Sept. 25

The Press Democrat on President Donald Trump impeachment inquiry:

For Donald Trump, perhaps the most unconventional president in American history, an impeachment inquiry may have been inevitable.

Given his administration’s unbending resistance to the most basic norms of congressional oversight, coupled with allegations that Trump pressured a foreign leader to investigate a political rival and his family, impeachment proceedings became a necessity.

But the process announced Tuesday by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a beginning, not an end. Impeachment cannot be divorced from politics, especially with the next presidential election less than 14 months away. But this inquiry must be a resolute pursuit of facts, not a sideshow in the 2020 campaign.

And whether it can be completed before American voters render their verdict on Trump and his conduct is an open question.

While some Democrats began pushing for impeachment almost as soon as Trump was sworn in, Pelosi, recognizing the potential for dividing the country even further, counseled caution - until Tuesday.

“The president must be held accountable,” she said. “No one is above the law.”

Only two presidents - Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton - have been impeached by the House. Neither was convicted in the Senate.

Trump’s fellow Republicans control the Senate and, barring shocking revelations, they’re unlikely to provide the two-thirds majority required to remove him from office.

However, on the same day the House initiated impeachment proceedings, GOP senators stood up to Trump’s stonewalling, joining a unanimous, bipartisan vote calling for the president to provide congressional intelligence committee with the whistleblower report that prompted Pelosi’s dramatic turnaround. Their defense of congressional oversight is tardy but nonetheless welcome.

The inspector general for the intelligence community - a Trump appointee - concluded that the complaint was “urgent” and “credible” and that the report should be shared with Congress. He was overruled by the Justice Department.

At issue is a July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Reporting by the New York Times, Washington Post and others revealed that, prior to the call, Trump delayed $400 million in congressionally approved military aid for Ukraine. Trump is accused of pressuring Zelensky to open a corruption investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, who had business dealings in Ukraine.

Trump, who called the conversation “perfect,” says he will make a transcript of the call public on Wednesday. He also needs to turn over the whistleblower report and any other records of his phone call with Zelensky.

If he refuses, federal courts should recognize the House’s constitutional authority to impeach the president and order the production of all relevant evidence.

Trump solicited Russian interference during the 2016 campaign, but special counsel Robert Mueller said he didn’t conspire or collude with the Russian to influence the outcome of the election. The question that must be answered now is whether Trump linked the release of military aid to an investigation of the Bidens. That would cross the line between an inappropriate conversation and an abuse of presidential power potentially warranting the third impeachment vote in U.S. history.

It is time for Congress to hold the president accountable.

___

Sept. 23

The Riverside Press-Enterprise on open records request:

A core element of a free and open society is the concept of open records and meetings. In delegating authority to the government, the people “do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know,” as the preamble to the state’s seminal open-meetings law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, makes clear.

Because that concept makes those who work for the government uncomfortable, officials routinely chip away at the public’s access to information. That’s particularly true with police records, as state Attorney General Xavier Becerra, for instance, refused to release records about disciplinary actions and uses of force that a new state law, Senate Bill 1421, requires him to release. The union-allied AG’s action wasn’t unexpected, nor was a court’s rebuke of his decision.

But some government officials’ assault on the new state law comes in various and unexpected forms. The Long Beach City Council recently approved a contract with its police union that includes the normal elements of a police contract - raises, additional benefits and so forth. But it also includes a real desk-pounder. It requires the city to give police officers at least a five-day notice to review any records about themselves.

And get this - the new union contract also provides the officer with the name of the person requesting the document. A letter from a dozen community groups said that approving this contract shows “the city of Long Beach that City Council members are in the business of valuing police privilege over legal transparency, protecting violent police officers, and overlooking the community’s safety.” That’s exactly what’s happening here.

This provision is a clear attempt to discourage members of the public, and good-government organizations and watchdog groups, from exercising their rights as citizens to access legitimate public information about how police officers and their departments have behaved. Officers have important jobs, but they work for the city’s residents.

Indeed, the importance of their roles - and the powers they hold, including the use of deadly force - should require more public oversight, not less. Long Beach activists have rightly decried the “chilling” nature of the contract provision.

It’s not unreasonable for people to fear that requests for legitimate public information could lead to intimidation and harassment. The Long Beach City Council approved it on a 7-1 vote. Councilmember Jeannine Pearce was the only one to dissent.

A Long Beach official said the city wouldn’t tolerate police officers who abuse the information and that the city allows anonymous records requests. That promise isn’t particularly reassuring given how difficult it is to learn about officers who engage in misbehavior. And, sorry, the people should not have to exercise their rights anonymously.

What about the records requests that will never be filed under fear of retaliation? These kind of special privileges also undermine the public’s trust in police agencies. It’s particularly disturbing when people who are responsible for enforcing the laws use backdoor methods to undermine laws they don’t like.

Union negotiations should focus on pay and benefits - and not be used to strike at the heart of the public’s fundamental and legitimate right to access government records.

Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2020 The Washington Times, LLC.