What are your own reactions? Do you understand why this story is dominating the news?
To think about your reactions and opinions, read some different points of view from the Times opinion pages.
The New York Times Editorial Board, a group of opinion journalists separate from the newsroom, writes that “The Trump Impeachment Inquiry Is the Only Option.” Here is how their argument begins:
The peaceful transfer of presidential power through free and fair elections is the crowning glory of American democracy. It concretizes the people’s will, conferring legitimacy, assuring stability. President Trump may have finished second in the popular vote, but he is the legitimate president. In the normal course of events, his mismanagement of the nation’s affairs would be left for the electorate to repudiate, through support of a challenger in a primary race or, failing that, in the general election.
But the course of events is not normal. Mr. Trump campaigned as an iconoclast, but it became clear early in his administration that his disruptiveness was aimed less at bringing fresh thinking to bear on stale policymaking than at assaulting the vital institutions of governance themselves. He has attacked the legitimacy of law enforcement, of intelligence agencies, of Congress and of the courts — of anyone he judges to threaten him politically.
For nearly three years, public-spirited people have debated whether each instance of executive overreach by Mr. Trump and his lieutenants went far enough to require the traumatic recourse of an impeachment inquiry. They have wondered at what point the checks and balances of American governance might have to be restored by means of the most radical check of all.
That point has now been reached.
The American people have learned over the past week that Mr. Trump, during a July phone call, pressed the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, to investigate Joe Biden, one of his leading political rivals, according to a written summary of the conversation released by the White House. What’s more, Mr. Trump offered the assistance of the Justice Department in that investigation. These facts are not in dispute, which is why some of the president’s die-hard defenders are trying to dismiss the conversation as an inconsequential instance of the president’s bad judgment.
But it was so much more dangerous than that. A president’s use of his power for his own political gain, at the expense of the public interest, is the quintessence of an impeachable offense. It was, in fact, one of the examples the Constitution’s framers deployed to explain what would constitute “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the standard for impeachment.
Have other presidents conducted foreign policy with re-election in mind? Of course. But there is no known precedent for a president pressuring a foreign nation to tear down a political rival.
But an Op-Ed arguing against the impeachment inquiry, by John Yoo, says that “we must avoid doing long-term harm to the president’s ability to conduct foreign policy and protect our nation.” He writes:
The Constitution vests the president with the authority to conduct foreign policy and the responsibility to protect the nation’s security. A president, even one who is possibly engaging in wrongdoing, must have confidence in the confidentiality of his communications or he will be unable to perform his constitutional duties and our international relations will fall victim to government by committee.
He continues that “the founders believed that impeachment should come only as a last resort,” and ends his piece this way:
Democratic presidential candidates are calling for impeachment. But they should realize that they themselves remain the framers’ primary remedy for presidential abuses of power. The Constitution trusts the American people, acting through the ballot box, to render judgment on President Trump. Democrats should trust the framers’ faith in the American people, too.
And in an Op-Ed headlined “Impeachment Is an Act of Desperation,” Christopher Buskirk writes:
Surely Ms. Pelosi must know that there are not 67 votes in the Senate to convict President Trump of anything relating to his phone call with President Zelensky. So it’s just political theater.
… For the Democrats, the political problem is that this is just more Washington psychodrama. And as engaging as that is for people in politics, for the journalists who cover it and for people who are deeply ideological, it is uncharismatic and irrelevant to many voters who, rightly, just want to know what Washington is going to do for them.
Students, read the articles above in full — or take a look at the full interactive opinion feature from which some of them are drawn — then tell us:
What are your reactions to the impeachment inquiry — or at least as much as you currently know or understand of it so far? Do you understand why it has dominated news reports since Nancy Pelosi announced it on Sept. 24?
How interested are you in this news in general? How much attention have you been paying to the daily flow of updates about it?
What questions do you still have about impeachment in general, or about this inquiry in particular?
The Times Editorial argues for a “historic rebuke” from Congress to “demonstrate the majesty of representative democracy.” Do you believe that our democracy is at stake in this impeachment inquiry?
In your opinion, do any of Mr. Trump’s actions rise to the level of impeachable offenses? If so, which ones and why? If not, why not?
Are you sympathetic to any of the arguments you have heard or read against impeaching Mr. Trump? Which and why?
This news story will continue to unfold in the days and weeks ahead. What predictions can you make about what may happen? Why?
Students 13 and older are invited to comment. All comments are moderated by the Learning Network staff, but please keep in mind that once your comment is accepted, it will be made public.
