Disloyalty if not Treason

November 12, 2019

The U.S. was the world’s most powerful country when Trump took office. Though we couldn’t control everything, we influenced outcomes all over the world. Then Trump pulled us out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, leaving China the dominant player in the Pacific. He withdrew from the multi-power nuclear agreement with Iran, leaving Iran to reorganize its nuclear ambitions to meet its new security situation. Bizarrely he keeps claiming Iran must abide by the agreement even as the founders of our country would have explained to him that breach by one party to an agreement terminates the other’s obligations to it. He withdrew from the Paris climate agreement, not only undermining the international effort to limit global warming, but undermining other countries’ willingness to count on American promises. And he withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia, inviting Russia to restart the nuclear arms race.

He publicly questioned the value of the two major institutions formed to keep the Russians in check – the European Union which strengthened and unified Europe as a counterforce to Russia, and NATO, the military alliance between the U.S. and the European countries outside the Russian orbit, famously dubbed the “Iron Curtain” by Winston Churchill. He urged letting Russia back into the economic organization of major economies despite having been kicked out because of the Russian invasion of Crimea. He pushes Putin’s proposal that Ukraine virtually give Russia back its eastern provinces, the ones Russia had invaded until the West pushed back. And he has just invited the Russians back into Syria and a major role in the Middle East. In reality, Trump is being impeached because he keeps helping Russia.

I know there are people who call themselves super patriots who believe the US would be better off able to make its own independent decisions. What that means, of course, is that we will no longer have the trust and confidence of other countries who will no longer see us as reliable allies. When we do our best to isolate Iran, we think of it as a punishment, but when we do it to ourselves, it’s supposed to be a great advantage.

Yes, we think of ourselves as a superpower, but how much of the world can we take on alone? We didn’t win World War II alone. We certainly had the major role in the Pacific but those of us who lived through or studied the War, know that Russia did most of the fighting in Europe. So there is a large cost to isolating ourselves and convincing our allies that they can’t rely on us. If they can’t rely on us, then they can’t be reliable for us. They have to seek their own advantage.

In sum, Trump has enormously weakened America. It’s bad enough if he did it out of stupidity. But it’s disloyal if he did it for his own advantage. And since Russia can clearly be described as an enemy of the US, even though we’re not now making war against each other, we would be justified in calling that treason.

Let me suggest that you read and think about Art. III, sec. 3, of the Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Whether or not it fits the definition of treason, weakening America for the advantage of Russia and China is certainly disloyal. As Hamilton explained in The Federalist, the basis for impeachment is “the abuse or violation of some public trust.”[1] No abuse of public trust can be more serious than disloyalty to America for the benefit of a foreign power.

  • Broadcast on WAMC/Northeast Public Radio on Nov. 12, 2019

[1] Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, The Federalist, No. 65 (Hamilton) at 396 (Clinton Rossiter ed., New American Library 1961); and see Peter Charles Hoffer and N.E.H. Hull, Impeachment in America, 1635-1805 chronicling the development of impeachment from English precedents through the Founding Era in America (Yale U. Press 1984).

 


The Threat of the Alt-Armed Wing

October 15, 2019

I spoke last week about Trump’s intentions. His intentions are particularly scary because of the growth of wrong-wing violence. Time Magazine published an excellent summary as The Terror Within, in its August 19 issue.  Vera Bergengruen and W.J. Hennigan first broke their story on Time’s website. They explained that white nationalists are responsible for a multiple of the deaths and injuries from any other causes of terrorism in the U.S. since 9/11, more than all other causes put together. But Congress and this Administration frustrated FBI efforts to assign more agents to stop mass killers from mowing us down. As a result it gets worse.

Violence has spread as copycat crimes. Potential killers are separated from others like Communists who used to work in cells. That makes them harder, though not impossible, to find. The FBI has a good record of stopping more Muslim terrorism in the U.S.  But, what I refuse to call the right-wing because there is nothing right about them, feasts on assault weapons newly made available courtesy of the wrong-wingers on the U.S. Supreme Court. And, as the authors of the Time article put it, we now have “a Commander in Chief whose rhetoric appears to mirror, validate and potentially inspire that of far-right extremists.” Nothing has been a better predictor of armed revolution and dictatorial takeover than the spread of weapons among the public.

The president elides the necessity of blaming killers by referring to good people on both sides and attacking Antifa, which stands for Anti-Fascist, as if there is an equality between those trying to take our democratic institutions down and those standing up to the Fascists and trying to stop them.

In a prior era, the House Committee on Un-American Activities would have challenged the president’s loyalty. But conservatives and their wrong-wing-nut allies insist on a correspondence between investigations of the left and right as if illegal activity on the alt-wrong means that there must be at least equal and opposite illegality on the left – no evidence required. The Court has barred removing American citizenship from American citizens. But that might be the best way to protect ourselves from a disloyal president before he has the opportunity to do serious damage.

A second problem traces back to how we handle armed might in this country. Trump invited many members of the military into his Administration and then fired them. They had the backbone to resist some of the nonsense being cooked up in the White House. But they are no longer in the military. How deep can Trump get into the loyal ranks of the military before putting people in charge willing to do his bidding. Dictators have followed that dangerous pattern to power in many countries. The NRA claims it’s prepared to protect the country against governmental abuse. But their definition of abuse is public servants trying to enforce the laws about grazing cattle on public land, not presidents trying to engineer a wrong-wing takeover.

The country switched to an all-volunteer military at the height of the war in Vietnam to calm some of the controversy over that war. But if the military installs a dictator, we will see the mistake after it is too late.

Trump must be removed from office before it is too late.


Hitler’s Acolyte – Trump’s Dangerous Motives

October 8, 2019

I spoke last week about the importance of the whistle-blower’s complaint. It’s also the tip of the iceberg. Burt Neuborne was ACLU legal director and a founder of NYU’s Brennan Center.  I’ve known Burt for decades. His publisher accurately describes him as a leading constitutional lawyer who’s sued every president since LBJ.

His new book raises very serious concerns about Trump’s dictatorial intentions. As Burt notes, we’ve known since 1990 that Donald Trump kept a copy of Hitler’s collected speeches by his bed and studied them carefully.

For those born later, Adolf Hitler initiated World War II and the extermination camps that were responsible for the deaths of seventy to eighty-five million people, from all continents. More than a million American soldiers were killed or wounded. That’s Trump’s idol.

Burt goes further, comparing the themes that both Hitler and Trump emphasized. Whatever else he hasn’t figured out, or doesn’t care about, Trump has been a good student of Hitler’s.

There isn’t time to lay them all out. Like Trump, Hitler fired his supporters up with racial and religious hatred, extreme nationalism, closing borders, mass detention and deportation. Almost every word from Trump is about hostility based on race, religion, national origin, closing the southern border and extreme nationalism, stirring a recipe for violence.

Hitler and Trump insulated themselves from criticism by denying the press any credibility and found ways to reach the public without going through the media. Reporters spend their days interviewing people, checking documents, records and participants in the news. Trump simply calls everything fake, and attacks the media in its entirety, though he’s obviously the biggest liar among us. Everything he says is reduced to single adjectives – fake, terrific, good, bad, etc. – without evidence or explanation while denying the obvious. Unhinging his audience from the work of everyone else means he can speak without fear that contrary argument will reach his audience’s ears, until truth becomes meaningless.

Both Hitler and Trump cemented their rule by enriching the wealthiest, giving them outrageous gains, tax cuts, and exemptions from rules meant to protect the public from death, destruction and deceit.

Both thumbed their noses at democratic, judicial and legislative processes and powers. In other words Trump cares only about himself and his ability to become a dictator in the style of his idols. Encouraging people to use what he labels their “Second Amendment rights” in politics is what Hitler did with his Brown Shirts, substituting the nozzle of their guns for ballots and elections. That’s the path to hell but it is a path, with the trappings of dictatorship, that looks good to Trump.

I’ve hesitated to call for impeachment because my priority is to oust Trump from office, however possible, before he can get further with his obvious desire for unchecked power.

That said, Trump’s refusal to obey constitutional limitations on using his office for personal gain, and to abide by statutes and congressional subpoenas, are clear indications of his thirst for power and disrespect of the work of the American Founders, the Constitution, its meaning, original or otherwise, and the system of checks and balances set up to control people like Trump. The emoluments clause was intended to limit opportunities for presidential disloyalty to America. But rather than make America great again Trump is intent on destroying America for personal gain, the ultimate form of disloyalty.

He must be removed from office.


Kavanaugh on Investigating the President

October 9, 2018

Brett Kavanaugh is now supposed to be called “Justice Kavanaugh.” The Constitution refers to members of the Supreme Court as judges. Whether the term “justice” will be appropriate depends entirely on his behavior. Of that I am doubtful. I think there was no justice for Dr. Christine Blasely Ford.

There is strong evidence that Kavanaugh will solidify a majority for repealing a half century of progress on voting rights, women’s rights, gay rights, anti-discrimination law and protections against our becoming a police state.  Kavanaugh invariably parried questions about his views with recitations of prior law, showing only that Kavanaugh could explain the cases, but never denying his likely impact.

Nevertheless, Trump and his Senate sycophants would have nominated and confirmed someone equally damaging to American law. More ominous are Kavanaugh’s views about whether it is OK to investigate a sitting president.

Kavanaugh joined the investigation of President Clinton on matters stemming from his relations with Paula Jones. That suit was dismissed because it didn’t claim Clinton violated the law. It was brought, however, for purposes unrelated to the suit, namely to enable fishing expeditions on Clinton’s behavior. That’s called abuse of process.  Those questioning Clinton eventually found Monica Lewinsky. By contrast to Trump’s behavior, she was a willing participant. In those days Republicans were puritans.  Kavanaugh pursued Clinton with gusto.

Then, with Bush in the White House before the election of President Obama, he told an audience at Minnesota Law School, that he had changed his mind. He wrote that defending against the Paula Jones litigation took Clinton’s attention off the growing threat from al Qaeda and similarly weighty matters. So Kavanaugh concluded that there were good reasons not to sue sitting presidents. He added that impeachment was always available. Left unsaid, however, was that to be more than a partisan political tool, impeachment must rest on investigating to determine what happened.

Unlike the Clinton investigation, the investigation of the Trump campaign is about the violation of multiple laws, both constitutional and statutory – whether Trump’s campaign worked with a foreign country to tamper with an American election and support that country’s interests in exchange for putting Mr. Trump in the White House. The Mueller investigation provides an independent, nonpartisan basis for considering impeachment. Without Mueller, we have only partisanship – a partisan whitewash or a partisan indictment.

So, Trump’s selection of a judge who doubts the legitimacy of investigating a sitting president strengthens his attacks on the ongoing investigation. That’s not news, given Trump’s tweets about pardons and remarks about firing Mueller. But we don’t allow people to be judge in their own cause. What we already know about the Trump campaign justifies a deeper look. And Trump’s effort to control the investigation can amount to impeachable behavior. For Democrats to take back the Court, the law and the cause of justice, they will have to defeat Kavanaugh’s senatorial supporters and elect a Congress prepared to prevent presidential abuse. In other words, the battle isn’t over and the stakes just got larger.

— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, October 9, 2018. This is a revised and updated version of commentary originally prepared for broadcast on September 18, 2018, pulled because of the Kavanaugh hearings, rescheduled for September 25 but pulled again at the last minute because of new developments in the Middle East. The earlier version was posted here.

 


Kavanaugh

September 18, 2018

Brett Kavanaugh no longer seems a shoo-in for appointment to the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh has now been accused of attempted rape. Let’s be clear – there has never been a time when rape was just juvenile misbehavior. Rape is and has been a crime for centuries. Nevertheless, I doubt this president will make a better nomination, a point Akhil Amar, an old friend on the Yale Law faculty, made eloquently on these airwaves recently. If the Republicans can put another person on the Court, whoever it is will solidify a majority for repealing a half century of progress on social, procedural and political rights, repealing gay rights, women’s rights, anti-discrimination law and a host of protections against our becoming a police state.

Beyond the question of who Trump’s nominee is or will be, the larger question for both the Court and the country is the impact on the November congressional elections. Control of Congress is crucial not only for its legislative output, but also for eventually retaking the Court.

At the hearings, Kavanaugh invariably responded to questions about his own views with descriptions of prior law, showing only that Kavanaugh could explain the cases, which no one doubted. More interesting were his shifting views about whether it is OK to investigate a sitting president. It seems pretty clear that he believes it’s a bad idea to investigate and prosecute sitting presidents outside the impeachment process. But he hasn’t told us whether it is unconstitutional.

Kavanaugh joined the investigation of President Clinton on matters stemming from his relations with Paula Jones. The civil suit brought against Clinton was eventually dismissed because it did not claim Clinton violated the law. That suit, however, was brought for purposes unrelated to the claims in the suit, namely to conduct fishing expeditions on Clinton until they found something that might be illegal. That’s called abuse of process.

Those questioning Clinton eventually found Monica Lewinsky. By contrast to Trump’s behavior, she was a willing participant. The Republicans went after Clinton because it was sex and in those days Republicans were puritans.

Kavanaugh eventually wrote that defending against the Paula Jones litigation took Clinton’s attention off the growing threat from al Qaeda and similarly weighty matters. So he thought there were good reasons not to sue sitting presidents. But he did not slam the door shut. He expressed no view on the constitutionality of investigations or prosecutions. And he commented that there was always impeachment, which, if it is to be more than a partisan political tool, must be based on investigation to determine what happened.

Unlike the Clinton investigation, the investigation of the Trump campaign is about the violation of multiple laws, both constitutional and statutory – whether Trump’s campaign worked with a foreign country to tamper with an American election and to support that country’s interests in exchange for putting Mr. Trump in the White House. Whether or not a president can be prosecuted while in office, the Mueller investigation provides an independent, nonpartisan basis for considering impeachment. Without Mueller, we have only partisanship – a partisan whitewash or a partisan indictment.

So, for Trump to nominate a candidate for a crucial vacancy on the Supreme Court who doubts the legitimacy of investigating a sitting president, looks a lot like deliberate interference with the ongoing investigation. That’s not news, given Trump’s tweets about pardons and remarks about firing Mueller. But Trump’s efforts to control the investigation of his own behavior, making him the judge of his own case, offends a sense of justice. And that is directly relevant to the November elections. This president must have a Congress which is prepared to serve its constitutional function of preventing presidential abuses of power.

— This commentary was scheduled for broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, September 25, 2018, but pulled at the last minute because of new developments in the Middle East.


Impeachment for Corruption

April 14, 2018

We’ve discussed how impeachment organizes the disparate issues surrounding Donald Trump. We’ve focused on the poor political prospects of presidents who faced impeachment and the poor prospects of those presidents’ parties. We’ve examined the history of the constitutional language, especially “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” We found that a major purpose of the language was to enable Congress to stop corruption in its tracks. Corruption of public officials was a major target of impeachments in both England and America, leading to our constitutional text.

The Founders were very concerned about corruption. One constitutional clause barred public officials from accepting “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or Foreign State,” and a second clause barred presidents from receiving any emoluments other than pre-determined compensation from the U.S. or any state. They couldn’t accept gifts. And they couldn’t accept other benefits, emoluments, including as pay for service. We have elaborate laws about gifts to public officials. They cannot, they must not accept pay as public officials for what they have to do anyway. Judges are generally quite scrupulous. When my classmate, Judge José Cabranes, officiated over a wedding for our son, I asked other judges what I could do in response. They told me anything I did, even though we are old friends, had to be minimal. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote a chapter for a book I edited years ago. I arranged for all the contributors to share whatever royalties the book produced. Justice O’Connor was adamant that she would not take a cent – we put her share of the royalties into a scholarship fund instead. And you may not know that when foreign officials do bring presents to American public officials, the American officials are required to turn those presents over to be warehoused for use in public offices but not given to any public official to keep privately.

There were reasons that the Founders were so concerned. One source of the American Revolution had been the colonists’ anger at all the perks and goodies heaped on officials appointed by the Crown, and the colonists also reacted to the airs those officials put on. But the problem goes much deeper into economic and patriotic reasons. Opportunities steered toward public officials act like a tax on trade as other businesses have to struggle all the harder for business. Opportunities steered toward public officials distort the market because business doesn’t go to the best, but rather to the powerful. The economies of countries where those practices are common do much worse than those free of that kind of corruption. Until recently it’s not been a problem here.

The patriotic problem is loyalty. People perceive that doing business with Trump or his enterprises is more likely to win Trump’s favor and therefore affect American policy. They perceive it because it is ordinary human behavior to bless those who bless us. But it is precisely wrong for a president – their job in the White House is to pursue the best for America, not the best for their own businesses. No one asks presidents to impoverish themselves. I believe Truman was the last to retire without a presidential pension. And they can put their assets in a blind trust as presidents have been doing for some time now so that they do not know and can’t tell what will be better for their business or who has benefitted their assets. Trump has done the opposite. No blind trust. No disclosure of his taxes or the businesses reflected on them. And he blatantly steers business to his own resorts and enterprises.

That’s about the president’s welfare, not the people’s. Corruption has no place in the White House and should be the first article of impeachment. To paraphrase his own language: Dirty Donald; lock him up.

— This commentary was pre-empted by the Facebook hearings but included on the WAMC blog, April, 2018.


Impeachment – The Legal Question

April 3, 2018

For the past two weeks we’ve talked about how impeachment changes the issues surrounding Donald Trump and the political impact of prior impeachments in America. Now we turn to the constitutional language: “The President … shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”[1]

Well before the Constitution was written, impeachment began as a wide-open power of the British House of Commons to prosecute people in the House of Lords. But the Commons largely limited themselves to statutory crimes so that the House of Lords would be more likely to convict.

Crossing the waters, colonial legislatures limited themselves to the behavior of public officials. Legislative impeachment of anyone other than public officials would encroach on the job of courts and give legislatures too much power over citizens at large. Impeachment, however, became an important tool in the colonists’ battle with the British Crown.

On independence, legislatures limited themselves to action that affected public duties or danger to the republic. The new governments were to be constrained by rules of fair dealing. Elections did not provide a sufficient check either against mob rule or official chicanery. And public officials were not entitled to dismantle the separation of powers among legislative, executive and judicial departments with separate and complementary duties.

By the time the Constitution was written, the basic elements of impeachment in the thirteen states were unethical conduct that endangered the public or the republic. Statutory penalties were for courts to adjudicate. Political penalties, like removal from office, would still be appropriate for impeachment even for statutory crimes. Impeachments prosecuted in that period included corruption, like bribery, breach of public trust like using powers for personal advantage or to injure others, misuse of power such as bullying private citizens, and undermining the republican character of government with its careful divisions into executive, legislative and judicial powers.

In the Convention, a committee suggested that officials could be removed “for neglect of duty, malversation, or corruption.” Malversation, somewhat redundantly, meant “improper or corrupt behavior in office.”  Before they could vote on it, another committee brought to the floor a proposal that officials could only be impeached for “treason or bribery.” George Mason believed that was much too narrow, and on September 8, 1787 he suggested adding maladministration as an additional ground. His proposal was defeated, but in response, he proposed the language we now have, “high crimes and misdemeanors,” and it passed. “Misdemeanors” had been mentioned but once during the Convention and only in the context of crimes at sea. A widely consulted legal text of the era, however, defined misdemeanor as “smaller faults and omissions of less consequence than ‘crimes.’” That definition seems broader than “maladministration” and could easily encompass “neglect of duty, malversation, or corruption.”[2] But then why were those terms taken out? In The Federalist, Hamilton explained that the grounds of impeachment came from “the abuse or violation of some public trust,”[3] essentially supporting Mason’s approach. Their view quickly became standard.

The larger point is that the Founders sought a method to protect the republican character of the Constitution, enable the legislature to stop corruption, and to make sure that the president would faithfully execute the laws, respect the rights of citizens and obey the checks on official power built into the Constitution and principles of republic government. That forms the basic understanding of what the impeachment clause was designed to accomplish, and why some presidents would need to be impeached. Proposed articles of impeachment should be compared to those great purposes.

— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, April 3, 2018.

 

 

[1] U.S. Const., Art. II, §4. Strictly speaking, impeachment refers to the charges voted by the House of Representatives for trial in the Senate. Removal is the result of conviction by the Senate. Art. I, §2, ¶5 and §3, ¶6.

[2] See Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. 2 at 550 (Max Farrand, ed., Yale U. Press, 1966); Peter Charles Hoffer and N.E.H. Hull, Impeachment in America, 1635-1805 (Yale U. Press 1984).

[3] Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, The Federalist, No. 65 (Hamilton) at 396 (Clinton Rossiter ed., New American Library 1961).


%d bloggers like this: