Trump’s decision to pull troops out of Syria may cost him the
presidency, but it is not an impeachable offense. It is nowhere near as disastrous as the
decision by Kennedy and Johnson to take over France’s colonial war in Vietnam,
nor as disastrous as George W. Bush’s decision to initiate an offensive war
against Iraq. The Constitution clearly
gives the president the right to make that sort of decision, so long as
Congress cedes the warmaking power, which it did long ago. The voters had opportunities to defeat Humphrey in the primaries, and later Bush in the general, and they [or at least the Supreme Court] chose not to. On the other hand, Trump’s attempt to get
Zelensky to meddle in a U. S. election clearly is an impeachable offence.
Nancy Pelosi was right that if we waited, Trump would
impeach himself. She could have added
that he might very well convict himself in the Senate as well.
35 comments:
I don't know why you continue to make predictions. You were so very wrong about Trump and Clinton. Why should anyone take you seriously after such a grotesque error?
What's more, I recall very well that a point in Clinton's favor was what you called her "intelligence". I saw little of that in her meetings with Trump, or in general. I saw posing, posturing, lack of argument. If you think Clinton is intelligent, I have to wonder whether you are using some specialized lexicon which might need to be replaced.
The fact that Trump has the legal power to do what he did in Syria does not mean that it can't be an impeachable offense. Abuse of power can be an impeachable offense--a "high crime," a crime that is "high" because only the President can commit it.
As I recall, you also said Kavanaugh was "intelligent". During his hearings the guy was just plain inarticulate and incapable of offering a cogent defense. I seem to recall that his vocabulary was full of cliche phrases, which is not a sign of intelligence, but the opposite. Maybe by "intelligent" you mean he got good grades in school.
Regarding Vietnam, you left out Eisenhower's funding of the French war and then initiating the takeover thereafter.
Well, I think you can be "intelligent" also in what you don't say when it is considered side-by-side with what you do say. I believe Hillary Clinton is very intelligent in what she both says and doesn't say.
Politics is perhaps like playing chess. You can be a careless player in chess just as you can be a careless player in politics. Predicting the consequences of what you do (or say) & then acting on such thoughts makes you a better player.
"Regarding Vietnam, you left out Eisenhower's funding of the French war and then initiating the takeover thereafter."
I like Ike. I think he did a good job of the 1950s and in building a nationwide interstate highway. But all of this time I thought it was Kennedy who messed things up by starting up America's involvement in the Vietnam War. It seems now Ike messed up twice militarily. First he didn't allow General Patton to circle around & cut off the retreating German forces before they counter-attacked in the Battle of the Bulge. And now you are telling me he caused the worse defeat for a overall war in U.S. history because he started the Vietnam War? I wonder how many baby-boomers don't know this?
to the current "Anonymous": amuse yourself by checking out "Intelligence" on Google, a subject clearly close to your heart. You will find various counts - three types; five; seven; eight; four theories... differing definitions of intelligence, all of which identify core strengths such as spatial, linguistic, logic intelligence and so forth. You might be surprised that they all include some form of interpersonal intelligence - some semblance, perhaps of emotional intelligence - at least a rudimentary capacity to deal with interpersonal relationships empathetically. By way of example, what exactly does one gain by commenting to a blogger "Why should anyone take you seriously after such a grotesque error?" when one could so easily NOT make such a comment? Imagine other ways of making your point.
@Michael Llenos
The Eisenhower administration did substantially fund the French war effort in Indochina (to the tune of 80 percent) -- Jerry F. is right on that point. The financial commitment to the French indeed went back to the Truman administration.
Eisenhower did not directly intervene militarily when the French were on the verge of defeat at Dien Bien Phu though some members of his admin, notably Dulles, wanted to (the details here are, as usual, somewhat complicated). Basically Eisenhower told Dulles he wasn't going to do it alone and the British (Churchill and Eden) made clear they wouldn't support an intervention. When Kennedy took office in Jan. 1961, the military footprint of the U.S. in Vietnam was still quite small and thus quite reversible had the Kennedy admin chosen to reverse it. It did not choose that path, of course. The really crucial escalation decisions though were made by LBJ in 1965.
There is no such thing, needless to say, as a purely objective history of the Vietnam War, or for that matter any other historical event, but certain facts are not in dispute, and if you want not a lot of interpretation but just a basic narrative outline (w an emphasis on the mil. history), try Larry Addington, America's War in Vietnam: A Short Narrative History (2000). I've read parts of it, it's ok as a quick ref (also has select bibliography). I'd also suggest, though I haven't read, Mark Atwood Lawrence, The Vietnam War: A Concise International History (2008).
Thanks for the heads up LFC. Although, I've read several books on the Vietnam War (starting in Highschool) and have watched a lot of war movies on the subject, they mostly have a pro-American side to them. For the Vietnamese take on it I only have two sources: Oliver Stone's movie Heaven and Earth, and Michael Lanning's Inside the VC and the NVA.
See also Lien-Hang T. Nguyen, Hanoi's War (Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2012). Scholarly work drawing on Vietnamese archives; not light reading, but probably good on the North Vietnamese and NLF perspectives.
On another topic, there was a brief mention on the news tonight of events in Santiago (Chile), which maybe s.w. will fill us in on when he gets a chance. ("Us" meaning people like me too pressed for time to read the news coverage for myself.)
I agree with Mr. Palmeter's points with one qualification. "The fact that Trump has the legal power to do what he did in Syria does not mean that it can't be an impeachable offense." Wm Barr's understanding of the law is that, precisely because his actions were clearly within his constitutional powers, Trump can't be impeached. The Theory of the Unitary Executive, the foundation of Barr's DoJ memo and claim that Trump can't be indicted for the obstruction of justice charges in the Mueller report, amounts to enshrining the president as a mini monarch whose actions in certain realms can not be challenged.
There seem to be three potential counts to the bill of impeachment arising from "Ukraine Gate." Using federal funds to create a situation where the president can extort a foreign official for his personal advantage is Count 1. Failing to take care that the law be faithfully executed could be Count 2. Impoundment, when the appropriation was was lawfully appropriated and approved for dispersal, probably breaks the law and could be abuse of power. Once approved, funds must be disbursed promptly, usually within a week. It will be impeachable if the defense appropriation was written in a way that precludes the president from exercising discretion. The 3rd High Crime or Misdemeanor will be willful disregard of laws prohibiting foreign help in to a campaign.
Another story that has yet to get much attention is the deliberate exclusion of Puerto Rico from emergency housing funds to which they were entitled.df
Regarding assigning blame or credit to Eisenhower in initiating US military involvement in Vietnam, LFC is correct when he says "Eisenhower did not directly intervene militarily when the French were on the verge of defeat at Dien Bien Phu though some members of his admin, notably Dulles, wanted to (the details here are, as usual, somewhat complicated)," but the story is a tad more interesting. Not only did Eisenhower not directly intervene militarily when the French were on the verge of defeat in Dien Bien Phu, he vetoed Nixon's advocacy of the use of nuclear weapons at that point (a position he took again while President). But Eisenhower did send 1,000 advisors (9 Americans did die in Vietnam on his watch), ignored the Geneva Accords, and advocated for US intervention during and after his term in office.
LFC,
I simplify.
About two weeks ago Santiago subway fare went up. The subway is the best way to get around Santiago, which is a very spread-out city. High school students began to protest by evading the fare in mass. The police repressed the protests very violently.
Last Friday the protests increased, people began to trash and burn subway stations, then to loot supermarkets and burn buses. President Piñera closed the subway system, declared a state of emergency, ordered the military to restore order and imposed a curfew.
In spite of these measures, the looting went on all weekend as did peaceful protests against the fare hikes and Piñera's measures. Piñera finally reverted the fare hike, but things continued.
Yesterday the subway was only partially working, most stores were closed and demonstrations continued as did some looting. It is important to distinguish between peaceful demonstrators and the looters. The demonstrations and looting have spread to other cities in Chile, cities with no subway system.
To make things worse, Piñera blamed the Communist Party and said that "we" are at war against the unruly masses.
It's hard to predict what will occur, but one thing is clear: Chile will no longer be seen as an "oasis" in Latin America (Piñera's phrase), that is, an orderly stable place which is great to invest in. As you can imagine, the Santiago stock market crashed yesterday.
Thanks,s.w.
LFC,
One more important point. According to polls, less than 10% of the population bothers to follow politics or to talk about politics with friends and family, so what looks like a huge leftwing movement is more like a gut reaction. The same people who scream "down with Piñera the fascist" could easily vote for a rightwing populist candidate in the next elections.
Christopher Mulvaney,
I don’t believe that DOJ’s view are directly relevant to impeachment. Impeachment is the sole prerogative of Congress. The House has “the sole power of impeachment.” The Senate shall of the “sole power to try all impeachments.”
Admittedly, we’re sailing on largely uncharted waters here; there have only been two impeachment trials. But I’m pretty sure that the consensus of legal opinion is that impeachment is strictly up to Congress. My understanding is that the term “high crimes” at Common law refers to crimes that only a “high” person, e.g., the Monarch or a government minister, can commit because of the powers of the office. Abuse of power is among them. For example, the President has the legal authority to issue pardons, but if he were to issue pardons for every single person presently in a Federal prison, that could be considered an abuse of the power and impeachable.
The analysis is quite flawed. That one is empowered to make a decision doesn't exempt one from accountability for the results of that decision as well as the underlying motivations that led to the decision. The implication that the only recourse is the next election is nowhere in the Constitution.
Likewise being able to point to prior unwise and worse decisions as precedent for the acceptance of the instant bad decision seems unwise (also we presently have no way of knowing how all this cashes out).
E.G. from Madison's Notes:
"Mr. Govr. MORRIS'S opinion had been changed by the arguments used in the discussion. He was now sensible of the necessity of impeachments, if the Executive was to continue for any time in office. Our Executive was not like a Magistrate having a life interest, much less like one having an hereditary interest in his office. He may be bribed by a greater interest to betray his trust; and no one would say that we ought to expose ourselves to the danger of seeing the first Magistrate in forign pay, without being able to guard agst. it by displacing him. One would think the King of England well secured agst. bribery. He has as it were a fee simple in the whole Kingdom. Yet Charles II was bribed by Louis XIV. The Executive ought therefore to be impeachable for treachery; Corrupting his electors, and incapacity were other causes of impeachment. For the latter he should be punished not as a man, but as an officer, and punished only by degradation from his office. This Magistrate is not the King but the prime-Minister. The people are the King. When we make him amenable to Justice however we should take care to provide some mode that will not make him dependent on the Legislature."
David Palmeter,
I am sorry I didn't make my concern clearer re: Barr and the Unitary Executive stuff. On the one hand, Barr may, and I expect he will, use that theory in a case he expects will end up in the Supreme Court. If the court adopts that theory, democracy is screwed. On the impeachment front, I have been wondering what rules McConnell will put in place for the Senate trial and how he might try to hamstring the prosecution.
Aside from how rules may affect the proceedings, I presume the defense can challenge the legitimacy/constitutionality of at least some of the probable indictments. For arguments sake, let's assume there is a count of obstructing justice during the Mueller investigation. I would then expect the defense team to object claiming the count was improper given that the President can't be indicted for lawfully exercising his lawful powers. They would claim that Trump's motives are irrelevant given that his actions were lawful, and that allowing "facially lawful" actions to be challenged in such a manner would "impermissibly burden" the exercise of core executive branch powers.
The question now becomes what will John Robert do in this situation. Were he to rule the obstruction count to be unconstitutional, all hell could break loose. A majority vote of the Senate can overrule any decision by Roberts, and if McConnell holds his troops in line the count would be dismissed. The the Republicans will argue that the impeachment effort is completely tainted. It was Barr's belief that the DOJ investigation was intended to "take down a democratically elected President," a view frequently expressed in various forms by Trump et.al. (DOJ Memo, p.3, 6/8/18)
It's good having a lawyer on the blog to reality check this political scientists' flights of fancy.
It is of course a bit weird that you can betray hundreds thousands of people leading to thousands of deaths and it not be an impeachable offence while if you pressure a foreign power to dig up dirt on a rival it is. But strange as it may be, that's the US constitution, and if Trump gets convicted or even impeached for the lesser crime, that's good enough for me.
Thanks for that account, S. Wallerstien -and what a depressing story. What did the store owners do to anyone? Even if they have insurance, that often doesn't make them whole. And how will burning the subway stations help? Rioting is so rarely helpful, and so often a self-indulgent net negative for everyone who comes into contact with it. It's always a risky proposition to take one's politics from punk rock songs, but I'm reminded of the refrain from a Dead Kennedys' song about riots - "Tomorrow you're homeless. Tonight it's a blast."
Matt,
A great line!
I guess the lesson of what's occurring in Chile, if any, is that if you educate a group of people badly, pay them badly, treat them as losers, teach them through the media that the only people who count are entrepreneurs, sports stars and celebrities (the winners), sooner or later they are going to explode and that explosion is not going to be either wise or virtuous or pretty.
Seconding Matt, here are the Lyrics to 'Riot' by the Dead Kennedys
Rioting, the unbeatable high
Adrenalin shoots your nerves to the sky
Everyone knows this town is gonna blow
And it's all
Gonna blow right now
Now you can smash all the windows that you want
All you really need are some friends and a rock
Throwing a brick never felt so damn good
Smash more glass
Scream with a laugh
And wallow with the crowds, watch them kicking peoples' ass
But you get to the place
Where the real slave-drivers live
It's walled off by the riot squad aiming guns right at your head
So you turn right around
And play right into their hands
And set your own neighborhood
Burning to the ground instead
Ah, ha-ha
Ah, ha-ha
Ah, ha-ha
Ah, ha-ha
Riot, the unbeatable high
Riot, shoots your nerves to the sky
Riot, playing right into their hands
Tomorrow you're homeless, tonight it's a blast
Get your kicks in quick
They're callin' the National Guard
Now could be your only chance to torch a police car
Climb the roof, kick the siren in and jump and yelp for joy
Quickly, dive back in the crowd, slip away, now don't get caught
Let's loot the spiffy hi-fi store, grab as much as you can hold
Pray your full arms don't fall off, here comes the owner with a gun
Ah, ha-ha
Ah, ha-ha
Ah, ha-ha
Ah, ha-ha
Riot, the unbeatable high
Riot, shoots your nerves to the sky
Riot, playing right into their hands
Tomorrow you're homeless, tonight it's a blast
Yee-ah!
Yee-ah!
Yee-ah!
Yee-ah!
Yee-ah!
Shit!
The barricades spring up from nowhere
Cops in helmets line the lines
Shotguns prod into your bellies
The trigger fingers want an excuse
Now!
The raging mob has lost its nerve
There's more of us but who goes first?
No one dares to cross the line
The cops know that they've won
It's all over but not quite, the pigs have just begun to fight
They club your heads, kick your teeth
Police can riot all that they please
Ah, ha-ha
Ah, ha-ha
Ah, ha-ha
Ah, ha-ha, yeah!
Riot, the unbeatable high
Riot, shoots your nerves to the sky
Riot, playing right into their hands
Tomorrow you're homeless, tonight it's a blast
Riot, the unbeatable high
Riot, shoots your nerves to the sky
Riot, playing right into their hands
Tomorrow you're homeless
Tonight it's a blast
Tomorrow you're homeless
Tonight it's a blast
Tomorrow you're homeless
Tonight it's a blast
Tomorrow you're homeless
Tonight it's a blast
Tomorrow you're homeless
Tonight it's a blast
Tomorrow you're homeless
Tonight it's a blast
Tomorrow you're homeless
Tonight it's a blast
Charles Pigden,
Thank you.
Could someone fill me in about who the Dead Kennedys are, what they represent in sociological and political terms, etc.?
Thanks for that S. Wallerstein. It's interesting and useful, if depressing. I hope you'll be safe.
As for the Dead Kennedys, they were a punk rock band from San Francisco in the early 80s (maybe even very late 70s, but only just barely if so.) Like a lot of such groups, they didn't really have what could be called a coherent politics, but were left anarchists as much as anything. The politics was pretty juvenile in many ways, but made a big, and probably most positive, impact on me when I was in Jr high and high school in Idaho. There, it seemed radical and exciting. They were one of the more well known and influential punk rock bands in the early to mid 80s. This particular song also actually helped introduce me to the idea of a collective action problem for the first time, with this little bit:
There's more of us but who goes first?
No one dares to cross the line
The cops know that they've won
Matt,
Thanks. The lines about the places where the real slave drivers live being protected ring all so true. I listened to the radio this morning about people lining up from 6AM to buy in the only supermarket which hasn't been trashed in one of the poorer suburbs, a supermarket which will open at 9AM, while in my neighborhood, middle-class not where the real slave drivers live either, I only waited on line for 15 minutes to get into the supermarket: they keep the door closed and only let in a limited number of customers at a time to avoid looting. In my neighborhood one of the three supermarkets has been trashed. I imagine that in the really chic neighborhoods all the supermarkets have had 24 hour police protection.
I also saw that a middle class, owner-operated, hotel was trashed and looted. They can't get near the fancy luxury hotels, so they destroy a small far from fancy hotel. The hotel guests had 5 or 10 minutes to flee. The owner tried to call police, but the police emergency line has collapsed from the number of calls.
You say that you're from Idaho. Where? I spent a summer in Boise in 1970 and taught English at Boise Community College.
The lead singer for the Dead Kennedys ran for mayor of SF against Diane Finstein when she ran the first time. (I think she was already acting mayor after the murder of George Moscone.) You can see a little clip from the news coverage here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJy_pT78fTU (you have to skip a bit at first.) Some of his thoughts on the police are not actually crazy, even if probably not completely right.
I mostly grew up in Boise,ID, except for a few years in Ventura CA when I was quite young, so Mid to late 70s though the mid 90s. I studied at Boise State, which I think is probably the successor of where you taught. My family still mostly lives in or right around Boise, so I go there from time to time, but haven't been there for a few years now, since moving to Australia.
I would have voted for him in 1979 if I had been in S.F. Jello was a great name in 1979.
Please give my regards to Boise the next time you visit. Boise was the first place out of the New York metropolitan area where I spent some time, and both Boise and I underwent a bit of cultural shock. Boise treated me better than I treated Boise, so in retrospect I owe Boise a debt of gratitude.
S. Wallerstein's report on the Chilean riots reminded me of El Caracazo (also called El Sacudón) of 1989 in Venezuela, which I personally witnessed, as I witnessed the following three to four years of constant political instability in Venezuela, including two bloody but ultimately unsuccesful coup attempts.
There are, of course, differences. The Chilean Sebastián Piñera represents a centre-right party; Carlos Andrés Pérez, his Venezuelan 1989 counterpart, was nominally centre-left (more precisely, social-democrat). Chileans elected Piñera knowing he was a neoliberal. Venezuelans elected Pérez expecting him to be a populist, just to discover after his election that he was an early prototype of Blairite/Clintonite neoliberal, before the term became fashionable; indeed, before Clinton and Blair. At the time, the fashionable descriptor was "Chicago boys", following in the steps of the original Chilean "Chicago boys".
But what really strikes me as different between Venezuela then and Chile now is that after three days of riots and looting, the Venezuelan government announced back then that 300 people (largely poor and dark-skinned) had been killed, mostly at the hands of police and military, although civilian thugs and criminals did contribute to that count(nobody really knows how many died, although International Amnesty figures, if memory serves, were between 1,200 and 2,000).
Popular uprisings are not a pretty sight, as Wallerstein rightly remarked. Our masters should remember the Bible: you reap what you saw.
The scum who threw Venezuela into chaos together with most of the Venezuelan middle classes left the place. The big policy makers and the wealthy now thrive in American and Spanish golden exile. Some even teach at Harvard. Some gained Spanish literature prizes. Their children run rich, well-funded international NGOs. Some, inspired by Ahmed Chalabi, do their best to instigate an American intervention to "liberate" Venezuela.
The largely white middle class, forced to abandon their meager privileges, now subsist in Miami, stewing in their racial hatred for those darkies who now "run" the place.
They all legitimately lambast today's Venezuelan regime for its brutality, incompetence, and corruption.
Less legitimately, they forgot their own brutality, incompetence, and corruption.
That country is cursed.
-- A Witness
sow, not saw
-- A Witness
Anonymous,
As you point out, the death toll in Chile is much lower than it was in Venezuela. The last time I checked there were around 20 deaths in the protests, hundreds of wounded often with shotgun pellets, countless cases of police brutality when arresting protesters and many cases of sexual abuse by police of women arrested in demonstrations.
It seems that Chilean police and military are not shooting to kill, but to wound.
I would guess that sooner or later a far rightwing discourse will appear accusing Piñera of having been weak and spineless in dealing with the protests and thus, facilitating looting and arson because he did not order the police and military to shoot to kill. The same discourse will extol Pinochet, who did order police and military to shoot to kill during protest demonstrations and thus, maintained "ORDER".
Here as in Venezuela it's the poor and the dark-skinned (more or less synonymous in Chile although not completely synonymous) who riot, die or are maimed by police bullets or shotgun pellets.
S. Wallerstein - thanks for your thoughts on Boise. I often tell people that (especially these days) it's a very nice city if you're into outdoor sports. Otherwise, there are a lot of nicer places. The traffic has gotten a lot worse, but it's no longer a culinary wasteland, as it once was.
On more important matters, I thought you might find this (from the economist Branko Milanovik) of interest, and relevant to events in Chile:
*************************************************************************************
Branko Milanovic
@BrankoMilan
In the new 2013/4 global income distribution data (just completed):
the bottom 5% in Chile are at the same income level as the bottom 5% in Mongolia and Moldova;
meanwhile, the top 2% in Chile (probably underestimated) have the same income as the top 2% in Germany.
***********************************************************************************
(Moldova is generally said to be the poorest country in Europe, by far. Like Chile, it does produce reasonably good, fairly inexpensive wine. One of my favorite bands is from there, and I used to drink a fair amount of Moldovan wine, so I am sympathetic to the place, though I have never been there. As for Chile, it's apparently a top place for whitewater kayaking, and several of my friends have been there for that reason. I'd love to visit at some point, but am not sure when I'll be able to, if ever.)
Matt,
Besides glaring income and wealth inequality, the most obvious social fact about Chile is the cultural difference between the elite and the mass. The elite goes to a certain number of private schools, studies in certain universities, lives in "good" neighborhoods, totally segregated from the rest of Chile. You notice the class difference upon arrival here: it's clear in the way people talk, how they walk, their general body language, etc.
No one crosses the line because if you come from the, say, 95%, you're marked for life. You can get a PhD from Harvard, but they'll still deny you the best jobs in their banks and media. Similarly, a member of the elite who does badly economically will hang up to his or her elite status, come what may. Most members of the elite have light-colored skin, but there are members of the mass with light colored skin too.
I believe that the violent backlash of the elite and ensuing coup during the Allende government was due not only to losing their economic privileges, but also to their freaking out because the masses were going to be their equals and even their bosses.
Santiago is totally segregated in class terms, and people from the elite just don't associate with people from the mass, except as their employees, maids, gardeners,
etc.
If you ever come to Chile, please look me up. I know nothing about kayaking or other sports, but my partner (the daughter of a man disappeared by the Pinochet dictatorship)
and I specialize in tours of sites involved in human rights violations during the Pinochet years.
error:
I wrote "hung up to his or her elite status" when I meant "hang on to".
Post a Comment