This article is part of David Leonhardt’s newsletter. You can sign up here to receive it each weekday.
“The talk of impeachment, all-but-taboo in Big Media’s coverage of Trump, [has] moved from the margins into the mainstream — across the journalism spectrum,” wrote Margaret Sullivan, The Washington Post’s media critic, in her latest column. The topic was even part of this week’s episode of “Fox News Sunday,” as Sullivan pointed out.
Her column focused on three recent articles about impeachment: a cover story in The Atlantic, by Yoni Appelbaum, called, “Impeach Trump Now”; my column from earlier this month, making the case for Trump’s removal as soon as possible; and Michael Tomasky’s recent Times Op-Ed, arguing that the best outcome would be Trump’s defeat in 2020.
[Listen to “The Argument” podcast every Thursday morning, with Ross Douthat, Michelle Goldberg and David Leonhardt.]
Together, those pieces lay out what are the three basic options for House Democrats:
1. Wait, and beat him. That’s the case Tomasky makes. “While impeachment is clearly a valid exercise of power, so is another method of removal, also prescribed by the Constitution: an election,” he writes. Beating Trump in 2020, Tomasky explains, would have more legitimacy among his supporters and also “do more long-term damage to the Republican Party.”
2. Impeachment now. The House of Representatives, Appelbaum writes, “must immediately open a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump, and bring the debate out of the court of public opinion and into Congress, where it belongs.” He argues that impeachment will increase the chances that Republicans eventually abandon Trump, by focusing attention on his misdeeds.
3. Wait, because it increases the chances of removal. This third option — the one I prefer and that Democratic leaders seem to be pursuing — falls in between the two others.
I’m not comfortable with Tomasky’s idea of waiting until 2020 (although I agree with him about the benefits of doing so), because I think it ignores all the potential damage Trump could do over the next two years as president.
And I’m not persuaded by Appelbaum’s case that the start of impeachment hearings will sway Republicans. Given the current political polarization, I think impeachment is more likely to unite Republicans behind Trump. The process will inevitably focus the public on the actions of House Democrats like Nancy Pelosi. Faced with a choice between Team Trump and Team Pelosi, Republican voters and senators would choose the president.
Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor, and Joshua Matz also make this argument in a forthcoming epilogue to the paperback edition of “To End a Presidency,” their book about impeachment:
“The president wins — and everyone else loses — when the main framework for evaluating his conduct is whether it will trigger impeachment. By battling on that terrain, [Trump] preemptively sets aside most standards by which a democracy should judge its leader. He also invigorates his base by turning every dispute into a referendum on his continued tenure in office.”
I think that House Democrats should instead hold a series of hearings to uncover and highlight Trump’s illegal and unconstitutional behavior, especially his corruption, shady business practices and violation of campaign-finance law. Hearings like those — combined, at some point, with more findings from Robert Mueller — seem like they would have the best chance of cutting into Trump’s support from Republican voters and ultimately members of Congress. If that happens, impeachment would have a better chance at success.
But I encourage you to read both the Appelbaum and Tomasky pieces. Each does a nice job of laying out its case.
Another Merrick Garland decision
Yesterday’s Supreme Court order against transgender troops in the military joins the list of cases likely decided by Senate Republicans’ refusal to let President Barack Obama fill a court vacancy in 2016. They ignored Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, and instead held the seat open. President Trump filled it in 2017 with Neil Gorsuch.
Yesterday’s order was another 5-4 vote, with all the Republican-appointed justices in the majority and all the Democrat-appointed justices in the minority. The order allows the Trump administration’s ban on transgender troops to go into effect temporarily, while lower courts consider challenges to the policy.
Every time one of these 5-4 votes occurs — along partisan lines — it’s worth remembering that the Garland stonewall likely determined the outcome.
I grew up reading Russell Baker, both his columns on the Times Op-Ed page and his memoir, “Growing Up.” He was one of the giants of 20th century journalism and probably the wittiest of those giants.
Baker died Monday. His Times obituary was written by Robert D. McFadden, who joined The Times in 1961, only seven years after Baker did. You can browse through some of Baker’s old columns here. If you haven’t yet read his memoir, or even if you have, I highly recommend it.
If you are not a subscriber to this newsletter, you can subscribe here. You can also join me on Twitter (@DLeonhardt) and Facebook.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.B:
牛魔王神童彩图【这】【一】【天】， 【科】【院】【超】【算】【中】【心】， 【郝】【仁】【正】【在】【自】【己】【的】【办】【公】【室】【里】，【不】【断】【滑】【动】【着】【鼠】【标】【的】【滚】【轮】【键】，【看】【着】【屏】【幕】【上】【的】【新】【闻】【报】【道】，【基】【本】【上】【都】【是】【批】【评】【徐】【茫】【的】【量】【子】【计】【算】【机】【工】【程】，【其】【中】【大】【部】【分】【人】【表】【示】，【花】【了】【这】【么】【多】【钱】【去】【研】【究】【什】【么】【量】【子】【计】【算】【机】，【而】【华】【国】【还】【有】【很】【多】【人】【都】【吃】【不】【上】【饭】。 【万】【万】【没】【有】【想】【到】， 【在】【这】【样】【的】【留】【言】【下】【竟】【然】【跟】【帖】【数】【千】【条】，【其】【内】【容】
【第】159【章】【治】【病】【下】【针】【把】【人】【气】【走】【了】 【桑】【柔】【咬】【了】【咬】【牙】，【最】【终】【还】【是】“【平】【心】【静】【气】”【的】【向】【他】【道】。 “【公】【子】【还】【是】【多】【关】【心】【自】【己】【的】【身】【体】【状】【况】【吧】。” 【两】【人】【沉】【默】【几】【许】，【在】【她】【埋】【头】【在】【药】【箱】【里】【找】【着】【药】【瓶】【之】【时】，【耳】【边】【又】【响】【起】【那】【幽】【淡】【的】【声】【音】。 “【若】【仅】【仅】【是】【服】【药】，【那】【麽】【你】【可】【以】【把】【药】【交】【给】【下】【人】【便】【可】，【何】【必】【亲】【自】【来】【一】【趟】？” 【桑】【柔】【一】【只】【抓】【住】【药】【箱】
【任】【逍】【遥】【周】【身】【散】【发】【出】【无】【尽】【的】【毁】【灭】【气】【息】！ 【那】【是】【最】【恐】【怖】【的】【大】【破】【灭】【之】【力】。 【整】【个】【世】【界】【都】【是】【要】【为】【之】【战】【栗】！ “【不】【可】【能】！” “【这】【绝】【对】【不】【可】【能】！” 【中】【都】【系】【统】【之】【主】【无】【比】【凄】【厉】【的】【尖】【叫】，【如】【同】【见】【到】【了】【最】【恐】【怖】【的】【梦】【魇】【一】【般】！ 【他】【是】【被】【吓】【到】【了】！ 【若】【是】【和】【任】【逍】【遥】【比】【起】【来】，【自】【己】【的】【大】【破】【灭】【之】【力】【简】【直】【不】【值】【一】【提】！ “【区】【区】【蝼】【蚁】！
【阿】【木】【尔】【赶】【到】【时】，【殿】【里】【的】【婢】【子】【皆】【已】【蒙】【上】【了】【面】【纱】，【榻】【前】【亦】【也】【烧】【起】【供】【暖】【的】【炭】【火】，【刚】【给】【太】【子】【包】【扎】【完】【伤】【口】【的】【康】【长】【蔚】，【起】【身】【行】【礼】【道】：“【微】【臣】【给】【皇】【贵】【妃】【请】【安】，【皇】【贵】【妃】【金】【安】。” 【阿】【木】【尔】【急】【切】【地】【问】【道】：“***，【太】【子】【怎】【么】【样】【了】？” 【康】【长】【蔚】【蹙】【了】【蹙】【眉】【头】：“【太】【子】【因】【受】【惊】【过】【度】【且】【身】【感】【不】【适】，【此】【刻】【已】【经】【昏】【过】【去】【了】，【总】【的】【来】【说】，【情】【况】【很】【不】【乐】
…… 【藤】【原】【氏】【是】【如】【今】【倭】【国】【的】【第】【一】【大】【家】【族】，【势】【力】【庞】【大】，【所】【拥】【有】【的】【兵】【马】【也】【是】【最】【多】【的】，【是】【倭】【国】【本】【州】【岛】【上】【最】【大】【的】【家】【族】。 【他】【们】【拥】【兵】【三】【十】【余】【万】，【在】【平】【城】【京】【一】【代】【设】【下】【了】【一】【道】【又】【一】【道】【防】【线】，【阻】【挡】【周】【军】【进】【攻】。 【藤】【原】【奈】【川】【也】【是】【倭】【国】【史】【上】【十】【分】【出】【名】【的】【猛】【将】，【他】【可】【不】【是】【平】【川】【寺】、【源】【佳】【尚】【这】【些】【草】【包】【可】【比】【的】，【这】【二】【十】【多】【年】【来】，【他】【在】【本】【州】【岛】【上】【南】
【宝】【物】【齐】【出】【的】【一】【瞬】【间】，【张】【彦】【脸】【上】【出】【现】【了】【后】【悔】【的】【神】【色】。 【早】【就】【知】【道】【能】【够】【出】【现】【在】【这】【里】【的】【人】【并】【不】【简】【单】，【是】【宝】【物】【蒙】【蔽】【了】【眼】【睛】，【还】【有】【就】【是】【实】【力】，【他】【对】【自】【身】【的】【实】【力】，【有】【着】【过】【度】【自】【信】。 【杨】【艺】【不】【想】【跟】【他】【所】【说】【什】【么】，【时】【光】【棒】【闪】【耀】【出】【一】【阵】【银】【色】【光】【芒】，【径】【直】【朝】【着】【张】【彦】【的】【头】【顶】【咋】【了】【过】【去】。 【面】【对】【时】【光】【棒】，【张】【彦】【的】【脑】【海】**【现】【一】【阵】【眩】【晕】。 【可】
【既】【然】【天】【启】【域】【的】【主】【基】【调】【是】【浮】【岛】，【那】【么】【浮】【岛】【自】【然】【不】【能】【只】【有】【一】【处】。 【所】【以】，【李】【木】【青】【在】【整】【个】【天】【启】【域】，【建】【造】【了】【大】【大】【小】【小】【差】【不】【多】【十】【多】【万】【的】【浮】【岛】。 【每】【块】【浮】【岛】，【都】【如】【同】【一】【块】【小】【的】【陆】【地】，【最】【小】【的】【有】【二】【三】【十】【平】【方】【千】【米】，【最】【大】【的】【有】【近】【十】【万】【平】【方】【千】【米】【的】。 【创】【造】【这】【些】【浮】【岛】，【李】【木】【青】【用】【了】【两】【年】【多】【的】【时】【间】，【整】【个】【过】【程】，【说】【难】【不】【难】，【说】【易】【也】【不】【易】。