An attendee holds a sign calling for the impeachment of U.S. president Donald Trump during a rally and press conference at San Francisco City Hall on October 24, 2017 in San Francisco, California. (Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
Apr 24, 2019
I'll admit that I've been wishy-washy about this.
In May of 2017, shortly after Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey and spilled top secret information to the Russians, I took to this space to chide his party for its silence in this monstrosity of a presidency and to demand action. "Impeach him now," I wrote.
By January of this year, my ardor for that remedy had cooled somewhat. I wrote that, while Trump surely deserves impeachment, the politics of the moment would make that futile, as Senate Republicans are unlikely to vote for his removal. Besides, I noted, the process would "fracture an already fractured union" while failing to address the core sickness that made Trump's presidency possible.
"A president is not supposed to ask an FBI director for personal loyalty, not supposed to pressure an FBI director to end an investigation, not supposed to fire an FBI director for refusing to do so, not supposed to intimidate witnesses, not supposed to ask aides to lie and commit dubious acts, not supposed to, in other words, behave like some low-rent Queens thug."
I still believe all that. But I am here to change my mind yet again. Blame the Mueller report. It has given me clarity, helped me appreciate something I didn't appreciate fully enough before. Namely that, in allowing all of this to be framed solely around questions of what is politic and pragmatic, we miss something.
There is a moral imperative here, a stark question of right and wrong. These people keep doing things government officials are simply not supposed to do.
A press secretary is not supposed to flat-out lie, as Sarah Huckabee Sanders admitted to Robert Mueller's investigators that she did when she claimed "countless" members of the FBI told the White House they had lost confidence in Comey. Since the report's release, Sanders has denied that her admission means what it means. In effect, she's now lying about lying.
An attorney general -- the people's lawyer -- is not supposed to act as defense counsel for the president as William Barr has at every step, from the misleading summary of Mueller's report he released in March to giving the White House a sneak peek at Mueller's findings, to defending Trump's behavior on the excuse that he was "frustrated and angered."
And a president is not supposed to ask an FBI director for personal loyalty, not supposed to pressure an FBI director to end an investigation, not supposed to fire an FBI director for refusing to do so, not supposed to intimidate witnesses, not supposed to ask aides to lie and commit dubious acts, not supposed to, in other words, behave like some low-rent Queens thug.
Under Justice Department rules, a president can't be indicted and the special counsel evidently thought it unfair to level a charge that could not be tested in court. But he certainly made his feelings clear: "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. ... However, we are unable to reach that judgment."
But we have a judgment to make, too, and it misreads the moment to base it solely on issues of politics or pragmatism. House Democrats seem more worried about what is strategic than what is right, about the feelings of Trump voters than of the voters who elected them. But this moment is bigger than that. It is about who we are as Americans, and the fact that someday, we will be required to stand before the bar of history and account for what we did -- and failed to do -- with our country on the line.
It is better to lose an election -- to lose the country itself -- than to win the one or save the other on terms that render the "victory" meaningless. This presidency is anathema to everything America is supposed to be. It is a matter of moral necessity -- and country love -- to say that as forcefully as possible.
So I am done being wishy washy. I had it right the first time.
Impeach him. Now.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
© 2023 Miami Herald
Leonard Pitts Jr.
Leonard Pitts Jr. won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 2004. His latest book is The Last Thing You Surrender: A Novel of World War II. His column runs every Sunday and Wednesday in the Miami Herald. Forward From This Moment, a collection of his columns, was published in 2009.
I'll admit that I've been wishy-washy about this.
In May of 2017, shortly after Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey and spilled top secret information to the Russians, I took to this space to chide his party for its silence in this monstrosity of a presidency and to demand action. "Impeach him now," I wrote.
By January of this year, my ardor for that remedy had cooled somewhat. I wrote that, while Trump surely deserves impeachment, the politics of the moment would make that futile, as Senate Republicans are unlikely to vote for his removal. Besides, I noted, the process would "fracture an already fractured union" while failing to address the core sickness that made Trump's presidency possible.
"A president is not supposed to ask an FBI director for personal loyalty, not supposed to pressure an FBI director to end an investigation, not supposed to fire an FBI director for refusing to do so, not supposed to intimidate witnesses, not supposed to ask aides to lie and commit dubious acts, not supposed to, in other words, behave like some low-rent Queens thug."
I still believe all that. But I am here to change my mind yet again. Blame the Mueller report. It has given me clarity, helped me appreciate something I didn't appreciate fully enough before. Namely that, in allowing all of this to be framed solely around questions of what is politic and pragmatic, we miss something.
There is a moral imperative here, a stark question of right and wrong. These people keep doing things government officials are simply not supposed to do.
A press secretary is not supposed to flat-out lie, as Sarah Huckabee Sanders admitted to Robert Mueller's investigators that she did when she claimed "countless" members of the FBI told the White House they had lost confidence in Comey. Since the report's release, Sanders has denied that her admission means what it means. In effect, she's now lying about lying.
An attorney general -- the people's lawyer -- is not supposed to act as defense counsel for the president as William Barr has at every step, from the misleading summary of Mueller's report he released in March to giving the White House a sneak peek at Mueller's findings, to defending Trump's behavior on the excuse that he was "frustrated and angered."
And a president is not supposed to ask an FBI director for personal loyalty, not supposed to pressure an FBI director to end an investigation, not supposed to fire an FBI director for refusing to do so, not supposed to intimidate witnesses, not supposed to ask aides to lie and commit dubious acts, not supposed to, in other words, behave like some low-rent Queens thug.
Under Justice Department rules, a president can't be indicted and the special counsel evidently thought it unfair to level a charge that could not be tested in court. But he certainly made his feelings clear: "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. ... However, we are unable to reach that judgment."
But we have a judgment to make, too, and it misreads the moment to base it solely on issues of politics or pragmatism. House Democrats seem more worried about what is strategic than what is right, about the feelings of Trump voters than of the voters who elected them. But this moment is bigger than that. It is about who we are as Americans, and the fact that someday, we will be required to stand before the bar of history and account for what we did -- and failed to do -- with our country on the line.
It is better to lose an election -- to lose the country itself -- than to win the one or save the other on terms that render the "victory" meaningless. This presidency is anathema to everything America is supposed to be. It is a matter of moral necessity -- and country love -- to say that as forcefully as possible.
So I am done being wishy washy. I had it right the first time.
Impeach him. Now.
Leonard Pitts Jr.
Leonard Pitts Jr. won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 2004. His latest book is The Last Thing You Surrender: A Novel of World War II. His column runs every Sunday and Wednesday in the Miami Herald. Forward From This Moment, a collection of his columns, was published in 2009.
I'll admit that I've been wishy-washy about this.
In May of 2017, shortly after Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey and spilled top secret information to the Russians, I took to this space to chide his party for its silence in this monstrosity of a presidency and to demand action. "Impeach him now," I wrote.
By January of this year, my ardor for that remedy had cooled somewhat. I wrote that, while Trump surely deserves impeachment, the politics of the moment would make that futile, as Senate Republicans are unlikely to vote for his removal. Besides, I noted, the process would "fracture an already fractured union" while failing to address the core sickness that made Trump's presidency possible.
"A president is not supposed to ask an FBI director for personal loyalty, not supposed to pressure an FBI director to end an investigation, not supposed to fire an FBI director for refusing to do so, not supposed to intimidate witnesses, not supposed to ask aides to lie and commit dubious acts, not supposed to, in other words, behave like some low-rent Queens thug."
I still believe all that. But I am here to change my mind yet again. Blame the Mueller report. It has given me clarity, helped me appreciate something I didn't appreciate fully enough before. Namely that, in allowing all of this to be framed solely around questions of what is politic and pragmatic, we miss something.
There is a moral imperative here, a stark question of right and wrong. These people keep doing things government officials are simply not supposed to do.
A press secretary is not supposed to flat-out lie, as Sarah Huckabee Sanders admitted to Robert Mueller's investigators that she did when she claimed "countless" members of the FBI told the White House they had lost confidence in Comey. Since the report's release, Sanders has denied that her admission means what it means. In effect, she's now lying about lying.
An attorney general -- the people's lawyer -- is not supposed to act as defense counsel for the president as William Barr has at every step, from the misleading summary of Mueller's report he released in March to giving the White House a sneak peek at Mueller's findings, to defending Trump's behavior on the excuse that he was "frustrated and angered."
And a president is not supposed to ask an FBI director for personal loyalty, not supposed to pressure an FBI director to end an investigation, not supposed to fire an FBI director for refusing to do so, not supposed to intimidate witnesses, not supposed to ask aides to lie and commit dubious acts, not supposed to, in other words, behave like some low-rent Queens thug.
Under Justice Department rules, a president can't be indicted and the special counsel evidently thought it unfair to level a charge that could not be tested in court. But he certainly made his feelings clear: "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. ... However, we are unable to reach that judgment."
But we have a judgment to make, too, and it misreads the moment to base it solely on issues of politics or pragmatism. House Democrats seem more worried about what is strategic than what is right, about the feelings of Trump voters than of the voters who elected them. But this moment is bigger than that. It is about who we are as Americans, and the fact that someday, we will be required to stand before the bar of history and account for what we did -- and failed to do -- with our country on the line.
It is better to lose an election -- to lose the country itself -- than to win the one or save the other on terms that render the "victory" meaningless. This presidency is anathema to everything America is supposed to be. It is a matter of moral necessity -- and country love -- to say that as forcefully as possible.
So I am done being wishy washy. I had it right the first time.
Impeach him. Now.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.