NEWS USA TODAY z WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2019 z 7A
Vice President/Local News and Audience Development: Amalie Nash
Vice President & Executive Editor/Investigations: Chris Davis
President, USA TODAY NETWORK Marketing Solutions: Kevin GentzelGannett Company Interim
Chief Operating Officer
BARBARA WALLUSA TODAY Publisher
President, USA TODAY NETWORK
MARIBEL PEREZ WADSWORTHExecutive Editor/News: Jeff Taylor
Executive Editor/Audience: Patty Michalski
Editorial Page Editor: Bill SternbergUSA TODAY
Editor in Chief
NICOLE CARROLL“USA TODAY hopes to serve as a forum for better understanding and unity to help make the USA truly one nation.” – Allen H. Neuharth, Founder, Sept. 15, 1982OPINION
MIKE THOMPSON/USA TODAY NETWORKLike Saratoga in 1777 or Gettysburg
in 1863, the Donald Trump impeach-
ment is shaping up as a decisive battle.
In this case, the conflict isn’t the Revo-
lutionary War or the Civil War. It’s the
early 21st century Information War.
Will facts and evidence prevail, or will
they vanish into the gale-force storm of
dust, fog, lies and distraction that the
president’s allies are kicking up?
To insist there is no problem, as Sen.
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, for-
mer ambassador to the United Nations
Nikki Haley and many others do, is to
deny reality to a degree matched only
by the commander in chief. It is the
epitome of disrespect for America, its
people and its Constitution.
The closed-door impeachment testi-
mony released so far is a little shop of
horrors, except it’s the size of a depart-
ment store. Every revelation is a night-
mare. A president likely cultivated for
years as a Russian asset? Check. Death
threats? Check. Amateur hour? Check.
A “mishmash of conspiracy theories”?
Check. Anti-Semitism? Check. Fake
news? Check. And those are all from
one witness, former National Security
Council Senior Director Fiona Hill.
Let’s dispatch with the supposed
noninvolvement of the president. He
himself released the call transcript in
which Ukraine President Volodymyr
Zelensky mentioned military aid ap-
propriated by Congress and Trump im-
mediately responded with his infa-
mous “I would like you to do us a favor
though.” Then the president asked for
investigations of former Vice President
Joe Biden (potential 2020 rival) and
Ukraine’s supposed role in the 2016
election (debunked conspiracy theory
that would have been good for Russia).
If Trump’s own words aren’t enough,
take it from his personal attorney Rudy
Giuliani (“I don’t do anything that in-
volves my client without speaking with
my client”). Or three witnesses who
testified that on a July 18 call, an Office
of Management and Budget employee
said themilitary aid hold came “from”
and “at the direction of ” the president.No Democratic coupSenate Republicans might not rec-
ognize this quite yet, but House Demo-
crats are handing them a prime oppor-
tunity to divorce themselves, if not
their party, from this man. And they’ll
have an excellent argument that it
would not overturnthe 2016 election.
There would be no slowing of con-
servative judicial nominees under a
President Mike Pence, no letup in plans
to cut taxes for the wealthy. There
would be continued attempts to outlaw
abortion and support for “religious
freedom” that elevates some people’s
rights over those of others.
No, this would not be a Democratic
coup. It would, however, seem like thatto die-hard disrupters who not only
wouldn’t care if Trump shot someone
on Fifth Avenue, they might admire
him more. The whole point is to get
away with something, whether it’s self-
dealing on a major international con-
ference at his own Florida resort or run-
ning a shadow foreign policy that with-
holds military aid and White House
meetings if a new Ukrainian president,
under siege from Russia, does not meet
Trump’s requests for spurious political
probes that would help ... Trump.
A recent Monmouth University poll
found there is nothing Trump could do
to turn off 62% of his supporters. But
that is 62% of 43% — which amounts to
only about 27%. If this poll approxi-
mates the country even roughly, mil-
lions of Trump voters could be open to
new information.
These are not the disrupters who
want to trigger the libs. Maybe they
thought Trump wouldn’t be cruel to im-
migrants, or would only deport “bad
hombres.” Maybe they believed him
when he promised health “insurance
for everybody” (instead oftrying to kill
the law that guarantees insurancefor
people with preexisting conditions).Circus or pivotal moment?Maybe they are disturbed that he is
destroying overseas markets for farm-
ers, sinking us deeper into debt, failing
to save the coal industry, failing to keep
auto plants and other manufacturing
alive, and failing “Dreamers” — the
young immigrants brought here illegal-
ly as kids whom he once said he loved
and would “show great heart” toward.
In other words, breaking the promis-
es that made him seem like a plausible
choice.
Democrats aren’t known for great
theater, as they have shown in hearings
they’ve held on Trump’s corruption and
abuses of power, including the Mueller
report. In House Intelligence Commit-
tee Chairman Adam Schiff, they have a
former prosecutor who dealt with Rus-
sian spy craft before coming to Con-
gress. He knows how to build a case.
But the Republicans on the committee
have made clear their focus will be de-
flecting, attacking and provoking.
Will these autumn hearings devolve
into a chaotic circus or emerge as pivot-
al? The latter is not out of the question.
All of us will finally be able to hear, see
and evaluate some of the many nation-
al security and diplomatic profession-
als appalled and worried by what they
have seen. It is the Democrats’ last best
chance to get through to busy Ameri-
cans and convince most of them that
they are hearing the facts and the truth.Jill Lawrence is commentary editor
of USA TODAY and author of “The Art of
the Political Deal: How Congress Beat
the Odds and Broke Through Gridlock.”Last chance to makeimpeachment caseWill public witnesses
change minds on Trump?Jill Lawrence
USA TODAYYOUR SAY
President Donald Trump asked a
foreign government to investigate a po-
tential political rival. That’s interfer-
ence in the 2020 election, a violation of
election law.
A quid pro quo isn’t necessary. Con-
gressional Republicans ignore that
Trump’s “favor” alone was illegal.
Suggesting that a quid pro quo is re-
quired is a laughable defense. It’s as if
bank robbers claimed no crime oc-
curred because they left the scene
empty handed.
The “favor” was asked of Ukraine in
July. Military aid was approved months
before. Trump had no business with-
holding it. He released aid in Septem-
ber after the whistleblower report de-
tailing Trump’s actions was filed.
Russia invaded Ukraine. American
military assistance to Ukraine, includ-
ing Javelin missiles, is a matter of na-
tional security. Russia is the aggressor
against our ally Ukraine. Does Presi-
dent Vladimir Putin have leverage over
Trump? The people need to see
Trump’s complete phone transcripts.
Jeff Akins
Highland, N.Y.Quid pro quo not necessary for violation
LETTERS
[email protected]WANT TO COMMENT?Have Your Say at
[email protected], @usatodayopinion on
Twitter and facbook.com/usatodayopinion. Com-
ments are edited for length and clarity. Content
submitted to USA TODAY may appear in print,
digital or other forms. For letters, include name,
address and phone number. Letters may be mailed
to 7950 Jones Branch Drive, McLean, VA, 22108.In the annals of American capital-
ism, this is a peculiar chapter. Business
innovation and wealth creation are oc-
curring at a breakneck pace. And they
are happening disproportionately in
some of the most liberal, anti-business
areas of the country.
California is home to five of the six
most innovative companies in the
world, according to Forbes. The Seattle
area boasts Microsoft and Amazon,
each of which has created nearly $1 tril-
lion in shareholder equity in a little over
a decade. And the areas in and around
San Francisco, Boston, New York, and
Washington, D.C., account for the bulk
of venture capital.
It wasn’t supposed to happen this
way, at least not in business school
textbooks that preached the impor-
tance of low tax rates and light regula-
tion as drivers of economic growth. But
it did, largely because innovative com-
panies gravitate to certain places, par-
ticularly ones with skilled workers.
Now, in the latest twist to the story,
liberal groups in communities blessed
with abundant, high-paying jobs are
doing all they can to chase them away.
This can be seen in San Francisco’s
hostility to the tech employees to its
south, many of which are pouring into
the city and driving up real estate costs.
It is especially evident with Amazon,
the tech giant that seems to be accumu-
lating enemies. Last spring, activists in
New York City essentially chased the
company out of town after it proposed
creating 25,000 high-paying jobs there
— jobs that dozens of other communi-
ties were lusting after.
And this month in Seattle, where
Amazon is headquartered, the compa-
ny lost big in municipal elections — so
much so that some see the vote as re-
igniting a drive for a controversial per-
employee “head tax.”
Here’s the backstory: Last year, the
Seattle City Council passed a tax of
$275 per employee on large companies.
The move, along with an effort to enact
a city income tax, was widely seen as a
move against Amazon. While $275 per
workermight seem fairly low, it would
be easy to see the council increasing it
each time it needed more money.
Under intense pressure from local
business, the council repealed the
measure after less than a month of
thought. Unmoved, activists have been
pushing to bring it back.
In a preemptive move, the Seattle
Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce,
with a lot of money from Amazon,
pushed its own slate of progressive, but
not wildly anti-corporate, candidates
in this month’s elections. They lost.
The rest of the country is mystified
at cities like Seattle, where successful
companies are greeted with more re-
sentment than respect and are seen as
pots of money to be taxed. They would
love to have its problems.
The attitudes toward Amazon recon-
firm the view that some progressives
are too quick to bite the free-enterprise
hand that feeds them. Sure, tech com-
panies can have some negative conse-
quences on their communities. But
these are outweighed by the positives,
as will be readily apparent someday
when the unemployment rate is higher.TODAY'S DEBATE: ANTI-TECH ACTIVISM
Our view: Lots of high-paying
jobs? Not in my backyard!
In Seattle last year.TED S. WARREN/APWhen atech company like Amazon
moves into a city, or even when there
are rumblings of such an occurrence,
real estate prices begin creeping up
steadily. Over time, increased develop-
ment causes prices to skyrocket to lev-
els that are beyond the reach of the
city’s residents.
These new housing projects are al-
most certainly being laid out for the
new tech executives who will be drawn
to the new city, and the local residents
are callously cast aside. For this reason,
it is not at all surprising that communi-
ty groups would react with alarm.
Yes, some nontechnology profes-
sionals in these new cities are equally
well paid and capable of affording these
new housing units. But the majority of
the locals cannot afford them, and that
is an unacceptable level of disregard.
It is somewhat of a cruel, mixed
blessing where the presence of a tech
giant brings cities new investments,
newly created jobs and a mostly posi-
tively enhanced reputation.
But the tech companies need to do
far more in planning their moves into a
city to keep their inevitably negative
impacts on a city top of mind.
It is unwise and somewhat ironic
that a technology company, onesup-
posed to be in the business of providing
solutions, cannot enter a city to set up
shopwithout creating a chaotic mess,
which can quickly accelerate into a full
blown crisis.
As a commercial real estate and fi-
nance professional, I know how quick
and efficient it would be to create and
put in place an effective plan for each
tech company’s entrance into a new
city — a plan that is more thoughtful to-
ward the city’s residents.
As a result, I almost cringe when I
think of the many cities that have suf-
fered from these grand entrances of
tech companies that ought tobe almost
completely positive experiences.Robert J. Watkins, an Atlanta-based
financial and real estate expert, is the
CEO of the Conquer Worldwide finan-
cial services firm.Opposing view:Tech giants
bring a cruel, mixed blessing
Robert J. Watkins