the Impeachment proceedings for Nixon, Clinton, and now Trump. The The House Democrats far exceeded their peers from earlier years in content, evidence, and presentation. And did so with their hands tied behind their backs. Trump refused to allow any written material or any witnesses to testify.
And in response to your argument about 18th century history by our founders is less relevant than some Presidential misdeeds in the 20th and 21st century is astounding.
Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and other founding and what the wrote from their own experience regarding impeachment is irrelevant.
Think about that Ross, our forefathers are irrelevant.
35
First, got to give props for working "priapism" into an op-ed. Nicely done.
Second, Douthat is right on target with his observation about how our interpretive strategies are warped by the gravitational pull of our political desires. While the omnipresence of a tendentious hermeneutic should be obvious, it somehow seems to often go unnoticed, as adherents of differing points of view stridently detail the Truth (capital "t") of their position...based on the "facts": always based on the "facts".
Arguments are not all created equal. Like haircuts and pizza, some are better than others. But they all share in common that they are the offspring of people situated in time and place with a particular perspective from which they understand the world. Knowing this about ourselves should affect the way we interact with others.
If we looked carefully at presidential history, how would this extenuate, if not vindicate, Trump's actions? If we employ a strict originalism, how does this support impeachment? Our political views going in will likely dictate our interpretive choices. Neither is "wrong". Each position is up for debate and discussion. Unfortunately, we end up in polarized shouting matches because, for political reasons, "they" refuse to see the validity of my "Truth". Stopping to think about how our minds work, and how biases affect us all, might lead to more dialogue (and less shouting).
6
@Robert
“ priapism “- a cunning stunt. But, isn’t THAT this essence of this regime ?
@Robert
Couldn't you have said all that in one sentence?
" ... impeachment-without-removal can function like an act of censure ..."
That in fact is all we're going to get. And unfortunately, it seems marginal that voters will even react to remove Trump in November 2020.
In reality, Trump will crow from Feb. 4 to November 3 about how he was abused and the witness-free trial exonerated his behavior. Moreover, Trump is likely to continue to pursue the same flagrant abuse of the Constitution as he did before impeachment, just as he regarded the Mueller investigation as proof that he had not received help from the Russians.
In America too many voters know and believe, but don't read the facts. Addicted as we are to Twitter and 100 character talking points [most Tweets are well below the limit], I have no confidence at all that the American people will even adjust their voting habits in November. The only chance America has is millennials, recent immigrants, and people of color. who have not yet become numb to the US brand of corruption.
19
It will be for the voters to decide unless, like our last election, the voters lose to an antiquated system that permits minority rule. Trump is in office because the voters lost in 2016; it's easy to imagine another term when majority rule loses out, and easier still to imagine a tyranny of the minority amplified by a president unconcerned with legal or moral restraints.
29
It’s dispiriting that Ross should build on, and thus try to rehabilitate, Josh Blackman’s exasperating defense of Trump on the grounds that all actions by a president involve a personal component. As I recall, thousands of Times readers chimed in to point out a legion of holes in Blackman’s argument--which by rights ought to be scuttled before it leaves harbor. But now we find Ross dutifully patching up holes in this leaky rhetorical vessel and bailing water so "Trump's Best Defense" will be sea-worthy enough to bear the weight of at least a few Republican Senators in desperate need of a vehicle for acquitting the president. Oy vey!
31
The problem isn't just Trump and his Giuliani deep state being caught red-handed in his attempted extortion of Ukraine for 2020 campaign assistance, Brother Douthat.
The problem is that this is the second Presidential Election in a row Trump is actively rigging, having used Paul Manafort and Roger Stone to obtain DNC emails that were hacked by Kremlin operatives to assist Trump in 2016.
The Mueller report demonstrated Trump's completely shady character but came up short ONLY because Trump successfully obstructed justice and obstructed Mueller's team from interviewing witnesses to the crime.
And once again in 2019, Trump is successfully obstructing justice, witnesses and evidences and his Grand Old Power accessories after the fact are happy to rubber-stamp high crimes and misdemeanors for Grand Old Power, greed and flushing the Constitution.
And all of this is set against the well-documented Republican panorama of widespread voter suppression laws and tactics, voter file purges, black-box-vote-counting, Olympic gerrymandering, state-run-corporate-FOX News propaganda and the successful 2000 Presidential Election Heist by the Bush-Cheney-GOP and the Supreme Republican Court .
The problem the USA has is that the Republican political criminal syndicate has disabled representative government, the United States Constitution and any pretense of representative government in deference to oligarchy, kakistocracy and one-party-rule.
The entire Republican fish is rotten.
931
@Socrates Well spoken and complete. I've long given up hope or compassion for Republicans and I don't even care it that's 'partisan' or some other word of the day. There is simply no other way to interpret them.
121
@Socrates "And all of this is set against the well-documented Republican panorama of widespread voter suppression laws and tactics, voter file purges, black-box-vote-counting, Olympic gerrymandering, state-run-corporate-FOX News propaganda and the successful 2000 Presidential Election Heist by the Bush-Cheney-GOP and the Supreme Republican Court ."
Worth repeating. As only Socrates can sum it up. The word sleazy is a euphemism for the GOP of the last few decades.
33
@Socrates
Other than the extortion of Ukraine for campaign assistance, much of what you list, particularly what you list as the "Republican Panorama" is not impeachable conduct.
What I think you miss is that Trump has sided with, and thereby provided assistance to, our mortal enemy, a Putin-governed Russia, against an ally in order to obtain personal gain.
Whether he did this out of ignorance or cynical malice or because he has become compromised is irrelevant. People are hesitant to label this "treason," and I've read that this conduct doesn't meet the definition of "treason" under the Constitution. But whether or not it is technically treason is also irrelevant. As the hooded one (up here) says, "it is what it is."
13
This the first article I’ve read that puts Trump’s actual extortion plot into historical perspective. It helps me understand, like I could not before, how anyone could defend him. Reading the comments opposing Mr. Douthat’s thesis, I also understand why Trump’s supporters claim that the pro-impeachment and removal crowd, to which I belong, are simply Trump haters who believe Trump should be removed for a myriad of reasons including the crystal clear facts of his Zelensky extortion. Impeachment is a raw act of power, no matter how righteous and just, and in a democracy justice and righteousness don’t always prevail. On to November.
4
@Thomas Clayton
Impeachment is not a raw act of power. It is the exercise of the rule of law.
31
No Paul impeachment is inherently a political act not a “rule of law” process. Trumps “crime” is abuse of authority or power & while it undoubtedly has criminal components in the end removal is an inherently political action.
@John Chastain
That would be true except that current conservative legal theory is that a president MUST commit a statutory crime to be impeached.
Hence, impeachment is a defense of the rule of law since statutory crimes are a violation of the law.
The people who are really on trial here are the Republicans in the Senate. Most of the American people know that Trump did something corrupt. If the Senate Republicans vote down the call for new witnesses and new document, and then acquit on a pure party line vote, most Americans will know that they are putting party over the truth and the sanctity of the Constitution.
But right wing media like Hannity, Breitbart and Limbaugh are on trial, too. If the Republicans don't give some serious credence to the crazy conspiracy theories about the Bidens and Ukraine and the "deep state" that they've been peddling for years, their audience will lose a little faith in them. Which gives me some hope that some good might come out of all this.
22
You can agree with Douthat on Article 1 of Trump's impeachment, but still find that Article 2 - obstruction of Congress - warrants removal. If Congress is is to do what Douthat calls for, calibrating the severity of abuse of office, then decide whether to impeach and convict, forgive or forget, Congress needs to know what happened.
10
The likely acquittal of Mr. Trump means that impeachment will become a dead clause in the Constitution. As Adam Schiff said, if we can't remove Trump for abusing his power and for perverting the course for justice, what grounds can we impeach any president for?
What we have to do is limit the power of the executive and restore the power of Congress. President Woodrow Wilson, a prominent constitutional scholar before he went into politics, wrote a famous book called Congressional Government. Before that time, the president had little power and the Congress a lot. After the Civil War, the country was changing rapidly. It went from being a rural, agricultural country, where farmers were self-employed to an industrial one, in which many independent farmers left their farms to work with thousands of others in large corporations. They formed unions which were bitterly opposed by the corporations. Immigrants were flooding into the country, which gave rise to ethnic tensions. The freeing of the slaves led to Jim Crow laws and the lynching of blacks. Given these difficult and complex problems, Wilson argued that Congress was too unwieldy to deal with them. They could only be addressed by single chief executive with much enhanced powers.
That has now gone too far and we need to right the balance by taking away some crucial powers of the president, particularly in foreign affairs, and giving them back to Congress.
36
@Diogenes
One problem I see is that Congress eschews taking that power, as we have seen time and again on immigration. It has become cowardly to the point of ceding ever greater powers to the Executive.
And I still don't understand how Congress can simply sidestep the Judiciary and seek impeachment. The SCOTUS exists for a reason. That's where differences between the branches should wind up. Not here.
1
Trump is more like Nixon but with none of Nixon's redeeming qualities.
99
L.B.J. gave us Medicare, which has saved many many lives.
The very lives that the GOP want to destroy.
196
And the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. He was actually the second coming of LBJ. Alas, Vietnam was his tragic flaw. If not for Vietnam he would be recognized as one of our greatest presidents ever.
25
@David Henry
Too bad LBJ murdered my brother who died in the Summer of 1969 in a war that LBJ knew was un-winnable as early as 1967, but still sent my brother to die 10,000 miles from home at the age of 19, so that he (LBJ) did not have to face the political fallout of admitting defeat. It turns out that murdering my brother is not an impeachable offense, so I guess it is all good in the end, we got Medicare in return.
2
@SparkyTheWonderPup You are confusing Johnson with Nixon, who pledged to end the war in Nov. 1968, when elected president.
4
Mr. Douthat, I think you're being overly generous and acquiescent to Trump and his defenders. This impeachment, and removal, is exactly what's needed and required to rein in a man that revels in chaos, flaunts both laws and the Constitution regularly, believes and acts like he is a king, believes despots and dictators rather than his own intelligence agencies, and actively undermines our allies and treaties. He is no LBJ. He is in fact a very real, clear danger to our democracy, our way of life, and the Constitution. To try to make it less so, and explain away his actions as "every President does this" just normalizes and encourages his actions. If Trump isn't impeachable, then who could possibly be?
162
Trump used taxpayer money in an attempt to extort a foreign government to influence the 2020 election. Douthat can name no historical precedent for that because there is none. JFK and LBJ did not do this. Nixon came the closest when, as a candidate (not president) in 1968, he secretly discouraged the North Vietnamese from negotiating the end of the war by dangling the false promise he would give them a better deal if elected. Douthat gives no evidence for the proposition that there was ever a time in US history when an incumbent president could get away with this, and for good reason. It fundamentally subverts the integrity of our elections. When that goes, Ross, please explain what will stop this nation from flying apart at the seams?
284
@Victor James Thank you! Trump's fundamental subversion of our elections by soliciting foreign interference has no parallel by a sitting President. This is Douthat's most egregious use of false equivalence to reframe an argument beyond recognition (the favorite tactic of the NYT's Never Trumper caucus of Douthat, Brooks and Stephens) I have ever read. For goodness sake Ross, it's our democratic foundation of elections and the rule of Constitutional law that are at stake here—not a cover up of some seamy steamy Oval office affair or Kennedy's alleged nepotism or LBJ's maneuver to get the Supreme Court Justice he wanted.
5