Advertisement
  1. Opinion

Impeachment: What major newspapers’ editorials are saying

A round-up of excerpts of editorials from across America.
A look at major newspapers' editorials on impeachment [Tampa Bay Times]
A look at major newspapers' editorials on impeachment [Tampa Bay Times]
Published Dec. 13, 2019
Updated Dec. 15, 2019

Editorial boards at major newspaper across the United States have weighed in on impeachment. Here are excerpts. (And here’s the Tampa Bay Times’ editorial.)

From an editorial in the New York Times:

To resist the pull of partisanship, Republicans and Democrats alike ought to ask themselves the same question: Would they put up with a Democratic president using the power of the White House this way? Then they should consider the facts, the architecture and aspirations of the Constitution and the call of history. In that light, there can be only one responsible judgment: to cast a vote to impeach, to send a message not only to this president but to future ones.

By stonewalling as no previous president has, Donald Trump has left Congress with no choice but to press ahead to a Senate trial. The president insists he is innocent of any wrongdoing, yet he refuses to release any administration documents or allow any administration officials to testify — though, if his assertions are in fact true, those officials would presumably exonerate him. He refused to present any defense before the House whatsoever, asserting a form of monarchical immunity that Congress cannot let stand.

From an editorial in USA Today:

The president’s GOP enablers continue to place power and party ahead of truth and country. Had any Democratic president behaved the way Trump has — paying hush money to a porn star, flattering dictators and spewing an unending stream of falsehoods — there’s no doubt congressional Republicans would have tried to run him out of the White House in a New York minute. Twenty-seven Republicans who voted to impeach or convict Clinton remain in Congress. If they continue to defend Trump, history will record their hypocrisy.

Our support for Trump’s impeachment by the House — we’ll wait for the Senate trial to render a verdict on removal from office — has nothing to do with policy differences. We have had profound disagreements with the president on a host of issues, led by his reckless deficits and inattention to climate change, both of which will burden generations to come.

Policy differences are not, however, grounds for impeachment. Constitutional violations are.

Bill Clinton should be impeached and stand trial “because the charges are too serious and the evidence amassed too compelling” to ignore, the Editorial Board wrote in December 1998.

The same can be said this December about the allegations facing Donald Trump. Only much more so.

From a Wall Street Journal editorial:

Democrats wrap these charges in high-toned rhetoric about “this solemn day” and quotes from Benjamin Franklin. But they are essentially impeaching Mr. Trump because they despise him and the way he governs.

This is the classic standard of “maladministration,” which the Founders explicitly considered but excluded from the Constitution as grounds for impeachment. They did so because they feared that partisan Congresses would too easily impeach presidents of the opposite political faction on this subjective basis, rather than for serious offenses.

In their wisdom, the American people seem to have figured all this out. Despite one-sided lobbying by the impeachment press, the polls show that a majority opposes removing Mr. Trump from office. This may be the real explanation behind the Democratic move to shrink impeachment. Democrats now want a fast and furious vote to satisfy their most anti-Trump partisans, dump the mess on the Senate, and campaign on something else.

They shouldn’t get off that easy. By defining impeachment down, they are turning what should be a rare and extraordinary constitutional remedy into a routine tool of partisan warfare. They are harming constitutional norms, as the liberals like to say.

Americans will decide in 11 months whether Mr. Trump deserves to remain in office. But they should also keep the impeachment vote very much in mind when they decide whether Democrats deserve to keep the House.

From a Los Angeles Times editorial:

President Donald Trump’s myriad abuses of power could easily provide the basis for several articles of impeachment. But on Tuesday House Democrats unveiled only two, both related to Trump’s unconscionable attempt to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations that would benefit him politically.

Even if you think the bill of particulars should be longer — and this page has suggested a possible additional article of impeachment based on Trump’s efforts to thwart the investigation of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III — the two that the House has drafted fully justify the grave step of impeachment. In this case, two is enough.

From a Boston Globe editorial:

Impeachment does not require a crime. The Constitution entrusts Congress with the impeachment power in order to protect Americans from a president who is betraying their interests. And it is very much in Americans’ interests to maintain checks and balances in the federal government; to have a foreign policy that the world can trust is based on our national interest instead of the president’s personal needs; to control federal spending through their elected representatives; to vote in fair elections untainted by foreign interference. For generations, Americans have enjoyed those privileges. What’s at stake now is whether we will keep them. The facts show that the president has threatened this country’s core values and the integrity of our democracy. Congress now has a duty to future generations to impeach him.

From a Washington Post editorial:

We take no pleasure in recommending the president’s impeachment and are aware of the considerable costs and risks: further dividing and inflaming our politics; turning impeachment into one more tool of partisan warfare; perhaps giving Mr. Trump unwarranted aid in his reelection effort. But the House must make its decision based on the facts and merits, setting aside unpredictable second-order effects.

That is particularly true because, unlike any previous president, Mr. Trump has refused all cooperation with the congressional inquiry. He has prevented the testimony of a dozen present or former senior officials and the release of documents by the White House, the Office of Management and Budget and three Cabinet departments.

The House Intelligence Committee’s report rightly warns that “this unprecedented campaign of obstruction” poses a serious threat to U.S. democracy.

From a Chicago Tribune editorial:

In our view, Trump’s Ukraine misdeeds are a serious abuse of his office. But they do not meet those tests of an impeachable offense. The option we see more fitting to address Trump’s abuse of power is for both houses of Congress to censure him. We do not envision a weak-kneed admonishment that Trump can dismiss. A resolution of censure would spell out in detail the president’s betrayal of trust and his failure of responsibilities by placing his personal political interests above his obligations to the nation. This resolution could adopt the language that could otherwise appear in articles of impeachment.

ALSO IN THIS SECTION

  1. House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., speaks during the impeachment trial against President Donald Trump in the Senate at the U.S. Capitol in Washington. [AP]
    The core of Trump’s argument is a novel interpretation of the law: Whatever the president did, it’s not impeachable, writes Doyle McManus.
  2. A patient receives a flu shot.
    Here’s what readers are saying in Thursday’s letters to the editor
  3. Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg and President Donald Trump [Associated Press]
    Only a white man would think that someone in his mid-30s, with no experience running anything of any great consequence, would be qualified to be president, writes the columnist.
  4. Leonard Pitts [undefined]
    The most important verdict will be rendered by jurors not in the Senate, but in the court of public opinion, writes Leonard Pitts.
  5. Addison Davis, Clay County Superintendent, was chosen Tuesday as Hillsborough County's new schools superintendent [HCPS]
    Addison Davis will have an impact on the entire region.
  6. About 100 people gathered on Bayshore Boulevard in remembrance of George Gage, who was killed at Bayshore Boulevard and West Julia Street. [LUIS SANTANA  |  Times]
    Here’s what readers are saying in Wednesday’s letters to the editor
  7. The Trump National Doral clubhouse in Doral. [WILFREDO LEE  |  AP]
    National Republican leaders should make it known that they understand that Florida — with its 1,200-plus miles of valuable coastline — is ground zero for the growing and costly threat of sea-level...
  8. Justices of the Florida Supreme Court attend the opening session of the Florida Legislature in January. Left to Right: Chief Justice Charles T. Canady, Justice Ricky Polston, Justice Jorge Labarga, Justice Alan Lawson, and Justice Carlos G. Muniz.  (Two vacant justice positions need to be appointed by Gov. Ron DeSantis.) [SCOTT KEELER  |  Tampa Bay Times]
    It’s bad enough the court ignored voter intent on restoring felons’ voting rights. It also embraced the rigid approach of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
  9. Health experts say that the people who benefit most from fluoridation are the poor, who often don't have access to the foods and dental health products they need to keep their teeth in good shape.
    A retired dentist reminds us of the value of having fluoridated the water systems.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement