For Benjamin Wittes of Lawfare, the time since the 2016 elections has constituted a long and very painful path, and now, behind his deadpan lawyer face, along with Susan Hennessey and Quinta Jurecic, I think he’s getting his licks in as he advises the Democrats – informally – on how to approach impeachment. I particularly liked this point:
A final area Congress should examine is Trump’s lying to the American public. The 1974 article of impeachment concerning Nixon’s obstruction of justice also noted his lies to the public about the Watergate investigation: Nixon, the Judiciary Committee charged, made “false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted” on the Watergate matter and that White House and Nixon campaign officials had no involvement in the burglary. Kenneth Starr also suggested an article of impeachment against Clinton for “mis[leading] the American people,” though Congress declined to adopt this article. Trump has rather outdone prior presidents in the lies department. The Washington Post “Fact Checker” database of presidential dissembling as of Aug. 5 had documented 12,019 “false or misleading statements” by Trump since he took office. The Mueller report documents multiple instances in which the president and administration officials speaking on his behalf knowingly lied to the public. His tenure has genuinely posed the question of whether the president has any obligation at all to tell the truth about anything—ever. His presidency is, among other things, advancing the proposition that the idea of “faithful” execution of the law implies no duty of candor at all.
This is not a question about which Congress should remain neutral. And here impeachment is the only remedy. Congress cannot pass a law demanding that Trump stop lying or tell the truth a higher percentage of the time. It can only vote that lies of such magnitude and nature and frequency as the ones he tells are inconsistent with the conduct of the office he holds.
It comes down to the idea that the United States should be lead by people of honor. Honor requires that, in nearly all circumstances, an honest answer to a question is required. This is not an arbitrary requirement, as honesty is a strong correlate with right behavior, behavior which benefits the community for which the person is providing leadership, even if it is not to the immediate benefit of the leader.
It’s not necessary that they be honest to all questions asked, but in those cases in which answering a question could lead to long-term deleterious consequences for the community, I’d prefer a simple decline to answer the question. This is not a behavior President Trump typically uses; instead, he’ll lie if the truth is inconvenient, or he’ll even lie without answering a question, again for personal gain.
And down that passage lies damage and even doom for the Nation. Good for Wittes for covering this point, and maybe even Starr, 30 years ago.
