Opinion
THE CONVERSATION
Banana Republicans
The prospect of impeachment has certainly “let Trump be Trump.”
By Gail Collins and Bret Stephens
Ms. Collins and Mr. Stephens are opinion columnists. They converse every other week.
October 1, 2019
Bret Stephens: Hi Gail. I know you are dying to learn more about my exciting recent meeting with Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the president of Egypt. But I think we should first discuss the little matter of the possible impeachment of another president with Pharaonic notions about himself.
Your thoughts?
Gail Collins: Bret, you sure do know how to open. O.K., first our own personal president. If I remember correctly, we were both on the no-impeach wagon before last week’s developments. I’m leaving the wagon. The House needs to go on record saying how completely unworthy Donald Trump is of holding office. If nothing more happens, he’ll go into 2020 a disgrace. If we discover enough more horrible things to persuade even Senate Republicans, then that’s goodbye.
So where are you?
Bret: Strangely, I was off the no-impeach wagon last year while you were on it, and now I’m on it while you’re off it. That is, I thought the impeachment standard was met when Trump became an unindicted co-conspirator for his alleged payoffs to Stephanie Clifford (better known as Stormy Daniels) and Karen McDougal before the 2016 election, which were criminal violations of campaign-finance laws. But I’m a skeptic when it comes to the Ukraine business, at least for now — at least until some other shoe drops.
Gail: Well, we are pretty much on a shoe-a-day schedule. But go on.
Bret: So here are my four main thoughts. Please stop me and tell me where and how I’m totally wrong.
First, make no mistake: What Trump did on that call with the Ukrainian president was disgraceful and reckless. Using the power of the presidency, and possibly taxpayer dollars, to hunt for dirt on a political opponent is something no president should ever do. It deserves to be universally condemned by Democrats and Republicans alike. And suggesting that Adam Schiff, who heads the House intelligence committee, should be arrested for treason, is bonkers, nuts, deplorable and, well, very much in character for the president. If the House voted to censure Trump I would cheer.
Gail: You know, I remember when the Clinton impeachment was our big controversy. A lot of people, including me, thought censure would be an appropriate option.
This is much closer to Watergate. We’ve got a president whose misdeeds are too un-American for the country to live with. What Clinton did, although outrageous, was nothing compared to what we’ve got with Trump. Would be so happy to have a smart, sane philanderer in the White House.
Bret: Sticking to shoe metaphors, you could say it’s on the other foot.
My second point is that while I accept that the founders may have envisioned the possibility that a president could be impeached for noncriminal conduct, the language on impeachment is fairly specific: “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” And I struggle to see exactly what criminal statute Trump violated with the call. If some of our readers (lawyers and judges especially) can make the case that Trump’s behavior would get him convicted in a court of law, I’m all ears. But I don’t think most Americans want to see the impeachment tool used except in criminal misbehavior.
Gail: If you had asked the founders, “Hey, how about somebody who gets elected with help from a foreign power and then tries to trade government favors to another foreign power for inside dirt on an opponent?” I’m betting we’d get a show of hands for impeachment. I can see Hamilton and Jefferson trying to outjump each other.
Have you got a third?
Bret: If Washington had known someone like Trump would have become president of the United States of America, he might have been powerfully tempted to surrender to Cornwallis at Yorktown.
That being said, I do have a third point! I fear impeachment will lose much of its moral stigma and political force if it ends up coming down to a party-line vote. But that’s pretty much what’s most likely to happen if it comes to a vote, unless there’s some new damning disclosure. And impeachment in the House will definitely not lead to conviction in the Senate, unless shrimps whistle, pigs fly and at least 20 Republicans vote with the Democrats to obtain a two-thirds majority.
Gail: The House should do what the House should do, and let those Senators from swing states answer for it next year. Four?
Bret: Well, and here’s my main point: Impeachment will wind up helping Trump. Many Americans will wonder why a lawfully elected president should be removed from office for no violation of the law. They’ll say it was just a matter of Trump being Trump. They’ll ask why Nancy Pelosi didn’t wait for a transcript of the phone call or testimony from key officials before beginning the impeachment process. They’ll wonder how that process will do to help them in their life. And some of them, including some swing voters, may come to see Trump as a victim of elite liberals and “deep state” agents who, they’ll say, are motivated more by their hatred for Trump than for their concern for the country.
All that being said, I’m not at all sure I’m right about any of this. Too many friends whose opinions I deeply respect are on your side of the argument. So if I can add a fifth point, it’s that I’m persuadable. I suspect plenty of others might be, too.
Gail: Five kinda works for me, too. But if I’m Pelosi, I cannot see just sitting back and letting this all slide. Let the House do its work. Investigations will continue. God knows what new discoveries they’ll make. Just keep the pressure on.
Bret: One question that obviously needs answering is what motivated Trump to delay the $400 million or so in aid to Ukraine before that phone call. Arguably, that’s a violation of the 1974 presidential impoundment act, though Trump eventually relented to congressional pressure and released the money. And I’d like to know how Rudy Giuliani became our shadow secretary of state, which is kind of like letting Chris Farley from Saturday Night Live play the understudy to Slim Pickens in “Dr. Strangelove” (rest both their souls).
But here’s a question for you: How should the Democrats play this? Should the House move quickly to impeach or drag the investigation out? And do you see any risks in impeachment for the Democratic presidential candidates?
Gail: Some days it does seem as if everything goes back to Giuliani. I kinda worry that Trump’s people will try to make use of Rudy’s loathsomeness and try to blame him for everything.
About the timetable — Congress is going to hear from the whistle-blower himself. Which will move things along. But given that the Democrats need to follow procedure, nothing is going to happen with the speed of light. And risks? Of course there are risks. Doing the right thing is usually not all that easy.
But please, please, let’s get back to the president of Egypt?
Bret: Well, you’ll be shocked to learn that he really, and I mean really, likes Trump, who reciprocates the favor by calling him his “favorite dictator.” And that he’s building palaces all over Egypt so he can receive Trump in a “suitable” manner.
Gail: Bret, your reporting has done what I thought was impossible and made me even more depressed about the state of current affairs.
Bret: One thing the conversation did for me was serve as a reminder of the fragility of our republican experiment. El-Sisi looks like he’s setting himself up as another president-for-life. Journalists are being harassed, or worse; political opponents are being imprisoned, and worse. What distinguishes us from Egypt is that our institutions have been stronger than the people who occupy them. I wonder if that’s as true today as it was, oh, three years ago.
Gail: That’s the whole bottom line, isn’t it? We need to show the world our elected officials can rise to the constitutional occasion. Impeach the sucker.
Bret: Touché!
Gail Collins is an Op-Ed columnist and a former member of the editorial board, and was the first woman to serve as the Times editorial page editor, from 2001 to 2007. @GailCollins • Facebook
Bret L. Stephens has been an Opinion columnist with The Times since April 2017. He won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary at The Wall Street Journal in 2013 and was previously editor in chief of The Jerusalem Post. Facebook
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.