洛杉矶时报编辑委员会放弃了先前不愿对唐纳德·特朗普总统进行弹劾的态度，周六发表了严厉的意见，宣称他们终于“看够了”

编辑委员会写了一份激烈的意见块他说特朗普不仅应该因为他在乌克兰滥用权力而受到弹劾，还应该因为特别顾问罗伯特·穆勒的调查导致的妨碍司法指控而受到弹劾。报告还敦促共和党人“放弃对特朗普的忠诚”，转而关注简单明了的事实，并指出特朗普最好的“辩护”是阻止他的现任和前任政府高官作证。

这洛杉矶时报题为“我们已经看够了”的观点文章。特朗普应该被弹劾，”他是第一批迈出这一步的主要新闻媒体之一，并且只加入了全国少数几家呼吁二者之一的大型出版物因为他辞职了或者弹劾。

12月7日的社论开始写道:“过去两个月产生的证据足以说服我们弹劾他。”。“一个又一个证人作证说，总统坚持向乌克兰提供急需的国会批准的援助，为自己谋取个人政治利益。特朗普这样做是公然滥用职权。”

周四，特朗普要求众议院结束弹劾，并“回到正题上来”倍周六早上，董事会当面反驳道:“让总统对严重滥用权力负责是国会的事。众议院应该继续这项工作，写弹劾条款，让参议院和美国人民明白……”

编辑委员会承认，他们“不情愿地皈依”众议院，不得不诉诸起草弹劾现任总统条款的可怕程序。但对“分裂性”政党路线投票和特朗普“可能”被共和党控制的参议院无罪释放的担忧，并没有抵消国会对宪法的责任。

“[的担忧必须让位于压倒性的证据，即特朗普为了自己的政治利益扭曲了美国的外交政策。这种不当行为是令人愤慨的，是对民主的腐蚀。众议院不能忽视这一点，参议院应该就是否解除他的职务进行全面审判，”文章继续说道。

“让总统对严重滥用权力负责是国会的职责，”董事会补充道。

该委员会敦促众议院给美国人和参议院一份特朗普在任期间严重不当行为的具体清单，并采取咄咄逼人的立场，称他也应因“阻挠或妨碍”穆勒调查的行为而被指控妨碍司法公正。注意到特朗普既没有被指控也没有被免除妨害司法罪倍他认为他的“试图干涉”应该导致国会“得出一个不同于穆勒报告的结论”。

这篇文章批评共和党人和特朗普，称他们是他最好的辩护:阻止最高级别官员作证。

“特朗普的辩护律师辩称，针对他的乌克兰证据不完整，因此没有结论，”周六的文章继续说道。

“他们说得对，一些潜在的重要证人——包括代理参谋长米克·马尔瓦尼(Mick Mulvaney)和前国家安全顾问约翰·博尔顿(John Bolton)，前者据报暂停了对乌克兰的援助，后者据报反对说服乌克兰进行调查的努力——尚未作证。但那是因为特朗普反对这样的证词。因证人缺席而推迟弹劾将奖励特朗普的蓄意阻挠。”

LOS ANGELES TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD DEMANDS TRUMP IMPEACHMENT NOW, SAYS 'GROSS ABUSE OF POWER IS THE BUSINESS OF CONGRESS'

The Los Angeles Times editorial board abandoned its previous reluctance to use impeachment against President Donald Trump, issuing a scathing opinion Saturday declaring they've finally "seen enough."

The editorial board penned a blistering opinion piece that said Trump should not only have articles of impeachment brought against him for his Ukraine abuse of power, but also on obstruction of justice charges stemming from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. It also urged Republicans to "abandon their lockstep loyalty to Trump" in favor of viewing the plain-and-simple facts, noting that Trump's best "defense" has been preventing his top current and former administration officials from testifying.

The Los Angeles Times opinion piece entitled, "We've seen enough. Trump should be impeached," is one of the first major news outlets to take such a step and joins only a handful of large publications across the country that have called either for his resignation or impeachment.

"[T]he evidence produced over the last two months is more than sufficient to persuade us that he should be impeached," the December 7 editorial begins. "Witness after witness testified that the president held up desperately needed, congressionally approved aid to Ukraine to extort a personal political favor for himself. In so doing, Trump flagrantly abused the power of his office."

On Thursday, Trump demanded the House end impeachment and "get back to business," which the Times board threw back in his face Saturday morning: "Holding the president accountable for gross abuse of power is the business of Congress. The House should get on with that business by writing articles of impeachment that make it clear to the Senate — and the American people..."

The editorial board acknowledged they were "reluctant converts" to the House having to resort to the dire process of drafting articles of impeachment against the sitting president. But concerns over a "divisive" party-line vote and Trump "likely" being acquitted by GOP-controlled Senate do not offset Congress' duty to the Constitution.

"[T]hose concerns must yield to the overwhelming evidence that Trump perverted U.S. foreign policy for his own political gain. That sort of misconduct is outrageous and corrosive of democracy. It can't be ignored by the House, and it merits a full trial by the Senate on whether to remove him from office," the piece continued.

"Holding the president accountable for gross abuse of power is the business of Congress," the board added.

The board urged the House to give Americans and the Senate a specific list of Trump's egregious misconduct in office, and took the aggressive position of saying he should also be charged with obstruction of justice for his actions to "thwart or hobble" the Mueller investigation. Noting Trump was not charged with nor exonerated from obstruction of justice offenses, the Times argues his "attempted interference" should lead Congress to "come to a different conclusion" than the Mueller report.

The piece criticized Republicans and Trump for what they described as his best defense: preventing the highest level officials from testifying at all.

"Trump's defenders argue that the evidence against him on Ukraine is incomplete and thus inconclusive," the Saturday piece continued.

"They're correct that some potentially important witnesses — including acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, who reportedly put the hold on the Ukrainian aid, and former national security advisor John Bolton, who reportedly objected to the efforts to persuade Ukraine to conduct the investigations — haven't testified. But that is because Trump has objected to such testimony. Delaying impeachment because of no-show witnesses would reward Trump's obstructionism."