A10 WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2019 LATIMES.COM/OPINION
OPINION
EDITORIALS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LETTERS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------HOW TO WRITE TO US
Please send letters to
[email protected]. For
submission guidelines, see
latimes.com/letters or call
1-800-LA TIMES, ext. 74511.T
he House of Representa-
tives’ impeachment inquiry
moves into a crucial new phase
Wednesday as the Intelligence
Committee shifts to televised
hearings, bringing witnesses who were
deeply troubled by President Trump’s han-
dling of Ukrainian policy into the public
spotlight. Given that transcripts have been
released of what the witnesses told the com-
mittee behind closed doors, there’s little
mystery about what they’ll say now that the
sessions will be in public. For the most part,
the hearings won’t be about uncovering
facts — they’ll be about putting the pieces of
the Ukraine puzzle together into a story
that more members of the public can see
and readily understand.
If the private sessions held over the last
few weeks are any guide, however, Trump’s
Republican defenders will try mightily to
shift the focus away from what Trump did in
2019 and onto what former Vice President
Joe Biden and others did long before Trump
took office. They will also continue to de-
nounce the inquiry as biased, arguing that
they should have more power to summon
witnesses and that Trump’s lawyers should
be allowed to participate.
Those narratives are circus sideshows,
and their only purpose is to distract from
the central question: Did Trump abuse his
powers as president to extort political fa-
vors from an ally in desperate need of mil-
lions of dollars in promised U.S. aid? The
testimony released thus far paints a damn-
ing picture of Trump’s lawyer, Rudolph W.
Giuliani, leading efforts to subvert U.S. pol-
icy to serve Trump’s personal interests, not
the national interest.
The stakes are enormous, not just for
Trump, his presidency and his party, but for
House Democrats as well. Their credibility
depends to some degree on whether the
process strikes the public as fair to Trump,
and Republicans are working overtime to
persuade people that it is not.
Fairness is important, but it shouldn’t be
measured by whether Democrats let Re-
publicans steer the proceedings onto tan-
gential topics, or whether Trump’s lawyers
have a place at the table. It should be mea-
sured by whether Republicans are given the
time and freedom to question witnesses’
credibility and present testimony and docu-
ments directly related to Trump’s conduct.
These hearings are not a trial seeking to
determine Trump’s guilt or innocence. That
will happen later in the U.S. Senate, if the
process gets that far. For now, the House is
in the midst of an investigation triggered by
Trump’s July 25 phone call with new Ukrain-
ian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which
he asked Zelensky to launch investigations
that could burnish Trump’s political for-
tunes. The job of the Intelligence Committee
is to find out as much as it can about who
pushed for those investigations, what
threats they made to persuade the Ukraini-
ans to agree, and any subsequent moves by
Trump or his aides to conceal what they had
done.
Republicans are eager to deny that there
was any pressure placed on Ukraine, de-
spite the testimony of several witnesses that
top Ukrainian officials were told that they
would not receive nearly $400 million in des-
perately needed military and governmental
aid — at a time when they were facing a
grave threat from Russian-backed rebels —
unless they committed to conducting the in-
vestigations Trump wanted.
It’s legitimate to question whether there
was, indeed, an attempt to use the aid as lev-
erage. But it’s not legitimate to argue, as
some Republicans have maintained, that
the attempt doesn’t matter because the aid
was eventually released. “No harm, no foul”
is an unpersuasive defense if the president
abused the power of his office, even if it was
to no avail.
The GOP also wants to send the wit-
nesses down a couple of rabbit holes that
might explain why Trump sought the inves-
tigations, but that don’t make his actions
any more legitimate or acceptable.
One angle is based on the incredible con-
spiracy theory Trump clings to that
Ukrainians were the ones meddling in the
2016 presidential campaign to help Hillary
Clinton, not Russians meddling to help
Trump.
The other angle is a similarly Lewis Car-
roll-inspired narrative suggesting that
Trump wanted the Ukrainians to investi-
gate Biden because he had interfered with
anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine on behalf
of his son Hunter, who served on the board
of the controversy-dogged energy company
Burisma. Never mind that Biden’s efforts in
Ukraine pushed recalcitrant officials to do
moreto combat corruption, including re-
placing a prosecutor who had undermined a
British investigation into Burisma, or that
Biden was advancing official U.S. policy.
The relevant point here is that the ad-
ministration withheld aid from a new
Ukrainian administration that had been
elected to clean up corruption, not from offi-
cials with any connection to the Bidens or
the alleged meddling in the 2016 election.
The first two witnesses will be veteran
foreign service officers who have firsthand
knowledge of how the Trump administra-
tion conducted its Ukraine policy. Viewers
should pay close attention to what they say
about the message this administration de-
livered to Ukraine, and then ask themselves
whose interests were being served — ours,
or President Trump’s?Don’t let the GOP distract you
P
redicting how theU.S. Supreme
Court will decide a case based on
the questions the justices raise
during oral arguments is a fraught
endeavor, but the tenor of those
exchanges Tuesday morning did not bode
well for supporters of the Deferred Action
for Childhood Arrivals program. Chief Jus-
tice John G. Roberts Jr., a potential swing
vote, at times seemed to give credence to
the Trump administration’s argument that
President Obama lacked the legal authority
to create DACA in the first place.
If the court ultimately finds that Presi-
dent Trump has the authority to end the
program regardless of his spurious ration-
ale, it would give the court’s imprimatur to
one of the harshest approaches to immigra-
tion in modern American history.
DACA, for those who don’t remember, is
the process Obama crafted in 2012 to defer
deportations for people who have lived in
the United States illegally since they were
children, provided that they are employed
or attending school and have not been con-
victed of serious crimes, among other crite-
ria. Yes, it’s true that the 700,000 or so people
currently receiving protection from depor-
tation were living here without permission
prior to gaining DACA status. But it makes
no sense to oust them from the only country
they have ever really known, and deport
them to countries where in many cases they
don’t even speak the language. Remember,
most Dreamers bear little or no responsibil-
ity for their predicament since they came as
children in the care of parents or guardians.
The Trump administration argues that
Obama stretched federal immigration law
past its breaking point with the DACA or-
der, and in 2017 it sought to kill the program
as legally indefensible. This gets into arcane
areas of authority, but DACA’s defenders ar-
gue that the president can’t scrap a pro-
gram because he thinks it’s illegal; that’s a
decision for the courts. A president canend
or reverse a predecessor’s order because he
thinks it’s bad policy, if he sets out a well-
reasoned argument explaining why. With
DACA, Trump failed to do so.
Beyond the legal wrangling lies the fate
of 700,000 people who currently can go about
their lives and legally hold jobs, pay taxes
and be openly active members of their com-
munities without constantly looking over
their shoulders for Immigration and Cus-
toms Enforcement officers. It’s a popular
program. An overwhelming majority of
Americans, including Republicans, tell
pollsters they believe the government
should leave the Dreamers alone.
Whatever the court decides — and we
fervently hope it comes down on the side of
the Dreamers — this issue is best resolved
for the long term by Congress. To its credit,
Congress has tried, sort of, to craft a perma-
nent solution. Even Trump has said in the
past he would support legislation helping
the Dreamers. But then he erected a road-
block by insisting that in return, Congress
must also approve unrelated measures to
fund his wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
That’s not negotiating, it’s hostage-taking,
and Congress was right to refuse.
Congress should pass a bill offering legal
standing and a path to citizenship to quali-
fied Dreamers. It’s troubling, not to mention
dysfunctional, that a relative handful of
xenophobes can block a sensible humani-
tarian effort to grant legal status to people
the vast majority of Americans think de-
serve to become fellow citizens.
A pro-DACA decision by the Supreme
Court would be welcome. But the Trump
administration — or any future administra-
tion — could simply go through the correct
bureaucratic process and end the protec-
tions. A legislative solution is years overdue,
and if the House and the Senate could come
together to achieve this popular end, it
could help put the lie to the presumption
that our elected representatives lack the
courage or competence to do the work for
which they were sent to Washington.Only Congress can fix DACA
I thoroughly enjoyed
Doyle McManus’ column.
But, I wish the media
would stop using the term
“quid pro quo,” as I think
there are a lot of Americans
who do not understand it.
Reporters should should
use the term “bribery,”
which is what Trump did
with regard to Ukraine.
People understand
bribery, and it is one of the
three specifically named
offenses in the U.S. Consti-
tution for which a presi-
dent can be impeached.
Mary Duque
Burbank::Sen. Lindsey Graham’s
latest arguments for not
impeaching the president
include the terms “inept,”
“incoherent” and “incapa-
ble.”
Are you kidding me? To
clarify, is it acceptable for a
president to be inept,
incoherent and incapable?
Bob Kahn
Pacific PalisadesLAX-adjacent
tent housing
Re “A plan to rapidly house
L.A.’s homeless,” Opinion,
Nov. 10I read with great inter-
est Rob Eshman’s op-ed
article suggesting in-
stalling temporary tent
housing for homeless peo-
ple on the empty land
surrounding Los Angeles
International Airport,
particularly to the north.
My family lives half a
mile to the north of LAX
and I can tell you why that
land is empty, why the
homes that once stood
there are gone, and why
putting tent housing there
is a really bad idea. The
airport noise and exhaust
are horrific, and nobody
could endure it.
Thanks to the city
agency in charge of LAX,
my house is soundproofed
with quadruple-pane
windows, solid-core doors,
and insulation above the
ceilings and below the
floors. Yet we still hear the
airplanes all day and night,
and anyone who walks or
bikes on the surrounding
roads can smell the planes’
exhaust.
Inhabitants of any
temporary housing would
be continuously subjected
to the din and stench, and
with only a tent to protect
them. I wouldn’t wish this
torture on my worst enemy.
Margaret Parkhurst
Los Angeles::Thank you, Rob Esh-
man.
His suggestion of meet-
ing the urgency of local
homelessness with re-
inforced tent structures
has been advocated for along time, but our politi-
cians are obsessed with
long-range construction
projects that cost half a
million dollars per unit.
I hope everyone sends
copies of this article to
their elected representa-
tives.
Harmon Sieff
Encino::Why isn’t building
something like an Olympic
village for people currently
“tenting” on the street a
win-win?
The parks and streets
would be returned to every-
one, and dignity and re-
spect restored to those
struggling for survival with
this thoughtful, environ-
mentally sensitive solution
that delivers needed serv-
ices.
Jacqueline Knowles
AltadenaA moderate
again in 2020?
Re “Angling for the middle
ground,” Nov. 1 1This article states that
many Democrats are “anx-
ious that an uncompromis-
ing progressive at the top
of the ticket could push
swing states into President
Trump’s hands.” Perhaps
this could more accurately
say that people comfort-
able with the status quo
think an uncompromising
progressive will appeal to
swing states in the general
election.
Many of those who
voted for Trump in 2016
were unhappy with the
policies of both parties
that had steadily eroded
the economic well-being of
their families. That they
would be particularly
turned off by that pillar of
the establishment, Hillary
Clinton, is hardly a sur-
prise.
With all due respect, I
suggest that they do pro-
vide fertile ground for an
“uncompromising prog-
ressive.”
Reneau Reneau
Inglewood::We know that winning a
presidential election re-
quires capturing the mid-
dle ground, but that
shouldn’t make us overlook
the fact that the middle
ground can be moved to
the left, as with Franklin D.
Roosevelt, or to the right,
as with Ronald Reagan.
Democratic presi-
dential candidate Pete
Buttigieg is aiming at the
middle ground by promis-
ing moderation and recon-
ciliation with Republicans.
That’s one reason the
mayor of South Bend, Ind.,
is Wall Street’s favorite
Democrat.
Unfortunately, favoringa Wall Street-aligned
Democrat is like support-
ing cops who can get along
with the mafia.
Republicans sought to
block every initiative by
President Obama, regard-
less of whether it benefited
the public. Their opposi-
tion to healthcare arguably
cost American lives. Re-
publicans, as economist
and New York Times col-
umnist Paul Krugman
wrote, are “perfectly willing
to sell out America if that’s
what it takes to get tax cuts
for the wealthy.”
Roger Carasso
Santa Fe, N.M.::Re “Is she too far left on
health?” Nov. 1 1Sen. Elizabeth Warren
has let herself be trapped
by fellow Democratic can-
didate Sen. Bernie Sand-
ers’ nonsensical “Medicare
for all” fantasy. The current
Medicare for seniors isn’t
free to them.
Warren may not want to
talk about it, but support
for free healthcare and
more open borders will kill
Democrats. The destruc-
tive power of recent pro-
gressives has been clear for
the last 20 years.
In 2000, Ralph Nader’s
Green Party candidacy
gave us George W. Bush’s
first term as president.
Four years later, then-San
Francisco Mayor Gavin
Newsom started issuing
marriage licenses to same-
sex couples, giving the
right a political issue that
resulted in a second term
for Bush. Those eight years
gave us Supreme Court
Chief Justice John G. Rob-
erts Jr. and Justice Samuel
A. Alito.
Sanders was a critical
part of Hillary Clinton’s
loss in 2016, which gave us
Supreme Court Justices
Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett
M. Kavanaugh. Sanders’
influence remains strong
for reasons I cannot
fathom and will give us four
additional years of the
unthinkable.
Steve Synnott
La Cañada FlintridgeIt’s about the
vets, not the wars
Re “How to honor our
warriors,” Opinion, Nov. 1 1Gil Barndollar’s conclu-
sion, “This Veterans Day,
Americans should think
less about their warriors
and more about their
wars,” dishonors those who
served.
Since World War II, this
country has been involved
in wars that have been
found ultimately to be
based on poor judgment.
Those errors are political
and regrettably continue
because of our leadership
(or lack thereof).
Veterans pay the price
regardless of the reason.
Combat veterans never
forget their experiences.
Mine are still vivid more
than 50 years after I was a
battalion surgeon with the
Marines in Vietnam.
Stuart Fisher
Los Angeles::The United States’
endless wars since 1945
were authorized by the
president, not, as the Con-
stitution requires, declared
by Congress. Therefore, all
those wars have been un-
constitutional and illegal.
Our widespread unease
about the “not worth it”
wars in Iraq and Af-
ghanistan and sacrificing
our soldiers should esca-
late to revulsion and out-
rage at the injuring and
killing, mostly by aerial
bombing, of hundreds of
thousands of innocent
people in those countries.
All in our name.
The citizens’ ignorance
of and indifference to their
government’s actions,
especially in the world’s
most powerful nation, can
have dire consequences.
History provides many
examples how.
Ricardo Nicol
San ClementeImpeachable intent
Re “The ever-changing story,” column, Nov. 10Several Republicans assert that what President
Trump told his Ukrainian counterpart in that July phone
call was not criminal or impeachable. They admit that
Trump threatened to withhold congressionally allocated
aid if the Ukrainian government did not announce an
investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and
his son.
But the aid was eventually provided and no
investigation occurred, Republicans say, so no
impeachable offense was committed.
Here’s the problem: Trump’s threat itself violated the
law.
If law enforcement authorities learn of a plot to bomb
a shopping center, the act of planning the attack is
considered a crime and the person is arrested. If they
learn a student is planning to bring a weapon to school to
harm others, that student is charged with a crime. If they
learn a person is demanding payment to prevent a
kidnapping, that extortion is a crime.
In these hypothetical cases, the intended event did
not occur, only the threat. And that is a crime.
Sandra Krist
Studio CitySaul LoebAFP/Getty Images
UKRAINIANPresident Volodymyr Zelensky and
President Trump meet in New York on Sept. 25.EXECUTIVECHAIRMANDr. Patrick Soon-Shiong
EXECUTIVEEDITORNorman Pearlstine
MANAGINGEDITOR
Scott Kraft
SENIORDEPUTYMANAGINGEDITOR
Kimi Yoshino
DEPUTYMANAGINGEDITORS
Sewell Chan, Shelby Grad, Shani O. Hilton,
Julia Turner
ASSISTANTMANAGINGEDITORS
Len De Groot, Loree Matsui,
Angel Rodriguez
Opinion
Nicholas Goldberg EDITOR OF THEEDITORIALPAGES
FOUNDED DECEMBER 4, 1881 Sue Horton OP-ED ANDSUNDAYOPINIONEDITOR