New York Times reporters Peter Baker and Emily Cochrane scolded Speaker Nancy Pelosi for not wanting to impeach President Donald Trump, say that she’s setting a dangerous precedent — because Trump should be impeached even without adequate cause.
While Baker and Cochrane are ostensibly unbiased reporters, they showed their true feelings about President Trump in their piece labeled “News Analysis,” under the headline “If Not Trump, Then Who? Pelosi Fuels Impeachment Debate With Long Implications”
“By her reasoning, accusations of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, campaign finance violations and other offenses — even if proved — do not rise to a level requiring action by the House of Representatives,” Baker and Cochrane wrote. “All of which raise fundamental questions: If Mr. Trump has done what he is accused of doing, and that would not qualify as high crimes and misdemeanors, then what would? If Congress opts against impeachment regardless of what the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, reports, would that set the bar so high that impeachment will no longer be a viable option? Will future presidents have license to cross all sorts of lines because of the precedent? In other words, if not Mr. Trump, then who?”
Baker and Cochrane seem to be egging Pelosi on to push forward with partisan impeachment proceedings against Trump, arguing that if she doesn’t, she will be enabling future presidents to commit impeachable acts. They offer no room in their article for a more balanced reading of Trump’s defense: that a biased intelligence community engaged in unprecedented campaign surveillance based on partisan research funded by an opposition political campaign.
“In throwing cold water on the idea of impeachment, Speaker Nancy Pelosi in some ways was simply offering a clear-eyed assessment of the state of politics today in the nation’s hyperpolarized capital: There are not enough votes to convict and remove President Trump from office,” Baker and Cochrane write. “And yet in declaring that impeachment, therefore, is ‘just not worth it,’ Ms. Pelosi may also be setting a far-reaching new standard with implications long after Mr. Trump leaves office.”