A22 EZ RE THE WASHINGTON POST.TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5 , 2019
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR[email protected]LOCAL OPINIONSJoin the debate at washingtonpost.com/local-opinionsFor years, Jayson Werth’s walk-off home run in
Game 4 of the 2012 National League Division Series
has been the Nationals’ signature hit. However, it has
been less than satisfying that the team’s signature
moment was one that simply extended a playoff series
the Nationals subsequently lost.
The 2019 season changed that by producing three
emphatic franchise swings. In order:- Howie Kendrick’s NLDS Game 5 10th-inning
grand slam against the Los Angeles Dodgers. This
see-you-later swing is the undisputed Nationals mo-
ment. Although not a walk-off, it so effectively sealed
the game that Dodgers fans were streaming up the
aisles by the time Mr. Kendrick crossed home plate.
After four frustrating failures, the Nationals won their
first playoff series, altering the franchise tenor. - Juan Soto’s wild-card, eighth-inning runs-batted-
in single against the Milwaukee Brewers. This nerves-
of-steel base hit against the year’s best relief pitcher
cemented the Nationals’ stay-in-the-fight motto and
demonstrated, for the first time, that the Nationals
could send another team packing for the winter. - Mr. Kendrick’s World Series Game 7 seventh-
inning home run against the Houston Astros. The
clang off the right-field foul pole is a sweet sound
memory of a hit that was dramatic, game-turning
and cathartic for Nationals fans. That the Nationals
would score additional runs to seal the victory
keeps this one from taking a higher spot.
Sorry, Mr. Werth, you’re down to No. 4 on the list.
Yet Nationals fans couldn’t be happier.
Paul Damerell, Lexington, Va.
Mr. Werth moves to fourth in fans’ hearts
V
OTERS IN Virginia will go to the polls Tues-
day for state and local elections. With all 140
seats in the General Assembly on the ballot,
control of the legislature will be decided.
Republicans now have slight majorities of 20 to 19 in
the Senate and 51 to 48 in the House of Delegates, with
one vacancy in each chamber.
Polls are open from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., and anyone in
line at 7 p.m. will be allowed to vote. Voters will be
asked to provide a form of photo identification. Voters
can find their polling place at the Virginia Depart-
ment of Elections. Here are The Post’s endorsements:
Virginia House of Delegates, District 40: Dan
Helmer.Virginia House of Delegates, District 28: Joshua
Cole.
Virginia state Senate, District 13: John J. Bell.
Fairfax School Board At-Large: Karen Keys-
Gamarra; Rachna Sizemore Heizer; Abrar
Omeish.
Fairfax School Board Braddock District: Megan
McLaughlin.
Fairfax School Board Dranesville District: Elaine
Tholen.
Fairfax School Board Hunter Mill Distrct: Melanie
Meren.
Fairfax School Board Mason District: Ricardy
Anderson.Fairfax School Board Mount Vernon District: Kar-
en Corbett Sanders.
Fairfax School Board Providence District: Karl
Frisch.
Fairfax School Board Springfield District: Kyle
McDaniel.
Fairfax School Board Sully District: Stella Pekar-
sky.
Fairfax County Commonwealth Attorney: Steve
Descano.
Prince William Commonwealth Attorney: Amy
Ashworth.
Loudoun County Commonwealth Attorney: Buta
Biberaj.For Virginia state and local elections
All General Assembly seats are on the ballot.
tial assistant had absolute immunity from testifying.
That is the same basis on which government lawyers
claim former White House counsel Donald McGahn
and former deputy national security adviser Charles
Kupperman bear no duty to testify before Congress.
Judges will almost certainly dismiss these argu-
ments, but likely too late for their ruling to be useful
to the House impeachment inquiry. The record
already contains damning evidence of Mr. Trump’s
misconduct, but the public deserves to learn the full
story — and the public servants who participated in
these events have a duty to recount what they know.The White House’s excuse for total non-coopera-
tion was that the House had not voted to authorize
the impeachment inquiry or offered the president
certain procedural rights. Neither was required
under the Constitution, but the House nevertheless
has now voted for impeachment and has provided
the president rights like those accorded chief
executives during previous impeachment efforts.
Not surprisingly, neither action led to better cooper-
ation. Mr. Trump’s defiance is revealed all the more
sharply as brazen contempt for the constitutional
order.“H
E MUST be brought forward to testify,”
President Trump fumed on Twitter on
Monday, regarding the whistleblower
who revealed the president’s corrupt
attempts to extort political favors from Ukraine.
“Written answers not acceptable!”
The president considered written answers more
than adequate when special counsel Robert S.
Mueller III sought information from Mr. Trump
during the Justice Department’s Russia investiga-
tion. More to the point, if Mr. Trump were interested
in fact-finding and truth-telling, rather than dis-
tracting from the substance of the charges against
him, he would provide documents and encourage all
relevant witnesses to testify. Instead, administration
officials are refusing to testify before the House
Intelligence Committee — officials who likely have
firsthand knowledge crucial to the House’s impeach-
ment inquiry.
Robert Blair, an aide to acting White House chief
of staff Mick Mulvaney, was on the call during which
Mr. Trump pressed Ukraine’s president to investi-
gate former vice president Joe Biden. John Eisen-
berg, a National Security Council lawyer, reportedly
suggested limiting access to the transcript of that
call and told others not to discuss it. Russell Vought,
the acting director of the Office of Management and
Budget, might shed light on Mr. Trump’s perempto-
ry suspension of military aid to Ukraine, an act that
appears to have been an element in the president’s
corrupt pressure campaign.
These no-shows are just the latest examples of the
contemptuous war Mr. Trump and his allies have
waged on Congress and its legitimate, constitutional
oversight role, starting well before the impeach-
ment inquiry. Even when Republicans controlled
both chambers, former White House adviser Ste-
phen K. Bannon absurdly claimed executive privi-
lege to refuse to answer congressional questions. A
White House lawyer in June stopped former Trump
aide Hope Hicks from answering even basic queries,
on the lawless argument that the one-time presiden-Mr. Trump’s
contempt
For Congress, the Constitution
— and the truthABCDE
FREDERICK J. RYAN JR., Publisher and Chief Executive Officer
News pages: Editorial and opinion pages:
MARTIN BARON FRED HIATT
Executive Editor Editorial Page Editor
CAMERON BARR JACKSON DIEHL
Managing Editor Deputy Editorial Page Editor
EMILIO GARCIA-RUIZ RUTH MARCUS
Managing Editor Deputy Editorial Page Editor
TRACY GRANT JO-ANN ARMAO
Managing Editor Associate Editorial Page Editor
SCOTT VANCE
Deputy Managing Editor
BARBARA VOBEJDA
Deputy Managing Editor
Vice Presidents:
JAMES W. COLEY JR. ..................................................................................... Production
L. WAYNE CONNELL..........................................................................Human Resources
KATE M. DAVEY .................................................................................. Revenue Strategy
ELIZABETH H. DIAZ ................................................. Audience Development & Insights
GREGG J. FERNANDES........................................................Customer Care & Logistics
STEPHEN P. GIBSON...................................................................Finance & Operations
SCOT GILLESPIE .......................................................................................... Engineering
KRISTINE CORATTI KELLY...................................................Communications & Events
JOHN B. KENNEDY.................................................................General Counsel & Labor
MIKI TOLIVER KING........................................................................................Marketing
KAT DOWNS MULDER........................................................................Product & Design
SHAILESH PRAKASH...............................Digital Product Development & Engineering
JOY ROBINS ........................................................................................... Client Solutions
The Washington Post
1301 K St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20071 (202) 334-6000The House voted to formalize procedures for the
impeachment inquiry of President Trump without
any Republican support [“House vote sets stage for
new phase in inquiry,” front page, Nov. 1].
Exercise of the powers of the executive does not
exclude those actions from being impeachable of-
fenses. It was exactly the extensive powers the
Constitution grants the executive that caused the
Founding Fathers to demand constitutional provi-
sions of impeachment and removal for the misuse of
those powers.
The executive has the power to fire the FBI
director, despite the law giving the director a 10-year
term to shield the director from being the tool of
every incoming administration every four years. But
firing the FBI director because he refused to partici-
pate in obstruction of justice would be a high crime.
The executive has the power of the pardon. But when
the executive dangles a pardon to influence witness
testimony to protect himself, that is a high crime.
The executive has the right to choose what foreign
leaders to meet with, but when the executive uses the
approval of such a meeting to extort investigation of
a potential political rival, that is a high crime. And, of
course, the executive does not have the power to not
expend funds authorized by Congress and certainly
does not have the power to impound national
security funds to extort foreign nations to investi-
gate political rivals.
The actions in this case have caused a division
between political operatives and the professional
staff of the State Department, the National Security
Council and the military.
James Stephen Kelly, Ellicott CityPresident Trump lambastes House Democrats
for opening impeachment hearings. He says Demo-
crats don’t agree with his policies and vision, and he
labels it a witch hunt. Republicans didn’t agree with
President Barack Obama’s vision and policies, and
they didn’t vote for impeachment hearings when
Republicans led Congress through most of the
Obama presidency.
Mr. Trump should know that Democrats voted to
open impeachment hearings because he is trampling
on the Constitution, because he urged a foreign
government to influence our election by colluding
with that government to investigate a political
opponent, and because he is enriching himself and
his family by ignoring the emoluments clause of the
Constitution.
Democratic members of Congress are doing their
job to protect our cherished democracy.
Marla Allard, WashingtonRegarding the Oct. 31 Thursday Opinion essay
by Lanny Davis and Anthony Scaramucci, “Trump
has to go, but how is another matter”:
I am one voter who would definitely want the
Senate to have a trial if the House votes to impeach
President Trump. Impeachment is our safeguard,
and the House and the Senate need to do their duty.
P.A. McKee-Kastl, BethesdaPowers must be exercised wisely
The Oct. 31 news article “Ghana mining plans
alarm environmentalists” brought back fond memo-
ries of Kyebi, the little town that time forgot, where I
lived and worked as a Peace Corps volunteer in the
late 1970s. Kyebi served as the paramountcy for the
Akyem Abuakwa people, who held their lands and
fended off the fierce Ashanti for several centuries.
Over the years, the land that bore the scars of
abandoned gold pits transformed into a farming
community.
Bauxite, the ore used to make aluminum, was
known to exist in the surrounding hills. Mining the
ore was periodically discussed but rejected after
tests determined that it was not economically
feasible and because rapid growth would be detri-
mental to the social fiber of Kyebi and the surround-
ing communities.
Nevertheless, I heard arguments that such a
project would be worth the costs. Ghana is a
wonderful country, and the Akyem Abuakwa are
honorable people with a rich history and culture.
They deserve to reap the benefits of the natural
resources endowed on their lands. However, a
bauxite project as described in this article would
cause enormous harm to the rivers, farmlands and
social structure in this beautiful part of the world,
harm from which it might never recover. I fear that
the Ghanaian government and the people of Kyebi
will succumb to the allure and attractiveness of the
proposed Chinese financing. Therefore, I hope this
plan is rejected to protect their environment and
heritage.
Arthur J. Horowitz, WashingtonBauxite mining would hurt Ghana
The Oct. 31 front-page article “Despite promises,
chocolate is still fueling deforestation” laid out in
clear terms the challenges to ending tropical defores-
tation: It comes down to livelihoods. When prices
drop, farmers expand into forests so they can feed
their families. Not one of us would choose differently.
We won’t stop deforestation if the focus is on
certification efforts alone or on individual commodi-
ties; it needs to be about the economic, social and
environmental health of an entire region. And the
onus to clean up supply chains cannot be on compa-
nies alone. Yes, corporations are responsible and can
and must do more. But no corporate effort can take
the place of government action, policy enforcement,
civil society engagement and science working in
concert to create sustainable livelihoods, increase
productivity in already cleared lands and conserva-
tion of essential carbon sinks, watersheds, etc.
Sustainability must be applied at the regional scale
and not just to individual commodities. Forest con-
servation and supporting livelihoods must go hand in
hand. Trees must be worth more alive than dead.
Unless that happens, people will continue to destroy
forests.
M. Sanjayan, Arlington
The writer is chief executive of Conservation
International.How to make chocolate sustainable
S
AUDI CROWN Prince Mohammed bin Sal-
man appears confident he has overcome the
international backlash that followed the mur-
der of journalist Jamal Khashoggi 13 months
ago. Last week, the annual investment conference
the kingdom sponsors saw the return of senior
government officials and business executives who
boycotted it last year, soon after a killing that U.S.
intelligence concluded was ordered by the crown
prince. On Sunday, the Saudi oil company, Aramco,
announced that it was finally going forward with its
first public share offering, an initiative Mohammed
bin Salman has been touting since 2016.
Before Western investors pile in, they ought to
consider how Saudi Arabia has changed in the
nearly five years since its previous ruler, King
Abdullah, died, as a new report by Human Rights
Watch shows.
Even without the report, the Aramco initial public
offering comes with some red flags. The first shares
are being offered only on Saudi Arabia’s small stock
exchange, and there are reports that domestic
investors are being pressured into buying them.Mohammed bin Salman has promoted a $2 trillion
valuation for the company, even though internation-
al analysts say that may be a third more than it is
worth. Aramco temporarily lost half its production
following an Iranian-sponsored attack on its pro-
duction facilities in September, and its ability to
defend itself against further strikes is questionable.
But the political risks may be even graver. As
Human Rights Watch documents, Mohammed bin
Salman’s much-hyped push to modernize the king-
dom has been accompanied by some of the most
brutal and arbitrary repression in its history.
Around the time of his promotion to crown prince
in 2017, the report recounts, Saudi intelligence,
prosecution and security services were purged and
placed under the direct control of the royal court.
There followed wave after wave of political arrests.
First came “prominent clerics, public intellectuals,
academics and human rights activists” in September
2017; then, two months later, “businesspeople and
royal family members.” In May 2018, it was the turn
of women’s rights activists, 19 of whom were seized.
The sweeps continued even after the murder ofKhashoggi and the international backlash that
followed. In April writers and activists were arrested
in another crackdown, the report says. Four more
religious figures were detained last month.
Jailing peaceful domestic critics is nothing new
for the Saudi regime. What makes the Mohammed
bin Salman era different, Human Rights Watch says,
“is the sheer number and range of individuals
targeted over a short period of time as well as the
introduction of new repressive practices not seen
under the previous Saudi leadership.” For example,
the report says a number of the women arrested last
year were held incommunicado for months at a
secret prison, and at least four were tortured with
electric shocks, whippings and sexual assaults.
International investors may believe themselves
immune from such treatment. They shouldn’t be so
sure. Among those caught up in the Saudi sweeps are
U.S. citizens and one of the world’s most prominent
investors, Alwaleed bin Talal. Anyone buying into
Saudi Arabia has to be prepared for the reckless
adventures and strong-arm tactics of its 34-year-old
ruler.Investors beware
In Saudi Arabia, the whims of an impulsive, bloodstained dictator are the law.
ABCDE
AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER
EDITORIALSTOM TOLES Letters can be sent to [email protected].
Submissions must be exclusive to The Post and should
include the writer's address and day and evening
telephone numbers. Letters are subject to editing and
abridgment. Please do not send letters as attachments.
Because of the volume of material we receive, we are
unable to acknowledge submissions; writers whose letters
are under consideration for publication will be contacted.