Major newspaper demands Trump's impeachment in blistering editorial

What happened

AlterNet reports that the Philadelphia Inquirer’s Editorial Board argued Congress must confront President Donald Trump’s possible impeachment over his administration’s use of the Justice Department. But the supplied reporting never quotes the board explicitly demanding impeachment, so the headline’s stronger claim is not established by the excerpt.

Writing for the board, former U.S. attorney Barbara McQuade accused Trump and his appointees of using federal law enforcement to reward allies and punish adversaries. She cited pardons for more than 1,500 people convicted of crimes related to the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack; the dismissal of bribery charges against then-New York Mayor Eric Adams; prosecutions and investigations involving Trump critics; and an antitrust approval she connected to changes at CBS.

AlterNet says Democratic advisers have discouraged impeachment talk because congressional Republicans would protect Trump regardless of the evidence. The reported dispute, then, is not merely whether grounds exist. It is whether anticipated Republican obstruction should prevent Democrats from invoking a constitutional remedy at all.

Power belongs to the executive

The weaker actors in this story are not the officials, prosecutors, media companies, and political opponents exposed to federal pressure. The president controls the executive branch, appoints Justice Department leadership, exercises the pardon power, and commands an administration capable of turning political preference into legal consequence.

Attorney General Todd Blanche’s reported theory of expansive presidential control matters because institutional capture does not require abolishing the Justice Department. It requires subordinating its judgment to one officeholder. McQuade’s examples allege precisely that pattern: clemency for political allies, favorable treatment for useful figures, and government scrutiny for adversaries.

Personnel made the machinery work

“Trump” cannot become shorthand that erases everyone who enabled the reported conduct. Appointees approved decisions, prosecutors pursued cases, and Republican lawmakers supplied political protection. Presidential power becomes operational through officials willing to treat loyalty as a governing standard.

The resignations described by McQuade expose that agency. Interim U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon reportedly called the Adams arrangement a “quid pro quo,” and she and eight other Justice Department lawyers resigned. Whatever the ultimate legal merits of the underlying case, those departures show that compliance was not automatic or unavoidable. Some officials refused; others carried the decision forward.

Futility is a political choice

The Democratic advisers’ reported argument converts Republican subservience into a reason for Democratic silence. That is institutional cowardice dressed as tactical realism. If Republican lawmakers will disregard evidence to shield a president, their expected conduct is not an argument against scrutiny. It is part of the conduct that scrutiny should expose.

Impeachment may fail without sufficient votes. Failure and pointlessness are not the same thing. Congress still possesses investigative authority, subpoena power, public hearings, and the ability to create an official record. Declining to use those powers because accountability may be blocked allows the blockers to dictate whether the alleged abuse is examined at all.

The article overstates its own evidence

AlterNet’s framing is sloppier than the stakes permit. It calls the reported conduct Trump’s “crimes,” describes charges as “baseless,” and announces an impeachment demand without supplying the editorial’s explicit language making that demand. Those may reflect McQuade’s argument or the full editorial, but this excerpt does not independently establish them.

That imprecision creates an avoidable escape route. Officials accused of politicizing law enforcement benefit when criticism outruns its evidence: they can attack the exaggeration and evade the documented decisions. A serious indictment of state power must distinguish convictions from pardons, allegations from proof, prosecutorial decisions from adjudicated wrongdoing, and suspicious sequences from demonstrated exchanges.

The system protects power by lowering expectations

The larger pattern is not simply presidential aggression. It is a political system teaching itself that accountability should be attempted only when success is guaranteed. That rule rewards the faction most willing to obstruct, because its promised obstruction becomes the justification for everyone else’s retreat.

A politicized Justice Department can impose costs long before any conviction: investigations, legal bills, reputational damage, and pressure to accommodate the administration. A compliant Congress then supplies a second layer of protection by refusing to examine how that power is used. The systemic error is circular: executive abuse weakens accountability, legislative cowardice excuses itself by citing that weakness, and the absence of accountability is later treated as evidence that no actionable abuse occurred.

Thanks to Alter Net

Source: Major newspaper demands Trump’s impeachment in blistering editorial