DAVID LEONHARDT ON DONALD TRUMP
One of the many reasons I’m enamored with David Leonhardt is that by his own admission the native New Yorker has been rooting for Boston sports teams since well before winning championships made it de rigueur.
He was an ardent fan when times were lean and naturally exultant when the tide turned. No fair-weather forecast here. In and of itself this makes me a fan of his.
Never mind that in 1998 the Chicago Headline Club honored him with the Peter Lisagor Award for Exemplary Journalism.
(Peter Lisagor was Washington bureau chief of the Chicago Daily News from 1959 to 1976 and was one of the most well-respected and widely-read journalists in the United States. Leonhardt won in the Business Journalism category for a Business Week story he wrote about problems at McDonald’s).
Or that in April 2011 he was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for Commentary “for his graceful penetration of America’s complicated economic questions, from the federal budget deficit to health care reform.” (He was a finalist for the same award in 2010 for his economic columns).
Writing, research and reporting acumen — and the well-deserved correspondent accolades — all seem to be in his DNA.
He joined the New York Times in 1999 and has been writing about economics since 2000. In 2003 as part of a team of Times reporters whose coverage of corporate scandals was hailed, he was named a Pulitzer finalist for the first time.
Somehow a love of sports occasionally wiggled its way into his work as evidenced by the analytical sports column he founded in 2004, “Keeping Score,” which ran on Sundays.
He was one of a group of writers who produced the paper’s 2005 series on social class in the United States and his economic column, “Economic Scene,” appeared on Wednesdays from 2006 until 2011.
On July 22, 2011 Leonhardt was appointed chief of the Times Washington bureau and assumed that editorial role on September 6th. Although he published in late-July what he declared would be his final “Economic Scene” column, entitled Lessons from the Malaise, he continued to publish analyses of economic news after beginning his editing appointment.
Two years later he stepped down as Washington Bureau Chief to become Managing Editor of a new Times venture dubbed, “The Upshot,” described as an effort to “be at the nexus of data and news [to] produce clear analytical reporting and writing on opinion polls, economic indicators, politics, policy, education, and sports.”
A marriage made in heaven.
To say that 46-year-old David Leonhardt is an esteemed figure at the Times and well beyond is to grossly understate the fact. As an American journalist and columnist he ranks at the top of the totem pole.
(Figuratively. Literally he’d be at the bottom of the totem pole as inexperienced apprentices are allowed more freedom to carve the higher regions and the bottom of the pole is reserved for those who are the most accomplished artisans. You get the point, totem pole history and etiquette aside).
Which is why my interest was piqued when I happened upon a riveting piece written by him in the Times Sunday Review section shortly after the first of this year with the catchy headline, “The People vs. Donald J. Trump.”
The smaller-print caption positioned underneath states simply and then asks: “He is demonstrably unfit for office. What are we waiting for?”
Well?
Has the foot-dragging been accentuated by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s recent remark about impeachment? “I’m not for impeachment,” she told The Washington Post Magazine last week. “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.”
Leonhardt agrees with the “he’s just not worth it,” part.
He illustrates with laser-like clarity and compelling conviction how Trump has been violating the presidential oath of office almost since day one by subverting democracy, obstructing justice, thumbing his nose at campaign finance law and using his position for personal enrichment.
Article II, Section One, Clause 8, of the United States Constitution enjoins the new president to swear or affirm that he “will to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
According to Leonhardt, the notion that Trump has acted in accordance with his sworn affirmation of this oath is nothing if not laughable.
“He has repeatedly put his own interests above those of the country. He has used the presidency to promote his businesses. He has accepted financial gifts from foreign countries. He has lied to the American people about his relationship with a hostile foreign government. He has tolerated cabinet officials who use their position to enrich themselves.
To shield himself from accountability from all of this — and for his unscrupulous presidential campaign — he has set out to undermine the American system of checks and balances. He has called for the prosecution of his political enemies and the protection of his allies. He has attempted to obstruct justice. He has tried to shake the public’s confidence in one democratic institution after another, including the press, federal law enforcement and the federal judiciary.”
Leonhardt resolutely asserts that the mass chaos which Trump creates — much like Victor Frankenstein who in an unorthodox scientific experiment created his hideous monstrosity — does little to blur an unmistakable truth: our country has never had a leader “as demonstrably unfit for the office as [he].”
So what to do?
The suggestion of waiting in an effort to allow the myriad of Trump investigations to run their respective courses — or until there is substantial Republican support of the liberal Democratic stance — and ask voters to take care of business in 2020 is too perilous to Leonhardt (although the prudent course to many others).
He believes that the cost of removing a president from office would be smaller than allowing this president to remain there.
“He has already shown, repeatedly, that he will hurt the country in order to help himself. He will damage American interests around the world,” laments Leonhardt “and damage vital parts of our constitutional system at home. The risks that he will cause much more harm are growing,” he says.
Citing the biggest risk as the rise of an external emergency — war; a terrorist attack; a financial crisis; a natural disaster — it’s Katy bar the door!
But by then it will be too late. And far too late to perpetuate the delusion, the fantasy that Trump is fit to lead.
Leonhardt is quick to distinguish between Trump’s ideology and the “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors” which our founding fathers intended impeachment to address.
Neither Trump’s tax policy, his efforts to cut government health insurance nor his unrelenting desire to deport undocumented immigrants represent impeachable offenses. These among other issues are to be sorted out through the democratic process — decided by elections, legislative debates, non-violent protests and the like.
But Leonhardt is just as quick to point out that the founders included an impeachment clause in the Constitution because they recognized that every once in a while an incompetent or corrupt individual could attain high office and they understood the havoc which could be wreaked by having such a person in charge.
Supporting the impeachment conceptualization Alexander Hamilton referred to such a scenario unfolding as a result of “the abuse or violation of some public trust,” and James Madison expounded, choosing to include the “incapacity, negligence or perfidy” of a president in his causal vision of impeachment.
Leonhardt is organized and thorough when he details the “negligence and perfidy — the high crimes and misdemeanors” of President Trump.
He compiles a list which he calls “conservative,” and divides it into four articles of egregious Trumpian — and grossly unpresidential — behavior.
It does not speak to the possibility of campaign collusion with Russia and there is no mention made of the Trump signature approach to the job including his general laziness and his abject refusal to read briefing books. He stays away from the many open and empty hours typically on the president’s schedule.
Rather it “…focuses on demonstrable ways that he has broken the law or violated his constitutional oath.”
“Trump Has Used the Presidency For Personal Enrichment”
Bullet points:
— Failure to release tax returns;
— Continued ownership and promotion of the Trump Organization;
— Has spent more than 200 days at one of his properties, billing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars;
— Has allowed foreign officials to curry favor in exchange for spending money at his properties;
— Lied to country about his commercial relationship with a hostile foreign government (Russia) to which he has been oddly accommodating; and
— Tolerated unethical actions of cabinet officials such as questionable stock trades, acceptance of lavish perks and use of government to promote their personal business interests or those of their friends.
“Trump Has Violated Campaign Finance Law”
Bullet points:
— Directed criminal plan to evade campaign finance laws by instructing Michael Cohen to pay 2 women with whom he evidently had affairs a combined $280,000 in hush money and failing to disclose transactions as required by law. Further he thereby “deceived the voting public”;
— Lied repeatedly about hush money payments in two years since; and
— Won office aided by criminal behavior. (According to 18th. century politician and founder George Mason IV a president who “practiced corruption and by that means procured his appointment in the first instance” should be subject to impeachment).
“Trump Has Obstructed Justice”
Bullet points:
— Interfered persistently with Mueller investigation — Comey (fired); Sessions (resigned); McCabe (fired); Bruce Ohr (demoted);
— Willfully misrepresented (lied about) Justice Department motives, claiming they offered leniency to witnesses who would lie at their behest;
— Rejected findings with no factual basis of multiple intelligence agencies regarding Russia’s involvement in 2016 campaign;
— Reportedly aided son Don Jr. in drafting false statement about 2016 meeting with Russian lawyer; and
— Point of Fact: First Nixon article of impeachment passed by House Judiciary Committee specified obstruction of justice. Article accused Nixon of making “false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States.” Obstruction of justice is grounds for the removal of a president.
“Trump Has Subverted Democracy”
Bullet points:
— Rejects Constitutional tenet of checks and balances designed to promote democracy and eschew monarchy by undermining credibility of any independent source of power or intel at odds with his interests;
— Tried to delegitimize federal judges based on ethnicity or on administration which appointed them, drawing rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts;
— Attacked Justice Department for indicting Republican politicians during an election year;
— Called for Comey, Hillary Clinton and other political foes to be jailed;
— Described journalists as “the enemy of the people,” an autocratic-sounding jibe;
— Rejected basic factual findings from CIA, Congressional Budget Office, research scientists and others; and
— Lied about election fraud;
Leonhardt puts the ball squarely in the Republicans’ court. Losing the support of a sizable Republican contingent will ultimately dictate Trump’s fate.
The problem has been that Republican senators occasionally criticize but rarely if ever confront.
This in spite of the following characterizations of Trump made by either a Republican member of Congress or a member of his own administration: “terribly unfit;” “erratic;” “reckless;” “impetuous;” “unstable;” “a pathological liar;” “dangerous to a democracy;” and a concern to “anyone who cares about our nation.”
Leonhardt reasons that if these Republicans act on what they know, then that will be more effective than any Democratic-led impeachment proceedings and would effectively spell the beginning of the end for Trump.
He offers to Democrats a word to the wise — methodically organize and convene a series of hearings highlighting the president’s various acts of misconduct and keep it simple. Focus on the easily understood issues likely to bother Trump supporters, like corruption.
Trump’s approval rating of 41.6% is weak and Republicans were schooled in the midterms. If his rating continues to fall, a greater number of congressional Republicans will be staring down the barrel of defeat in 2020.
It’s a classic Catch-22.
They fear that to break from him cleanly is to lose a primary, yet to stick by him didn’t do a lot of good for the 27 Republican incumbent lawmakers who were ousted last year and now are former members of Congress.
In addition the party is losing suburban and young voters who loathe the president and they must figure out how to calm the rolling tide and hold its own with that sector in 2020 and beyond.
If Republicans know that Trump is “unfit” to lead and act out of political self-interest and not even on principle, then abandoning him does not seem so far-fetched.
Pulling away would set the stage — albeit embryonically — for the House to impeach and the Senate to convict. Or short of that it could facilitate a round of negotiations allowing Trump to resign in exchange for some sort of immunity or pardon.
Sound familiar?
If but one of the small group of former Trump administration officials who were widely-respected before joining him and whom he besmirched, sullied, embarrassed and fired — Rex Tillerson, Gary Cohn, H.R. McMaster or James Mattis for instance — decided to go public and tell the truth about Trump, it would be a service to the country they all claim to love.
Leonhardt calls it, “an illustration of duty.”
And there is no shortage of viable (along with questionable) candidates, the aforementioned four comprising but a handful.
Some were fired, others resigned.
How about something of moment from John Kelly? Sally Yates? Preet Bharara? Jim Comey; Scott Pruitt even? Or John McEntee? Hope Hicks? Josh Raffel?
More from Omarosa Manigault? Tom Price? Steve Bannon? “The Mooch?” Reince Priebus? Sean Spicer? Walter Shaub? Mike Dubke? John Thompson? Katie Walsh? Michael Flynn? Angella Reid? Sebastian Gorka? Dina Powell? Rob Porter?
Granted some are far more credible than others but what a treasure trove!
The California Gold Rush revisited!!
Exposing his warped vision of reality from the inside-out and for all to see would catalyze what must happen and also make today’s Republicans look good.
At Trump’s expense no less.
And as Leonhardt might ask, “what could possibly be wrong with that?”
Seems like a win-win.
[Editor’s Note: This piece was written by Mr. Kaplan in March 2019, well before the Trump Impeachment Proceedings and the catastrophic COVID-19 Pandemic.]
