Here’s the Legitimate Question that Should Dominate the Impeachment Trial

Some abuses of presidential power are more easily remedied than others.

By
31

Today is the first day of the impeachment trial, and I expect that we’ll spend far too little time talking about the actual central question of the case. Also, let’s talk a bit about “moderate” Pete Buttigieg’s legal extremism. Today’s French Press:

  1. We know the material facts about impeachment; now let’s discuss their meaning.

  1. Pete Buttigieg fails the First Amendment test.

Was Donald Trump’s misconduct severe enough to merit removal?

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
31
By
Comments (31)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Ann G

    I was admitted to a Catholic hospital last Friday. The hospital chaplain prayed over the loudspeaker to bless the day and was available to patients, and the room TV had many religious programming channels in addition to a channel with the hospital chapel. When my daughter had lunch at the hospital with me one day, her tray was delivered by an obviously gay man. What generosity of spirit to allow all an opportunity for a job.

    Hosanna-Tabor was decided in 2012 -- almost a lifetime ago when considering how quickly opinion on this issue has changed. Will there be enough justification in the future to say we only want people like us around us where we work and it will be seen as acceptable? You can't stop sin by refusing certain sinners employment, if not condoning certain behaviors is your goal for the restriction. What exactly is accomplished by not allowing these people to work for you? I can't understand it, so I don't see how the secular world can.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Kevin C. Smith

    I just wanted to note that one of my liberal/progressive law school professors shared this piece on his social media account, adding that it is “the most well-balanced piece [he has] read in the last five months.” He asked his friends to do themselves and their fellow citizens a “favor” and read it.

    That’s high praise not just for the piece but for The Dispatch’s mission. Excellent job, David!

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Paul Britton


    Paul Brittonjust now
    Mr. French: You argue that Trump’s Ukrainian misbehavior is distinguishable from ultra vires acts of other presidents because it was not susceptible to checks and balances from Congress or the courts. Yet you note immediately that Trump’s efforts were, in fact, frustrated because of whistle-blowing, pushback from members of Congress, and bad press. These were “checks and balances”, weren’t they? And Ukraine did get its money after all, didn’t it? Some of Obama’s spectacularly unauthorized executive orders are STILL in place.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Dave IL

    Like many Trump skeptics, I thought Trump could be impeached but that it was probably bad policy. You have persuaded me that he should be removed.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    Exactly. You can't remedy an attack on the forthcoming election by depending on the forthcoming election. If Trump got away with this the Democrats would have moved on to the next-highest polling candidate like Warren or Sanders, who poll much more evenly with Trump in the swing states. And if he got away with it, it stands to reason he would tried the same maneuver with the final nominee.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Steve

    David, I agree that Trump's actions have been egregious and would like to see him out of office, but not at the cost of further undermining the already weak confidence in our institutions. Has not the House bungled their proceedings by deciding to not seek subpoena's? Cannot the Senate throw the proceedings back to the House to seek the new info? Also, In today's opening Schiff statement, he said (am paraphrasing) that the courts are irrelevant. Really? Your column says, " Citizens can’t run to court to block this particular abuse of presidential power. We can’t even count on public knowledge for public accountability." Why not?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      Trump blocked all of the witnesses. That was the whole point.

      Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    JDW

    Another factor to consider is Trumps mental health and general fitness for office. His believing all of these crazy conspiracy theories is dangerous. He is very credulous or he is a great liar. Well he is already a great liar because of other things so he is either lying in this case or very credulous. Either way are those qualities we want in a president.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Jenny

    I take your point that the government weighing into the decisions of religious organizations is problematic, but I don't think it's as simple as don't work for a religious organization if you can't go along with their values.

    For example, what if you are a nurse, doctor, or just someone who needs a job and can only find employment at a Catholic hospital? If you are in a place without a lot of hospitals in your area, you really don't have a choice but to seek employment there. In this example, how might working for this group affect your ability to have your birth control paid for by the insurance policy your employer offers you?

    Maybe this isn't the best example, but what I am getting at is how do you account for the beliefs, or non-beliefs, of people compelled to work for these organizations when there are no other employment options available to them? What are their rights in this type of arrangement? I don't want to break down religious institutions, but at what point do they become oppressive themselves?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Kevin Durant?

      “In this example, how might working for this group affect your ability to have your birth control paid for by the insurance policy your employer offers you?”
      ———————————-
      In that example the person would not have insurance that covers birth control

      The only remedy I can think of is to take away tax exempt status. I mean unless you want to try a Godfather-style ‘signing under duress’ situation

      Either way you still don’t end up with insurance that covers birth control. You just have a hospital paying taxes, or maybe they close the hospital

      If these are their morals your only option is to keep increasing pressure and levying penalties until they abandon their morals

      I don’t know the answer to this because birth control is not on my morality checklist, but do you think you can get them to abandon their morals?

      Do you think there is a regulatory situation where you can apply enough pressure to break them and force them to abandon their morals. If so then that is your answer. Keep applying pressure and hope it works. What else is there?

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      JDW

      What happens if the hospital shutsdown? That might be the appropriate response in some cases. Perhaps in this case they would not. In the case of the baker, I think he would shut down. So in the end we don't have the baker at all.

      In the case of coverage in insurance, this is why I hate the government being involved at all. As soon as they get involved they want to control it. It is why I've fought it all my life. But given that it is not super costly to pay for contraceptives, why can't people just pay in this case? It's not like major surgery costs.

      And no, I am not Catholic so I am not against birth control. (Well I'm against abortion and morning after pills but not normal birth control). I fear though that with the government getting more involved who knows where trampling of beliefs with end.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Jenny

        John, Kevin, and David,

        John and Kevin, thanks for engaging in this conversation(:

        I think you both are right that there is a risk in my example of hospitals shutting down if religious organizations are not allowed to operate, and that would be a tragedy. Many OB wings of small hospitals are closing due to costs, which has been a big problem for rural, pregnant women. In this case, not having a religiously run hospital available would negatively impact women's health.

        I don't want to see religious organizations punished for their beliefs, but I'm not convinced with arguments that people could find other places to work or that paying for birth control out-of-pocket isn't a burden. Sometimes a religious organization is one of the few options available to you for employment, and sometimes that little extra you have to pay for your birth control is a fortune for you. What happens in these situations like these? Is there a way to treat all sides fairly, or how do you decide whose rights to privilege?

        I'd like to hear some thoughts from a conservative(ish) (or Federalist, Kevin) perspective that addresses my concerns for people working for religious organizations that find themselves in this situation.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Kevin Durant?

          The federalist argument is that if you want birth control to be covered universally you implement a tax of some sort (sales tax?) and fund it at the state level. Should be really easy to do if you live in California New York etc. You could even do it at the county level.

          Local governments have the power to create all of these programs if they want to. Sadly most states and localities prefer deferring authority to DC 😢😢

          Unfortunately in your scenario the person is unable to move or change jobs, so if they live in Louisiana for example, state funding of birth control is not going to happen

          I think the smart thing to do in this case is rule out any hope of Catholics buying birth control for anyone. They are dug in on that and I don’t think arm twisting will do anything.

          If a state program isn’t an option, perhaps there is a minor tweak that can be made to Medicaid that allows people to access supplemental coverage for birth control. In other words, if you have a job at a Catholic hospital and have insurance you currently would not qualify for Medicaid, but it seems like a minor tweak could easily fix that and allow people in this situation to add limited Medicaid coverage exclusively for birth control to their current coverage

          All of the above is subject to being completely unworkable and wrong but I think I’m right on some of it

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Jenny

            I see a lot of possibility in your solution!

            It's tough because I see where John is coming from that bringing in the government is stifling, and I take David's overall point that organizations with sincerely held religious views should not be forced to operate outside of their faith. Still, I don't know how happy I would be if I were economically coerced into going along with religious views that were not my own. I think this type of situation is every bit as bad as a person being told they can't live out their faith in the way they see fit.

            Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Paul Montagu

    I would agree with Erickson and McCarthy, but for one thing: Trump wanted to illegally rig an American election in his favor with Putin’s help, Trump told Stephanopolous that he would illegally rig an American election in his favor with the help of a foreign power, and Trump tried to illegally rig an American election in his favor by pushing Zelensky to help him with Biden.
    Trump needed to be impeached because his acts undermined our electoral process and democracy. He needs to be removed because he is so completely unrepentant that he won’t even admit he did anything wrong. The call was “perfect” to him.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Kevin Durant?

      “I would agree with Erickson and McCarthy, but for one thing: Trump wanted to illegally rig an American election in his favor”
      ——————————-
      I for one have never heard Erick or Andy diminish the grave danger that investigating Democrats represents to our electoral process :)

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        Trump wasn't asking for an investigation from a country outside of our Constitution, he was asking for an *announcement* of an investigation. He knew damn well that if a real investigation were launched, all it would do is conclude Biden was innocent. The point was the *announcement*--or the US sends the Ukrainians to slaughter under the guns of Russia.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Kevin Durant?

          “slaughter under Russian guns” 😂😂

          Please explain how firing javelin missiles at Russian tanks reduces your exposure to Russian guns?

          But yes, if Trump KNEW that Biden was innocent that would be impeachable, and Trump would deserve the same punishment as everyone in the FBI, Courts, and Obama administration who KNEW the Steele Dossier was fabricated

          So no punishment

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Pat Riot

            Yes, Ukrainians actually, physically die in Russia's attack on them almost every day. I don't think that's funny. I guess you do.

            The Steele Dossier was not "fabricated" and contains many credible bits of raw intelligence, with only one of its points so far being actively disproven (although even this is disputed by one news agency). The FBI did not use the Dossier as its reason to start the investigation into Trump.

            Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Bill Nelson

    The part of the whole Ukrainian mess about the efforts to remove the Ambassador is one part that is overblown. Trump can simply replace them, no reason required. FDR was somewhat famous for using outside advisors to shadow, and sometimes sideline, appointees. During WWII, Averel Harriman was that person for Ambassador Winant. Then Harriman was sent to the USSR as ambassador and he also was shadowed (Harriman came back to the UK for Truman). There is an excellent book titled "Citizens of London" which focuses on Winant, Harriman and Murrow.

    Collapse
Load More