Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NRaleighLiberal

(60,014 posts)
Sat Nov 23, 2019, 12:37 AM Nov 2019

Wow - NYT - wingnut Bret Stephens calls for impeachment and removal. Op Ed tonight

The United States Is Starting to Look Like Ukraine
Why the president must be impeached and removed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/22/opinion/trump-impeachment.html

Donald Trump ought to be impeached and removed from office. This isn’t what I thought two months ago, when the impeachment inquiry began. I argued that the evidence fell short of the standards of a prosecutable criminal act. I also feared impeachment might ultimately help Trump politically, as it had helped Bill Clinton in 1998. That second worry might still prove true.

But if the congressional testimonies of Marie Yovanovitch, Bill Taylor, Gordon Sondland, Alexander Vindman and especially Fiona Hill make anything clear, it’s that the president’s highest crime isn’t what he tried to do to, or with, Ukraine.

It’s that he’s attempting to turn the United States into Ukraine. The judgment Congress has to make is whether the American people should be willing, actively or passively, to go along with it.

snip

It doesn’t, because we’ve been living in a country undergoing its own dismal process of Ukrainianization: of treating fictions as facts; and propaganda as journalism; and political opponents as criminals; and political offices as business ventures; and personal relatives as diplomatic representatives; and legal fixers as shadow cabinet members; and extortion as foreign policy; and toadyism as patriotism; and fellow citizens as “human scum”; and mortal enemies as long-lost friends — and then acting as if all this is perfectly normal. This is more than a high crime. It’s a clear and present danger to our security, institutions, and moral hygiene.

It’s to the immense credit of ordinary Ukrainians that, in fighting Russian aggression in the field and fighting for better governance in Kyiv, they have shown themselves worthy of the world’s support. And it’s to the enduring shame of the Republican Party that they have been willing to debase our political standards to the old Ukrainian level just when Ukrainians are trying to rise to our former level.

The one way to stop this is to make every effort to remove Trump from office. It shouldn’t have to wait a year.

26 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Wow - NYT - wingnut Bret Stephens calls for impeachment and removal. Op Ed tonight (Original Post) NRaleighLiberal Nov 2019 OP
Excellent! elleng Nov 2019 #1
We can be sure damn George Will is locked and loaded. nt greyl Nov 2019 #2
Bret needs to nudge David Brooks to do this type of Op Ed as well NRaleighLiberal Nov 2019 #3
that might be a deal breaker, for Brooks to do the same. Great editorial, thanks for posting. Hamlette Nov 2019 #5
David Brooks seems to think all things are solved by waiting Hermit-The-Prog Nov 2019 #19
i wonder what fat nixon's nickname will be for Stephens dweller Nov 2019 #4
This part was ... interesting UpInArms Nov 2019 #6
the criminalization of political opponents is a BIG big mistake. stopdiggin Nov 2019 #9
The down side is... genxlib Nov 2019 #10
absolutely correct stopdiggin Nov 2019 #11
this is the reason independent prosecutors are needed Hermit-The-Prog Nov 2019 #21
that sounds good, but stopdiggin Nov 2019 #26
+1, M$M must regulate itself and call out FAUX News and politically aligned outlets uponit7771 Nov 2019 #20
Recommended democrank Nov 2019 #7
Wow. This is an Excellent Piece from a Right Wing Loving Journalist n/t Indykatie Nov 2019 #8
Until Fox starts saying this, it won't matter. OliverQ Nov 2019 #12
It looks like it'll be left to the pundits to call the (possibly compromised) legislators to task. JudyM Nov 2019 #13
The Republican rip tide might be turning on Trump lunatica Nov 2019 #14
Bret Stephens has been staunchly anti-Trump since the beginning. LittleBunny Nov 2019 #16
Thanks. lunatica Nov 2019 #22
This particularly: ehrnst Nov 2019 #15
Bill Clinton had an extramarital affair DeminPennswoods Nov 2019 #17
While I Agree... ProfessorGAC Nov 2019 #18
Even after Nixon resigned rather than be impeached, DeminPennswoods Nov 2019 #23
Bret Stephens also supports repealing the second amendment JonLP24 Nov 2019 #24
Bret "Bed Bug" Stephens? Interesting. nt Guy Whitey Corngood Nov 2019 #25

UpInArms

(51,284 posts)
6. This part was ... interesting
Sat Nov 23, 2019, 01:32 AM
Nov 2019
The first theme is the criminalization of political differences. Years before Trump led his followers in “Lock Her Up” chants against Hillary Clinton, then-Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych did exactly that against his own political rival, Yulia Tymoshenko, who was sentenced to seven years in prison on a variety of byzantine charges after she had narrowly lost the 2010 election.

She spent three years in prison before her release during the 2014 Maidan Revolution. Key to Yanukovych’s efforts to discredit Tymoshenko was — who else? — Paul Manafort.


Lovely ... just ... lovely

stopdiggin

(11,308 posts)
9. the criminalization of political opponents is a BIG big mistake.
Sat Nov 23, 2019, 04:22 AM
Nov 2019

It is something that our political class (and general public to some extent) understood at a basic level once upon a time. We need to take a really close look at where we're heading here .. and that includes a lot of fellow travelers here on DU. This is dangerous ground.

genxlib

(5,527 posts)
10. The down side is...
Sat Nov 23, 2019, 10:54 AM
Nov 2019

It leaves the Democrats unwilling to prosecute outgoing administrations.

It gets sticky when your political opponents actually are criminal

stopdiggin

(11,308 posts)
11. absolutely correct
Sat Nov 23, 2019, 04:16 PM
Nov 2019

but you better make damned sure you are prosecuting people for actual criminal acts. And not "political crimes" (like supposedly lying under oath, fighting a subpoena, fund raising, or policies that skirt legal morass) .. and therein lies the crux. Who determines these things? Even if we think a political act is wildly in error, perhaps even short of legal .. should that action result in people serving jail sentences? And would that be a good thing?

Should the people who instituted, and then enforced, the "separations" at our southern border face criminal charges? Should George Bush (and Colin Powell?) face criminal charges on the basis of initiating an "illegal war?" Should Obama be charged with acts of terror for the drone bombing of civilians in neutral territory? In each of these cases there are members of this community that would reply, "Absolutely .. Yes!" But the question remains .. would our country be better off for these prosecutions? And if each succeeding administration comes in with a portfolio of prosecutions for mistakes and misdeeds of the one that preceded it?

Politics has long been recognized as a messy (sometimes thuggish) business. It probably won't be be made any better, or cleaner, by attempts to criminalize it.

stopdiggin

(11,308 posts)
26. that sounds good, but
Fri Nov 29, 2019, 04:53 PM
Nov 2019

history has given us illustration of some real disappointments along those lines. Starr was a political hack .. and eventually brought discredit on not only his "investigation" but also the process as a whole. And Mueller seemed to think he could do an "apolitical" job (perhaps the best we could expect under the circumstances) .. but in the process seemed to cowed by process, and the prospect of stepping on too many toes .. and in the end delivered a product that lent itself to minimal impact (and ultimately, import).

But, agreed .. even with shortcomings, either of the above is preferable to that of weaponizing the Justice department into "going after" your political foes. Better yet .. we should all just agree to the proposition that criminalizing the political opposition is generally very bad practice.

 

LittleBunny

(22 posts)
16. Bret Stephens has been staunchly anti-Trump since the beginning.
Fri Nov 29, 2019, 10:44 AM
Nov 2019

He's written multiple articles opposing Trump from the time Trump announced his candidacy for president.

He's not "turning" on Trump. He's always been against Trump.

 

ehrnst

(32,640 posts)
15. This particularly:
Fri Nov 29, 2019, 10:39 AM
Nov 2019
The first theme is the criminalization of political differences. Years before Trump led his followers in “Lock Her Up” chants against Hillary Clinton, then-Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych did exactly that against his own political rival, Yulia Tymoshenko, who was sentenced to seven years in prison on a variety of byzantine charges after she had narrowly lost the 2010 election.

She spent three years in prison before her release during the 2014 Maidan Revolution. Key to Yanukovych’s efforts to discredit Tymoshenko was — who else? — Paul Manafort."

DeminPennswoods

(15,286 posts)
17. Bill Clinton had an extramarital affair
Fri Nov 29, 2019, 11:02 AM
Nov 2019

and lied about it. Americans knew impeachment was a political stunt. That was reflected in their continuing support
in polls.

Trump, otoh, has committed actual crimes and undermined our national security interest. These actions are not only worthy of impeachment (and removal), but specifically named (bribery, abuse of office, i.e., high crimes and misdemeanors) in the Constitution.

ProfessorGAC

(65,042 posts)
18. While I Agree...
Fri Nov 29, 2019, 11:09 AM
Nov 2019

...there was no cult following for Clinton. The viewing of impeachment was obviously a political stunt, as you said for most.
The american people, in general saw there was no there, there.
Here, we have a third of the people simply worship the DOLTUS! Facts don't matter, so the political risk may be higher.
Still the right thing to impeach, but politics are a bigger part of the equation than with Clinton, I think.

DeminPennswoods

(15,286 posts)
23. Even after Nixon resigned rather than be impeached,
Fri Nov 29, 2019, 01:52 PM
Nov 2019

he still had the support of 24-25% of Americans. I believe that's the floor for conservatives/Rs. Further, if you look at the strongly approve numbers for Trump it's right in that mid-20s range. Those people aren't persuadable,
never have been and never will be. My working assumption is that about 1/3 of Americans are always going to vote/support Republicans/conservatives.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Wow - NYT - wingnut Bret ...