. . . because much of the content relates both to Washington, D.C., and "outside the beltway" -- the heartland, specifically Iowa -- and because after going from Iowa to Washington via Texas and California I subsequently returned, From DC 2 Iowa.
There is so much nonsense spouted about impeachment these days, whether deliberate obfuscation or unknowingly, that you might find these items useful. (The most basic sources, from the Constitution, are Article II, Section 4 (impeachment power), Art. I, Sec. 2, Clause 5 (possessed by the House), Art. I, Sec. 3, Cl. 6 (trial in Senate). You are spared additional footnotes, though specific citations can be provided if desired.)
This material is hoped, intended and believed to be accurate, but does not purport to be, and is not, either a "legal opinion" or "scholarship."
The Obligation to Impeach. Every president, House and Senate member, and federal judge has sworn to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution requires each branch (legislative, executive and judicial) to maintain the balance of power among the three branches and prevent constitutional violations by the other two.
Thus, it can be argued the House has a constitutional obligation to begin an impeachment inquiry when there is reason to believe a president may have said or done things that precedent suggests constitute “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
The Congress has no more constitutional right to evade this responsibility, to fail to exercise this specifically granted power, than it has a right to fail to exercise its power to take the census every ten years. It certainly cannot refuse to start an impeachment inquiry because it might be politically harmful to the majority party in the House, or because the president may fail to win reelection. Nor can it fail to impeach because the Senate is unlikely to convict, any more than a grand jury can fail to indict because of the possibility the trial jury may be biased in favor of the accused.
Why? Because there are more reasons for the impeachment power than the potential removal of a specific president. Impeachment is designed to maintain for the future both (1) the standards of presidential conduct required by the founders and (2) exercise of the checks and balances the Constitution compels between the Legislative and Executive branches.
Impeachment Standard Not “Illegality.” President Trump’s defenders have altered their arguments as facts evolved – from, in effect, “he didn’t do it,” to “he may have done it, but he did nothing wrong,” to “he may have exercised bad judgment and done something wrong, but he did nothing illegal,” to “it can’t have been illegal because there was no quid-pro-quo,” to “even if it was illegal, and there was a quid-pro-quo, it is not an impeachable offense.”
As “Late Night” host Seth Meyers would say, “It’s time for a closer look.”
The founders modeled their constitutional standard for impeachment on British practice, which had its origins in 1341. Articles of impeachment in Great Britain included such things as “arbitrary and tyrannical government,” “procuring offices for persons who were unfit, and unworthy of them,” “squandering away the public treasure,” “improprieties in office,” “gross maladministration,” “corruption in office,” “neglect of duty,” excessive drinking and cursing that created “the highest scandal . . . on the kingdom.”
The British practice was to treat impeachment as a remedy separate from the process and standards of the criminal law and to include conduct not expressly recognized as “illegal.”
Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution’s language is influenced, but not bound, by British history. But American history is almost identical. The writings of Constitutional Convention members Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson, and James Madison indicate they believed impeachment did not require criminal offences. Nothing in the records of the states’ ratification of the Constitution indicate they believed impeachment was limited to criminal offenses. Of the first 13 impeachments by the House since 1789 (mostly of judges), at least 10 included charges that did not involve criminal law. Finally, Congress has never attempted to define “impeachment” in Title 18 of the U.S. Code (criminal code).
So far, three U.S. presidents have been impeached (Presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton) and a fourth (President Trump) is undergoing an impeachment inquiry. None, so far, has been removed from office following the Senate trial. (President Johnson was saved by one vote; President Nixon resigned before his seemingly inevitable formal impeachment.)
Each presidential impeachment has involved some article dealing with other than criminal illegality.
As discussed in ”Trump’s High Crimes and Misdemeansors,” October 31, 2019, President Andrew Johnson’s tenth article of impeachment charged “That the President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his high office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained between the executive and legislative branches of the Government of the United States . . . [did] make and declare, with a loud voice, certain intemperate, inflammatory and scandalous harangues, and therein utter loud threats and bitter menaces . . . amid the cries, jeers and laughter of the multitudes then assembled . . ..”
The first of the Articles of Impeachment regarding President Nixon included: “[Nixon] has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice . . .. [He has] engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry [into Democratic National Committee headquarters]; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities. “ (This is followed by nine examples.)
Article II, par. 5, alleged that “he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation . . . and the Central Intelligence Agency.” Article III charged that he “has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives . . ..”
President Bill Clinton’s third article of impeachment included, after citing 7 specific items, “In all of this, [Clinton] has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, [and] has betrayed his trust as President . . ..”
Taken together, the evidence is overwhelming that the validity of an article of impeachment does not turn on whether a "law" has been violated. Thus, even if it were true, as some Trump defenders contend, that "he has done nothing illegal" it does not follow that, therefore, he cannot and should not be impeached.
But wait, even if one insists that a violation of law is a requirement for impeachment . . .
Trump Has Violated the Law. Although unnecessary for impeachment, for a response to those who argue “he did nothing illegal” or “there was no quid-pro-quo” it seems clear he did violate the law, and that the law he violated does not require proof of a “quid-pro-quo.”
The law involved is contained in Section 30121 of Title 52, United States Code (“Voting and Elections”).
The relevant words are, “It shall be unlawful for . . . a person to solicit . . . or receive . . . from a foreign national ["a . . . thing of value . . . in connection with a Federal . . . election"].
(The primary subsection is Sec. 30121(a)(2). The [bracketed] words are from subsection 30121(a)(1)(A) because Sec. 30121(a)(2) defines what cannot be received as that which was "described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1).")
Thing of Value. Given the quantity of confirming testimony regarding the range of ways that Trump displayed his desire to obtain dirt on former Vice President, and candidate for president, Joe Biden, there can be no doubt he considered such information “a thing of value in connection with a Federal election.”
Solicitation. Notes from Trump’s conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky included Trump’s now-infamous line, “I would like to ask you to do us a favor, though.” It turns out there was more than one “favor” requested, but one is enough to clearly establish “solicitation.”
Quid-Pro-Quo. Note that the law does not require a quid-pro-quo. So even if there had been no quid-pro-quo that would have been irrelevant to whether Sec. 30121 had been violated. Clearly, it would not have been a defense. But for whatever relevance it may have, it seems to have clearly been the impression of many of those who have testified before Congress that a quid-pro-quo was understood by both presidents.
Without exploring yet another possible crime, the existence of a quid-pro-quo, while irrelevant to Section 30121, may be very relevant to a charge of bribery.
[A] man is not independent, and cannot afford views which might interfere with his bread and butter.
-- Mark Twain, "Corn-pone Opinions," (1901)
Update on polls: They vary, both over time and between pollsters. The only one that really matters, because it is definitive, is the one that counts voters' ballots on November 8, 2016. Meanwhile, here is what The New York Times "National Polling Average" reported on July 30, 2016: Hillary Clinton 42.6%, Donald Trump 42.1% -- in other words, a toss-up. Of the 5 polls averaged, among the 3 putting Clinton ahead they range from 43-42% to 40-35%; the two favoring Trump are 48-45% and 44-40%. Results for 11 swing states show Clinton leading in 9, by 0.2% (Ohio) and 1.3% (Florida) to 4.5% (Virginia) and 7.0% (Wisconsin). Trump leads in Georgia by 3.3% and Missouri by 8.2%. "2016 Election Polls; National Polling Average,"New York Times, July 30, 2016.
Today [Monday, July 25, 2016] before watching any of the Democratic National Convention, or reading any of the news reports coming from Philadelphia, I'm going to write about some of the reasons for my discouragement. Later this week, once the Convention is concluded, I plan to write on the same subject once again to see what impact the Convention has had on my thinking.
"Why Trump May Win," July 25, 2016.
Now that the Convention is over, here are my thoughts.
The Convention
The Convention got off to a bit of a bumpy start. Senator Sanders' "Revolution" had been mollified earlier, somewhat, with a party platform incorporating most of Sanders' proposals. But the DNC's and party establishment's disdain remained, and was confirmed with the revelation of DNC emails confirming what Sanders had complained of from the beginning (e.g., the number and scheduling of debates to favor Secretary Clinton, joint fundraising by the DNC and Clinton campaign, and emailed discussions of how best to set back the efforts of Sanders' followers). See, Aaron Blake, "Here Are the Latest, Most Damaging Things in the DNC's Leaked Emails,"Washington Post, July 25, 2016.
Monday morning DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was booed so loudly by her own Florida delegation that, in an effort to minimize the booing in the full Convention hall, it was decided to relieve her of the normal DNC Chair role of opening and closing the Convention. Nonetheless, the Sanders' backers continued with booing every time Clinton's name was mentioned by a speaker.
Tuesday through Thursday, with Sanders' appeals to his followers, and full-throated support for the election of Secretary Clinton, the booing subsided somewhat and a rumored walk out Thursday evening did not occur -- although Sanders' flip left many of his followers with a sense of betrayal, and some in tears.
If you haven't read her speech text I urge you to do so. "Hillary Clinton's DNC speech: Full Text," CNN Politics, updated July 29, 2016, 1:14 a.m. ET (with 59:22 video). Frankly, I liked it -- from the perspective of what she needed to say, and wanted to say, and did say.
No speech can erase her ties to Wall Street billionaires and refusal to share with us the texts of what she told them in $650,000 speeches, or her support of costly, unnecessary wars of choice that have diminished, rather than enhanced, our national security, or whatever else has produced negative opinions of her that are the second highest of all those who have ever been presidential candidates. (Trump's are the highest negatives.) But in the speech she embraced the Sanders' Revolution. ("Your cause is our cause. Our country needs your ideas, energy, and passion. That's the only way we can turn our progressive platform into real change for America. We wrote it together -- now let's go out there and make it happen together.") She provided a State-of-the-Union-style list of what she wanted to do as president, along with how she intended to pay for it. She made an effort to accommodate her advisers' urging that she try to make herself more human (with references to Chelsea and Bill Clinton, her mother and grandmother). I could go on with all the other bases she touched on her way to bringing it home. But you can come to your own judgment about that.
Only time, and continuous polling, will tell what impact it had.
As for general impressions of the Convention, I thought it was professionally well produced and for the most part smoothly executed -- a real contrast with the Republican Convention and Trump performances the prior week.
The Morning After
Because this morning [Friday, July 29, 2016], as I stretched, wiped the sleep seeds out of my eyes, and ground the coffee beans, I realized that we are now, at best, back where we were on Monday morning, July 18 -- before the Republican Convention.
She came into the Democratic Party Convention well behind Trump in the polls, nationally and in the states she must carry: Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, among others. Trump's performances in Iowa Thursday [July 28] afternoon and evening stole some of the media attention and poll bounce she otherwise would have received. He was back to calling her "Crooked Hillary." And Secretary Clinton had done herself, and the Democratic Party, no favors by going out of her way to honor the disgraced, and overtly anti-Sanders, former DNC Chair with the title of Honorary Chair of her campaign! At a minimum, this does nothing to refute the suspicion that she was complicit with Schultz's efforts to turn the DNC's resources to helping Clinton and defeating Sanders.
Her selection of Senator Tim Kaine as her vice president -- for all his virtues in that role for her -- only added to the disappointment among members of what the late Senator Paul Wellstone used to call "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" that the Party establishment was offering them just the same-old, same-old.
How the Democratic Party of 2016 Has Become the Republican Party of the 1940s and '50s
Yet Senator Kaine, perhaps inadvertently but clearly ill-advisedly, provided one of the most revealing assessments of his party during his acceptance speech when he said:
"Any party that would nominate Donald Trump for president has moved too far away from [the Republican] party of Lincoln. And I’ll tell you [disaffected Republicans], if any of you are looking for that party of Lincoln, we have got a home for you right here in the Democratic Party."
As I and others have earlier observed, the Democratic Party today (as distinguished from, say, the Democratic Party of Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, or Lyndon Johnson) most closely resembles the Republican Party of Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, George H.W. Bush, and presidential candidate Nelson Rockefeller.
Alabama Governor George Wallace used to say, "There's not a dime's worth of difference" between the Democratic and Republican parties. That's not true. One has to evaluate the differences issue by issue. Then there is a dime's worth of difference, especially with regard to some social issues (e.g., abortion and gay marriage). But when it comes to capitulation to the demands of Wall Street, Big Pharma, Big Oil, large corporations, major donors generally, the NRA and other special interests, it is very difficult to make the case that those earning less that the median income (say, $50,000 a year) are better off with Democrats than Republicans.
Indeed, one of the most shameful and revealing bits of information in the DNC emails were the workings of the DNC in their relationships with major donors -- the provision of special perks and benefits, up to and including government jobs. Nicholas Confessore and Steve Eder, "In Hacked D.N.C. Emails, a Glimpse of How Big Money Works,"New York Times, July 25, 2016, and Aaron Blake, "Here Are the Latest, Most Damaging Things in the DNC's Leaked Emails,"Washington Post, July 25, 2016 (see "10) Flippant Chatter About Donors"). For an independent, professional, detailed and coherent report of a single event to explain this horrifying process, see Nicholas Confessore and Amy Chozick, "After Lying Low, Deep-Pocketed Clinton Donors Return to the Fore,"New York Times, July 29, 2016, p. A1 (e.g., "While protesters marched in the streets and blocked traffic, Democratic donors congregated in a few reserved hotels and shuttled between private receptions with A-list elected officials. If the talk onstage at the Wells Fargo Center was about reducing inequality and breaking down barriers, Center City Philadelphia evoked the world as it still often is: a stratified society with privilege and access determined by wealth. . . . 'It’s business as usual,' said Libby Watson, who monitored lobbying events in Philadelphia on behalf of the Sunlight Foundation, a group devoted to government transparency.")
If one needs more illustration of the inequality created, and then ignored, by both major parties, one need look no further than the contrast between the Convention delegates' $600-a-night rooms (arranged by the DNC) with the 650-a-night homeless sleeping on the streets of Philadelphia while delegates ate, slept, partied, and met in comfort. ("[T]here are more than 500,000 homeless people in the United States. Out of all of them, 31 percent are living on the streets . . .. Philadelphia alone has more than 13,000 homeless people, both living on the streets and involved in programs and shelters. Approximately 650 homeless individuals sleep on the streets of Philadelphia on any given night." "South Philadelphia: Homeless People Are Struggling To Survive In The City," Philadelphia Neighborhoods, July 15, 2015.) Who spoke for them, let alone did anything?
Bluntly put, the Democratic Party has lost its soul, where access to power is gladly exchanged for access to money, and elected officials (not to mention DNC staff) spend up to half of every working day "dialing for dollars" rather than legislating.
Why The DNC Still Just Doesn't Get It
The afternoon of September 7, 2015, former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley stopped by the Iowa City Federation of Labor's Annual Labor Day Picnic, held in the usual City Park Shelter #3. There were then five Democratic candidates in the race in addition to O'Malley: Lincoln Chafee, Hillary Clinton, Larry Lessig, Bernie Sanders, and Jim Webb. During my visit with Governor O'Malley he asked me who I was supporting. I explained that I was solidly behind Bernie Sanders, but that he, O'Malley, was my second choice. Given the field of competitors, rather than expressing disappointment he indicated that he was quite delighted to be my second choice.
And why was he my second choice? Because from among the conventional candidates he scored highest on my checklist: range of experience, accomplishments, values, and political/social skills; that is, both elect-ability and capacity to function as president. As it turned out, few primary and caucus-going Democrats seemed to share my assessment.
So why am I writing about Martin O'Malley in a race that narrowed to Clinton and Sanders and stayed on track at the Democratic National Convention to select Hillary Clinton?
Because I need an example of what I mean by a "conventional candidate" to explain the three examples of why it is I think "the DNC still just doesn't get it."
The DNC (and Party establishment) has failed to recognize and embrace what Sanders was offering them. And I don't mean his candidacy. They could be thankful for his gifts to them and still decide that, for whatever reasons, they believed someone else would make a better candidate. (Although given that most of the polls indicated he would run stronger against Trump than Clinton, elect-ability could not have been among the reasons.)
Why was what Sanders was offering of value to the Party?
Americans are increasingly unwilling to give their unwavering, lifetime loyalty and trust to major institutions, whether government, corporations (as employers or suppliers), or traditional organized religions.
Not surprisingly, they are also falling away from political party identification, which Gallup reports is now at all-time lows. Nearly a half of all voters (42%) now identify as "independents;" only 29% are still Democrats, and 26% say they are Republicans.
There are many ways to increase party identification and membership, but the long-term most efficient may be to focus on (1) the young (Robert Kennedy used to "campaign" among high school students too young to vote) and (2) that 42% who are independent. Senator Sanders was dramatically successful with both groups.
He walked away with the youth vote. "In the Democratic primaries and caucuses overall, Mr Sanders won 70% of the under-30 vote . . .." "Young v Old Votes for Bernie and Hillary in the 2016 Primaries,"The Economist, April 27, 2016.
And Nate Silver 538 has explained Sanders' attraction to independents:
Sanders does much better among independents than among Democrats. In New Hampshire, for instance, Sanders won Democrats by 4 percentage points while winning independents by nearly 50 percentage points, a split we’ve seen repeatedly since then. Some of Sanders’s strongest performances in primaries have come in places such as New Hampshire, Michigan and Wisconsin, states whose rules allow independents to vote in either primary. In fact, to date Sanders has compiled an unexpected record, performing very well in caucuses but having won just a single closed primary (Oklahoma’s). So why is Sanders doing so well among independents? It appears to be driven not by their ideology so much as their dislike of partisan politics.
The number one political concern for overwhelming majorities of Americans is the corrupting influence of money. Even 80% of Republicans oppose the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court opinion. A New York Times/CBS poll revealed that 85% of Americans believe we need fundamental changes to our campaign finance system. Another found 72% preferred small-donor financing of campaigns as a solution. A Des Moines Register poll of Iowa's caucus-goers revealed that 91% of Republicans and 94% of Democrats were somewhere between "unsatisfied" and "mad as hell" about money in politics. Jeff Robinson, "There's Nothing Naive About Wanting To Change Our Broken System,"Every Voice, January 20, 2016.
Needless to say, campaign finance is the elephant in the political living room when it comes to building party membership and winning elections -- even for those benefiting from the system who see no ethical or moral problems with a democracy choosing legislation based on the size of campaign contributions.
Indeed, as mentioned above, one of the most embarrassing revelations to come from the 20,000 DNC emails revealed by Wikileaks has to do with what they explain about how the DNC trades benefits, and even government jobs, for the biggest political contributions.
When challenged, most professional politicians come back with resigned explanations regarding the costs of electioneering, and how PACs and large donations from corporations and the top 1/10 of 1% are really just the only way they can pay for the process.
Well, Bernie Sanders has just shown them how he could run a very successful and well-funded campaign with roughly 8 million donors contributing an average of $27 to what became a $200 million campaign.
Trump may be despicable, but he has figured it out. So had Bernie Sanders. The DNC has not.
Americans are angry; only 24% believe the country is headed in the right direction. "Right Direction or Wrong Track; 24% Say U.S. Heading in Right Direction," Rasmussen Reports, July 25, 2016. Over 90% want a change in campaign finance. Young people are less interested in committing themselves to traditional, 20th Century political parties. The fastest growing American "political party" are independents.
Senator Sanders offered the DNC an example of how to cure their woes -- how to generate enthusiasm instead of disdain, how to appeal to the new, young voters and independents, and how to eliminate the crippling burden of multi-million-dollar fundraising from the wealthy. Like Swiss watchmakers ignoring the growing market for digital watches, or Kodak rejecting the opportunity to develop videotape and the Xerox process, the DNC turned its back on what Sanders was not only advocating, but demonstrating by example was possible.
Not only did the DNC ignore him, worse still it actively opposed his efforts. It bulled ahead with its 20th Century notion that the Democratic Party could win a national election all by itself, using nothing but what we called in Texas "yellow dog Democrats" (those who would vote a straight ticket for Democrats even if a candidate was a yellow dog). It assumed it could once more ignore the overwhelming public opposition to the way it finances its operations. It got behind a quintessentially establishment presidential candidate (and then vice president) who would enhance, rather than suppress, its ability to raise money. And it did everything in its power to prevent Sanders' success.
Why Sanders is Not Just a Candidate, and His Followers Are Not Just Campaign Supporters
All of which brings me back to Governor Martin O'Malley and Senator Bernie Sanders.
If you've noticed, as far as I know there has not been a peep out of Governor O'Malley, or any of his supporters, objecting to the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. By contrast, although most of the Sanders supporters say that if they are in a toss-up state they will hold their nose and vote for Clinton (though they are unlikely to contribute money or work in the campaign), they also say that if they are in a state that is overwhelmingly either pro-Trump or Clinton they will stay home, or vote Green or Libertarian.
Why are the Sanders supporters so upset? What's the difference between them and the O'Malley supporters?
Conventional political campaigns are kind of like a game. Indeed, the media is sometimes criticized for treating them like "a horse race" -- poll results, money raised, and crowd size. That doesn't mean they aren't hard fought, or that there aren't often bruised feelings that take a long time to heal. But the attitude among what we call "political people" is kind of like what I imagine the attitude among professional football players must be.
Pro football is rough and tumble. Games are hard fought. There are lots of injuries, and an occasional death, or lifetime consequences from too many concussions. At the end of a game there is a winner and a loser -- with financial rewards for the winner. But there are rules, and there will be another game next week, or next season. Players are traded from team to team. There is a kind of camaraderie among players, given their similar backgrounds, experiences and lives.
Politics is kind of like that. Going in, the candidates, staff and consultants know there will be winners and losers. There's a rough sense of the rules, and how the game will be played, and admiration for one's more skilled adversaries -- with whom one may work in the future. There is an understanding and acceptance of the role of big money in politics (as they say, "money is the mother's milk of politics"). No matter who wins they will probably have more in common with their opponent than differences -- like football players, due to their similar backgrounds, experiences and lives. Even if the election is stolen, there's a certain admiration for someone who can "steal it fair and square." It's a game played out within a closed system. You live to run another day.
Bernie Sanders "campaign" was not like that at all. He was, after all, not even a member of the Democratic Party (although he became one for purposes of the primaries). He was a Democratic Socialist. He had virtually no national name identification. He had virtually no money. He had no powerful, or wealthy, political friends, fans, or armies of followers. He did not agree with the golden rule of politics that "those who have the gold make the rules." He was, in every sense, an outsider, one of the least likely persons to be thought a serious presidential candidate. No, Bernie Sanders did not have a "campaign" to get himself nominated (though it had that appearance). He had a "revolution" in nearly every sense, and acknowledged it as much. (His continuing efforts now bear the name, "Our Revolution.")
He did not think campaigns should benefit, or be paid for by, the wealthy (later paid back on their "investment"). He thought they should include all demographic groups, including former non-voters, not just the older, regular voters. He believed that governments' primary responsibilities were to those without a voice, rather than those with the megaphones of modern media.
When Bernie Sanders did not win the nomination, when he was rebuffed and actively opposed by the DNC, it had almost no similarity to the significance of Governor O'Malley not getting the nomination. It was the defeat of a political revolution, the rebuff of an effort to democratize both the process and the public benefits that would flow from such changes. The closer analogy would be if those wishing to break from England in 1776 lost a vote, and those opposing the separation then asked them to please join in supporting their candidate for the Virginia House of Burgesses.
When Clinton seeks the support of Sanders' supporters (as distinguished from O'Malley supporters) she is not just asking them to switch from the candidate who lost to the candidate who won. It is as if Bill Maher was appealing to devout Catholics to abandon their faith and join in his campaign for president of an atheist organization. She is asking them to abandon their beliefs, their motives, what brought them into politics in the first place; she is asking them to suddenly switch from opposition to everything they hate about the present Democratic Party, and her, and work to perpetuate it.
Things Worth Losing an Election For
Then-Senator Joe Biden once told me, "Nick, there are some things worth losing an election for."
I don't know if he still believes that. I'd like to think he does. But if so, it would put him in a very small minority amongst today's professional politicians. Well over 90% of those in the U.S. House now have things so rigged that if they want to be reelected they will be. And they want to be reelected. There is, in the minds of many of them, no thing worth losing an election for. Like football coaches of old proclaimed, "winning is not the most important thing, winning is the only thing." Some are neither show horses nor work horses. They're not even sleeping in the barn. They spend their days raising money, and then paying back the donors at ratios of 1000-to-one to 2000-to-one. See, Nicholas Johnson, "Campaigns: You Pay $4 or $4000,"Des Moines Register, July 21, 1996. For what? To keep their job. Because, they believe, "there's nothing worth losing an election for."
As I started this blog entry, it turns out that Mark Twain was right over 100 years ago when he observed, "[A] man is not independent, and cannot afford views which might interfere with his bread and butter."
For a politician long praised for his political smarts, it was a striking error of judgment on [Bill] Clinton’s part to walk to [Attorney General Loretta] Lynch’s plane for any kind of conversation. It was a similarly huge lapse on the part of the attorney general, who was appointed by Clinton as a U.S. attorney in 1999, to allow him to come aboard for any kind of conversation.
NOTE, July 5, 2016, 1:00 p.m.: Since writing this blog essay, the FBI released its report regarding possible criminal violations by Hillary Clinton regarding her use of a private email server. What follows in this section is a link to the New York Times story about FBI Director James Comey's news conference, and a link to a transcript of his remarks on that occasion. They are followed by what I believe to be the most significant portions of that transcript. (For anyone interested in the case, the full transcript is very much worth reading.) Finally, I add some comments of my own. While this information is of sufficient significance to be noted here, none of it affects the analysis in the earlier blog essay regarding the meeting between Bill Clinton and Attorney General Lynch -- with the possible exception of the timing of Director Comey's statement (about which I comment).
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
. . .
She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.
. . .
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
My thoughts. (1) If the only possible prosecution was under the statute requiring proof of "intention," then I think Director Comey's announced decision not to prosecute is, if not inevitable, at least reasonable lawyering by a prosecutor for the reasons he cites (quoted above). But if there are statutes making it a criminal offense to be "extremely careless" when handling top secret documents (without the need to prove "intention" to risk disclosure), or if "any reasonable person person . . . should have known that an unclassified system was no place for" classified documents or email conversations -- both of which Director Comey charged as having occurred -- then more explanation is called for as to why those criminal statutes were not used.
(2) Timing. (a) Media. As I write this, the evening news programs have not yet aired. By Comey's releasing this statement today [July 5] rather than tomorrow the story will have to compete with news coverage of the joint Obama-Clinton campaigning in North Carolina today, thus weakening the FBI's decision's adverse impact on Clinton (as well as Trump-camp criticisms of both Comey's decision and Clinton's use of private email servers). (b) Speed. The past Saturday, Sunday, and Monday were holidays for millions of Americans -- including some journalists -- an ideal time to kill, or reduce the impact, of stories one would rather censor. Maybe Comey had already written his statement by mid-week of last week, predicting how the Saturday morning questioning of Hillary was likely to go. But no matter how one counts the time, going from a Saturday morning questioning session to a Tuesday morning statement, regarding a year-long investigation involving tens of thousands of documents, is more than fast-track service for any government agency. I take the Director at his word that no one from the White House or Justice Department interfered with the investigation's outcome. But that does not necessarily exclude suggestions as to when a decision would be preferred.
(3) CNN has created a two-minute video with clips contrasting Hillary's statements with the FBI's findings revealed by Director Comey. Gregory Krieg, "FBI Boss Comey's 7 Most Damning Lines on Clinton," CNN Politics, July 5, 2016, 1805 ET. Look at the top of the page, immediately below the big video screen, for the small picture from the video titled "Watch the FBI Refute Clinton Email Claims" (it has no separate, unique URL) which runs 2:03
(4) Criminal statutes. The following is not legal advice, is not the product of thorough research, and is not intended to suggest that Hillary Clinton violated any of these laws -- none of which seems to precisely cover the facts in her case (some deal with theft of government property that includes documents, others the deliberate doing of harm to the United States, or removing documents with no intention of returning them). But together they give some sense of what federal criminal statutes provide (as found in Title 18 of the United States Code) that might be thought to be in some way related. For what I believe does represent solid legal research and analysis (whether or not other lawyers will agree with it) -- from last January no less -- see Dan Abrams, "Trump is Wrong, Hillary Clinton Shouldn’t Be Charged Based on What We Know Now," LawNewz, January 29, 2016, republished, March 2, 2016 (continued with a link at the bottom of Abrams’ editorial).
18 USC 793
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, . . . note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody . . ., or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody . . . , and fails to make prompt report of such loss . . . — Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
18 USC 1924
(a) Whoever, . . . by virtue of his office . . . becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. . . .
(c) [T]he term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.
18 USC 2071(b)
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully . . . removes . . . or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any . . . document . . . filed or deposited . . . in any public office . . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, . . . document, paper, . . . unlawfully . . . removes . . . the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.
18 USC 641
Whoever . . . knowingly converts to his use or the use of another . . . any record . . . of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, . . . Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years . . ..
[The original blog essay begins here.] The FBI has been investigating whether Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, did anything illegal by establishing a private server for her official and private email -- thereby subjecting top secret and other classified government documents to greater risk of hacking or other disclosure.
She was subjected to three and a half hours of questioning by the FBI on Saturday, July 2.
Normally, it would befit media savvy, sophisticated political campaign managers to choose that date (the beginning of a three-day July 4th holiday weekend), and to control her movements as they did (they avoided any still or video pictures of her leaving home, entering or leaving the FBI offices). They thereby insured there would be the least possible media coverage that day, and that stories about FBI questioning of their candidate will have faded by July 5th -- further guaranteed by arranging for President Obama to campaign alongside her on the 5th. In this case, however, Hillary is haunted -- as she and her managers have acknowledged -- by a majority public perception (that may be both untrue and unfair) that she lies, is secretive and untrustworthy. When the FBI investigation is focused on one of the reasons for that public perception -- her home-based personal email server while Secretary of State -- her managers' minimizing public knowledge regarding the FBI's questioning might not have been the wisest choice.
But those issues I leave to others. This blog essay is not about how she handled her emails, her experience and qualifications for the presidency, or the desirability of her holding that office. It is how events of last week were perceived and covered by the media, Washington insiders, and the rest of us.
Dan Balz is one of Washington's most experienced and ablest political reporters. His take on the Clinton-Lynch meeting, in the excerpt quoted above, was the take of most reporters and Washington insiders -- for them to meet at that time was "a striking error of judgment," and a "huge lapse" (for reasons explored below).
Is that a possible explanation? Maybe. As we say, "anything's possible." The most likely explanation? I don't think so.
I have no inside knowledge of the events and conversations preceding and during the Clinton-Lynch visit, involving them and others. How could I have? But there are certainly more possibilities than those being offered by the parties, their apologists, and the media.
Clinton and Lynch are both lawyers; she is the nation's (or at least the government's) top lawyer. Both are fully seeped in the professional requirements of legal ethics (a major subject of their annual, mandatory Continuing Legal Education courses). They had to have been aware of the impropriety of a private meeting between an interested party (Bill Clinton, Hillary's husband) and the ultimate decider during this investigation of Hillary Clinton. If this were already a contested judicial or administrative agency proceeding the meeting would have constituted what is called an ex parte contact with a judge -- an occasion at which both parties are required to be present -- that could result in disbarment of the offending lawyer.
Both are politically savvy. President Clinton has made his share of bad decisions during his career as a politician, but most have been personal rather than political -- and no one is suggesting this one was in the former category. Indeed, he is probably one of the most well informed, experienced, sophisticated and successful politicians of our time. Lynch is politically experienced as well -- a Harvard law graduate who practiced law with two of the nation's prestigious law firms, as a prosecutor going after Democratic and Republican office holders alike, and successfully maneuvering through her Senate hearing.
What were the motives behind the Clinton-Lynch encounter? There is no explanation that I find persuasive. But the one I find least persuasive is the possibility that the two of them were totally oblivious to the legal, professional, political, media, and other consequences of their getting together for a chat about golf and grandchildren at this time, in this way, in this place.
Here are some other possibilities.
(1) They did talk about the merits and disposition of the Hillary investigation. Of all the possibilities, this is the least likely in my opinion -- in part because of the points made above.
(2) However, . . . depending on when the decision was made to schedule her FBI questioning for Saturday morning (July 2), they might have discussed that scheduling.
The Benghazi report was going to come out the next day (June 28). That might have seemed worth talking about.
They might have talked about the advantages of replacing the Attorney General with the appointment of an independent counsel -- thereby postponing the conclusion of the investigation beyond the November election.
(3) Perhaps Bill just wanted to reestablish and reinforce the Clintons' personal relationship with Lynch -- to implant a face on what might otherwise be a dry legal document. Yes, money is probably the most persuasive element of political power in Washington. But close behind, if not ahead of money are personal relationships. These may not be Iowa-style "friendships," perhaps, let alone b-f-f relationships. As President Truman is said to have observed, "If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog."
But establishing, and maintaining personal relationships is a major part of a lobbyist's job description. It's the part that doesn't always involve pressing the client's case directly. It's dropping in for a chat about whatever; sharing and paying for a drink or lunch, round of golf, fishing trip, pro ball game, or travel abroad. It's said that before a lobbyist asks a member of Congress for a favor, he or she should first do ten favors for the member.
As Maritime Administrator or FCC commissioner I always refused that kind of contact, but I would take time to visit with almost anyone coming to my office (if it would not violate the spirit of ex parte prohibitions). One of my visitors was an AT&T representative. He was a tall, friendly guy from Alabama, with a southern accent and smooth manner, great stories, and an ability to relate to anyone. He knew me well enough to never talk about AT&T business, and I'd like to believe AT&T's lawyers' efforts to remove me from AT&T cases, coupled with my dissenting opinions, would support my belief that he had no effect on my positions on telephone issues. But he did lighten my day and I was always happy to chat with him. I have never had my own private jet plane, but if I had one back then I wouldn't have been surprised, if the occasion arose, that he might have walked across a tarmac to pay me a visit.
Maybe that was a part of Bill Clinton's instinct; after all, he had given Lynch's career a big boost with a U.S. Attorney appointment earlier in her career. It couldn't hurt, he might have thought, to have his mere presence remind her of that without even mentioning the appointment -- or the pending investigation of his wife.
(4) Maybe this meeting was a way of signaling the Attorney General's preferences to the FBI and Justice personnel. The President, of course, has already done this with his earlier statements suggesting he doesn't believe Hillary's private email server was all that serious, his endorsement of her (before the Democratic National Convention selected her or the FBI investigation was concluded), and his agreement to go campaigning with her this week.
Those who wish to thrive (or at least survive) within any bureaucracy, including government, develop sensitive antennae that pick up on signals from those higher up the food chain. Of all the civil service, among those whose honor I respect the most are those at the Justice Department and FBI. I'd like to believe they'd not be swayed in their decisions by anything other than the merits of a case.
But Bill Clinton may have thought that, whatever else Justice and FBI employees might surmise from public revelations of the Clinton-Lynch meeting, they would at least aware that their top boss has a sufficiently friendly and casual relationship with Hillary's husband to have had this meeting with him at this time. And he may have thought these signals from the President and Attorney General would be of benefit to Hillary with regard to the election generally, and this investigation in particular.
(5) It's possible that Bill Clinton, Lynch, or both wanted the Attorney General to have a conflict -- and therefore be able to stay out of the FBI's Hillary investigation. There were enough security and other folks around at the time of the Clinton-Lynch visit that they would both have to have known that the meeting would become public knowledge.
How might Lynch's recusal advantage them?
The Attorney General was confronting a lose-lose choice. As the polls reveal, and many commentators are now saying, the fact that a majority of the public thinks Hillary lies and can't be trusted is one of her major hurdles at this time. (Obviously, I'm not asserting those public perceptions are warranted or fair; I'm just saying they exist and are a political problem for Hillary as a presidential candidate.)
If the FBI indicts Hillary, and the Attorney General either lets that decision proceed without comment, or expresses support for it, she would engender the enmity of the the entire Democratic Party establishment on the eve of the Party's convention. It would be even worse if the FBI gives Hillary a soft slap on the wrist and does nothing more, and then the Attorney General intervenes and, with the advice of staff members, essentially reverses the FBI and imposes serious penalties.
On the other hand, if the FBI doesn't indict Hillary, and Lynch goes along with that result, or worse if they do indict and Lynch essentially reverses their decision, it would support Trump's assertion that "the fix is in," reflecting badly both on the Attorney General and the President.
Following the revelations, and criticism, of her meeting with Bill Clinton the Attorney General appears to have taken what are seemingly two inconsistent positions. The first was that she would simply accept whatever the FBI decides. Because this seemed to raise some questions about the propriety of her doing so, given her responsibilities for review and approval, she then seemed to backpedal a bit, reserving the right to intervene.
Anyone with the political history and power of the Clintons, and their campaign and other staffers, might very well have access to individuals within the Justice Department, or FBI, willing to pass along information about the status of the investigation. (Again, for reasons stated earlier, I do not believe this would happen with those employees; but such things are not unknown in Washington.) Hillary certainly at least knows what she was asked during her FBI questioning that may have given her some clues. But if, for example, there were inside reports, and they indicated that the upper levels of the Justice Department want an indictment, but the FBI seems to be more lenient, there would be an advantage to the Clinton campaign to remove the Attorney General from the process.
Bottom line. I'm not suggesting any of these possibilities are true. I certainly have no desire to do Donald Trump any favors. But as I began, this blog essay is not about Hillary's merits and the November election.
It is about how the media, Washington insiders, and the rest of us thought and wrote about these events. The predominant response seemed to be simply, "What were they thinking?" The only possibility those asking this question could imagine was that Lynch and Bill Clinton weren't thinking. On the other hand, I believe this bizarre behavior of Bill Clinton and the Attorney General, whose department is investigating his wife's past actions, could be explained by a number of things they might have been thinking. And that if we're going to discuss what they did, and its significance, we have an obligation to get beyond the conclusion that the only possible explanation is that it was just "a striking error of judgment" and a "huge lapse."
The High Price of Peremptory Firing: Jones sues for $2.25 million
Phillip Jones, 68, was dismissed as vice president for student services Sept. 23 by UI president Sally Mason. In his [$2.25 million wrongful termination] claim to the Iowa Board of Appeals, Jones claims the firing was inappropriate and that it caused emotional distress and damaged his personal and professional integrity. . . .
"The wrongful termination of Dr. Phillip E. Jones has caused him irreparable harm," his claim states. "He was placed in a false light in the professional community by the allegations adopted from the Stolar report and redistributed by the (Iowa state) Board of Regents and (UI) President (Sally) Mason." . . .
The claim . . . identifies more than $680,000 in professional losses. It states that from Sept. 24 to June 30, 2009, Jones would lose more than $180,000 in earnings, UI contributions, health insurance, flexible spending account, accumulation of vacation payout and other incidentals.
The claim also identifies $500,000 in potential earnings losses, saying Jones planned to retire from UI and work as a higher education consultant.
The Answer to Global Economic Collapse Looking for the answer to the global economic depression toward which we seem to be headed with ever-greater acceleration?
"Look North, young man, look north."
["'Go west, young man' [was] a favorite saying of the nineteenth-century journalist Horace Greeley, referring to opportunities on the frontier. Another writer, John Soule, apparently originated it." The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, 3rd ed., 2002.]
It turns out that delivery of basic health care to an entire nation's population at reasonable cost is not the only thing Canada has to teach us.
Let's hope our new Secretary of the Treasury designate,Timothy F. Geithner, currently president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York [Jackie Calmes, "For Treasury, Geithner Said to Be Choice," New York Times, November 21, 2008] -- the mere rumor and announcement of whom boosted stock market measures by 5 to 6 percent -- who has plenty of credentials of his own, is willing to listen to one of the youngest financial regulators of the G-7 and G-20, Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of Canada.
If he wants to literally listen, I'd recommend Carney's participation in the BBC's current "The Interview" program -- being Internet-broadcast as I write this (I listened to it being broadcast live earlier), but soon to be available for streaming or download. If Geithner wants to read what he's written, I'd recommend Carney's recent talk in London to the Canada-United Kingdom Chamber of Commerce, Mark Carney, "Building Continuous Markets," November 19, 2008.
Carney avoids sounding either critical of his peers, or unduly self-promotional. But facts are facts, and he doesn't hide them. Here is an excerpted paragraph describing Canada's current position:
Canada's experience is instructive. While Canada's financial system has been affected by the crisis in global financial markets, the impact has been significantly less than in many other major economies, not least because Canada is further along than others in implementing the G-7 Action Plan. Canada starts with financial institutions that are healthier than their international peers. Not merely have losses on structured products of Canadian banks been modest, but more importantly, their absolute leverage is markedly lower. As a simple illustration, major Canadian banks have an average asset-to-capital multiple of 18 on a consolidated basis, which is slightly below the regulatory maximum of 20. The comparable figure for U.S. investment banks is over 25. For . . . some major global banks, it is over 40. While foreign banks are in the process of moving towards Canadian levels, our banks obviously face no such pressures. In addition, the quality of Tier 1 capital of Canadian banks is among the strongest in the world.
There is no "executive summary" or "take-away" from his remarks that encapsulates all of his observations and suggestions. You need to read it all. But as we all spiral down during the next two to five years I suspect he will continue to be someone whose words are very much worth your time.
Auto Bailout: "Show Me the . . . Plan"
On November 19 I offered an "open letter" to my Senators and Congressional representative. I identified five categories of questions for which I requested their response. Not incidentally, that blog entry has now been sent to the three of them (as recommended by a reader who included that suggestion in a comment); if and when I get responses I'll include them in that blog entry.
The last of the questions was: "Where on the Internet can I find the business plan that you are presumably relying upon that documents, precisely, how this $25 billion is to be used, and how, why and when it will solve these three companies' problems, revive the industry, and why it will eliminate any need for them to regularly return to you for more taxpayer money?" Nicholas Johnson, "Auto Bailout: An Open Letter to Congress," November 19, 2008.
Two days later the New York Times reports that apparently the same question has now occurred to Congress -- days after they signed on the line their support for the $25 billion bailout, plan or no plan. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is now quoted as saying, "Until we can see a plan where the auto industry is held accountable and a plan for viability on how they go into the future — until we see the plan, until they show us the plan, we cannot show them the money.” Majority Leader Harry Reid adds, "The executives of the auto companies have not been able to convince Congress or the American people that this government bailout will be its last.” David M. Herszenhorn, "Detroit’s Bid for Aid Fails — For Now,"New York Times, November 21, 2008.
That being the case, there are serious potential conflict of interest issues surrounding her husband's activities.
The Obama transition team is focused on the wide array of Mr. Clinton’s postpresidential activities, some details of which have not been made public. This list includes the identity of most of the donors to his foundation, the source of some of his speaking fees — he has earned as much as $425,000 for a one-hour speech — and his work for the billionaire investor Ronald W. Burkle.
The vetting of Mr. Clinton’s myriad philanthropic and business dealings is “complicated, and it may be the complications that are causing hesitation on both sides,” said Abner J. Mikva, one of Mr. Obama’s closest supporters and a White House counsel during the Clinton administration. “There would have to be full disclosure as to who all were contributors to his library and foundation. I think they’d have to be made public.” . . .
“It’s not just what he does or says — it’s the fact that the foundation is involved with foreign countries, some of which might well be in conflict with U.S. policy,” Mr. Mikva said. “It’s more than a legal problem — there are ethical problems and appearance problems.”
Nor is that the only potential cabinet appointment raising such issues.
President-elect Barack Obama’s selection of former Senator Tom Daschle for secretary of health and human services posed new questions on Wednesday about how broadly the new administration would apply Mr. Obama’s campaign promises to limit potential conflicts of interest among his appointees. . . .
Former Senator and Majority Leader Tom Daschle's "firm represents dozens of [health care] concerns including pharmaceutical companies, health care providers, and trade groups for nurses and nursing homes" and notes that it "has the significant advantage of including two former U.S. Senate majority leaders — Senators Bob Dole and Tom Daschle." Daschle also serves on the board of the Mayo Clinic, which "is itself a major health care provider, research institution, and recipient of grants from the National Institutes of Health." Moreover, Daschle's "wife, Linda Daschle, is a prominent lobbyist for aerospace and military concerns."
Et tu, NPR?Gardiner Harris, "Radio Host Has Drug Company Ties,"New York Times, November 21, 2008: "An influential psychiatrist [Dr. Frederick K. Goodwin, a former director of the National Institute of Mental Health] who served as the host of public radio’s popular 'The Infinite Mind' program earned at least $1.3 million between 2000 and 2007 giving marketing lectures for drug makers, income not mentioned on the program. . . . In October, [Senator] Grassley revealed that Dr. Charles B. Nemeroff of Emory University, one of the nation’s most influential psychiatric researchers, earned more than $2.8 million in consulting arrangements with drug makers from 2000 to 2007, failed to report at least $1.2 million of that income to his university and violated federal research rules.
How to Manipulate Media
And while we're on the subject of the media, for a very inside and insightful explanation of how celebrities control what we think of them, and how and why the media goes along, take a look at Brooks Barnes, "Angelina Jolie's Carefully Orchestrated Image," <i>New York Times, November 20, 2008.
Today is the fifth in a series, "Golden Rules & Revolutions." Here are the prior entries: I - Income Disparity & Revolution, April 12, 2008 . "Series Introduction," "Increasing income disparity, despair. . .," ". . . and Revolution"
Part I of this series noted not just the gap in income between the rich and the poor, but the fact that this gap is continuing to grow ever wider, and that history -- as well as the daily news -- provides ample warning that this condition often produces revolution.
Part II began the exploration of the forces that may be shaping these potentially dangerous conditions -- including the ties between business and government eerily reminiscent of the early stages of what we used to call "fascism."
Part III took us to Washington for some general descriptions of how the system works, what campaign contributors get for their money, the role of lobbyists, and a columnist's description of one case study.
Part IV dealt with how the role of lobbyists extends beyond their manipulation of government into the pre-governing phase: presidential campaigns -- beginning with Senator John McCain.
Part V examines Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign from this perspective -- and tries to figure out who is the biggest "elitist."
_______________
Given the $2.79 billion that the special interests spend on lobbyists, as discussed in Part III, and the the millions and billions of dollars the special interests "invest" in "campaign contributions" (in state legislatures as well as Congress, and among the best investments these businesses ever make), it comes as no surprise that both lobbyists and campaign contributions also play a major role in the way we select our president.
Part IV noted that Senator John McCain was among the best in the U.S. Senate on these issues, and yet even he finds himself surrounded with lobbyists when he meets with his campaign staff.
And just as Part IV started with him because he was featured that evening [April 15] on Chris Matthews' MSNBC College Tour, so Part V is devoted to Senator Hillary Clinton today [April 16] because she and Senator Obama will be in an ABC-sponsored and televised debate this evening from Philadelphia, starting at 8:00 p.m. Eastern. (Check your local cable listings to confirm details.)
_______________
The Web site, Open Secrets, is a real service to an informed democracy. It provides the information a voter needs to evaluate the role of money in politics -- for everyone who cares enough to ask.
(Even her husband acknowledges their elite status: "At a performance at a union hall in Coatesville earlier on Tuesday [April 15], Bill Clinton said that he and his wife were now in the top one-tenth of one percent of taxpayers." Jill Abramson, "Michelle Obama on Elitism,"New York Times: The Caucus, April 15, 2008, 8:08 p.m.)
I thought Michelle Obama -- now that's one woman I really do want in the White House -- handled it well:
Michelle Obama, appearing at Haverford College, gave a strong response to criticism that her husband’s remarks at a San Francisco fund-raising event were elitist.
“There’s a lot of people talking about elitism and all of that,” she told a gathering of students and townspeople on Tuesday, alluding to controversial remarks that Senator Barack Obama made at a San Francisco fund-raiser. “Yeah, I went to Princeton and Harvard, but the lens through which I see the world is the lens that I grew up with. I am the product of a working-class upbringing. I grew up on the South Side of Chicago in a working-class community.”
Then, referring to her husband’s student loans, she added sarcastically: “Now when is the last time you’ve seen a president of the United States who just paid off his loan debt? But, again, maybe I’m out of touch.”
Rebutting critics who called her husband’s remarks about economic bitterness out of touch, Mrs. Obama asked the crowd, “Am I telling you something that you don’t know? Am I in touch?”
She also stressed that her husband, raised by a young single mother, “didn’t grow up with a silver spoon in his mouth.”
And providing a plug for public schools, The Hotline reports, "'I want people to know when they look at me, to be clear that they see what an investment in public education can look like,' she said to a standing ovation." "Out of Touch?"National Journal: The Hotline/On Call, April 15, 2008.
"More than 442,000 people contributed to the [Obama] campaign in March, with more than 218,000 of them giving for the first time. The average contribution in March was $96; the total number of contributors to date comes to 1,276,000."
One would expect that Senator Obama, with an historically mind boggling number of contributors and total contributions, would be leading the pack in all categories of donors. But, no. An examination of the numbers shows something even more impressive and revealing about Senator Clinton.
Senator Obama has had 1.3 million donors averaging $96 dollars each. Those contributing less than $200 have provided 40% of Senator Obama's campaign funds. Donors in the under $200 class have provided only 23% of Senator Clinton's totals.
But those who maxed out with a $4600 contribution provided a mere 6% of Senator Obama's money, while providing the source of 24% of Senator Clinton's.
So he's the elitist and she's not? I don't think so.
Senator Hillary Clinton has defended lobbyists in general and her taking money from their clients' PACs in particular.
"GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: How about this point, though, that Senator Edwards raises? He says the fact that you're taking money from lobbyists symbolizes that you're part of the status quo, part of the failed politics of Washington.
CLINTON: . . . [T]here is this artificial distinction that people are trying to make. Don't take money from lobbyists, but take money from the people who employ and hire lobbyists and give them their marching orders. . . . [I]t's the people who employ the lobbyists who are behind all the money in American politics." "Transcript: he Democratic Debate: George Stephanopoulos Moderates Democratic Debate on a Special Edition of 'This Week,'" ABC News, August 19, 2007. (There are more precise, and defensive, statements, but this was the easiest to find with a quick search.)
The issue was back in the news in early April because it was discovered that she has the same problem of lobbyists in her campaign that was discussed in Part IV with regard to Senator McCain.
Although, in her case, the problem was, if anything, much worse.
One story that was especially embarrassing involved her "top advisor" Mark Penn.
"Mr. Penn had been working for a presidential primary candidate [Senator Clinton] opposed to the trade deal with Colombia, while also running a public relations firm hired by the Colombian government to promote it." Eric Lipton and Steven R. Weisman, "Wide Net Cast by Lobby for Colombia Trade Pact,"New York Times, April 8, 2008. (Also "Howard Wolfson, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign communications director, was a partner at . . . the Glover Park Group, the fast-growing firm set up by former White House aides [that also] lobbied on behalf of the deal.")
It's one thing to use lobbyists to run your campaign -- a campaign funded by special interests and wealthy donors -- but it's quite another if those lobbyists are using their connections (as a staffer) with a potential future president to impress clients for whom the lobbyist is pushing a position supposedly opposed by the candidate for whom they are working.
Already charged with supporting (or remaining mostly silent) about NAFTA at the time while now claiming she opposed it then and now, the Clinton "support-opposition" to the Colombia trade deal is not limited to her lobbyist-staffers.
Bill Clinton voiced "support" for a controversial Colombia free-trade pact . . . and he accepted $800,000 in speaking fees from a group boosting the agreement, it was revealed yesterday.
The news came just two days after Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton pushed her chief strategist, Mark Penn, from his post after he embarrassed the campaign by consulting with Colombia government officials over the trade deal.
In June 2005, Bill Clinton, who holds enormous sway as an adviser to his wife, was quoted . . . as publicly backing the trade pact at an appearance with Colombia President Alvaro Uribe.
"I will raise your point when you return to the United States," Clinton said . . .. "I am in favor of the free-trade agreement . . .."
The same month, Bill Clinton reaped the six-figure windfall from the Colombia-based development group Gold Service International -- a booster of the trade agreement -- for four speeches. . . .
Bill Clinton has had other meetings with Uribe since the speaking tour, including one at the Clinton home in Chappaqua with mining tycoon Frank Giustra, a donor to the former president's philanthropic foundation whose loan of his high-end jet to Bill has raised eyebrows.
According to The Wall Street Journal, Bill Clinton hosted a "philanthropic event" with Uribe - the purpose of which was to introduce Uribe to Giustra, who was interested in Colombian oil.
Now I used to be a public lecturer, represented by a firm the New York Times once described as "the Tiffany of the lecture bureaus," the Leigh Bureau. So I know something about lecture fees -- though I was never the beneficiary of the current inflated fees for the top of the celebrity pack. (The University of Iowa paid Bill Clinton $50,000 for a lecture, and more recently paid Karl Rove $40,000.)
But what I do know is that when you are paid $800,000 for four lectures your benefactor is not paying lecture fees, they're trying to put an acceptable face on the purchase of something else.
It seems to me there are four points here in these two stories:
(1) Senator Clinton is in bed with lobbyists, including her husband, who are handsomely paid by the Colombian government to do whatever is necessary to get a trade deal passed that is opposed by American labor unions but will be favorable to U.S. and Columbian businesses, (2) while she is trying to campaign for workers' support on grounds she opposes the deal, and, most significantly, (3) that none of them see anything unusual or inappropriate about these relationships -- until they are brought to light by the media, (4) illustrated by the fact that she represents she has, in effect, fired Mark Penn when in fact all she has done is to change his title and allow him to remain on two payrolls.
Business Week, one business of which is knowing each week which political candidates best represent its readers' corporate interests, told it all in this excerpt from its headline: "Clinton is pumping up the populist rhetoric . . . but as her record and contributions show, she's no enemy of Corporate America." Here are some excerpts from the story:
But while Clinton's talk is tough . . . her record and support base indicate she's hardly an enemy of American business interests. Some of the biggest names on Wall Street . . . have publicly endorsed Clinton. She has more maxed-out, executive-level donors than either Obama or Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) and has pulled in $3.9 million from donors associated with the health-care industry, more than any other candidate. Donors affiliated with Goldman Sachs (GS) are her top contributors. . . .
In its most recent analysis of Senate voting records, the Chamber of Commerce gave Clinton a 67% favorable rating, compared with just 55% for Obama. (McCain rated 80% favorable.) Many business leaders recall the success of the economy of the late 1990s during Bill Clinton's Presidency . . ..
Wall Street is fairly comfortable with Clinton. "[She] has been a New York senator for seven years, and New York is the financial capital of the U.S. and the world," says Roger Altman, senior Clinton economic adviser and co-founder of Evercore Partners (EVR), an investment and advisory company in New York. "CEOs and other business leaders have had the chance to work with her [at] very close quarters. If you ask leaders of the financial community if there's anything to be afraid of, 80% or more would say no."
Indeed, some industries would gain considerably if Clinton were elected. Her "Economic Blueprint" calls for the creation of a $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund to support alternative energy industries. "With her record and proposals, there is great visibility in terms of what you get with Hillary Clinton," says Bryan Sherbacow, 39, chief operating officer of Charleston (S.C.)-based Ethanex Energy, an ethanol producer. . . . Sherbacow and his wife have maxed out on donations to Clinton, contributing $2,300 each for the primaries. . . .
Whether the nominee is Clinton or Obama, voters can expect the Democratic candidate to cater its economic message to its audience. "Any Democratic candidate for President walks a fine line between policy approaches that will strengthen the middle class and at same time retain good and credible working relationship with business," says Altman. "It's always a complex dynamic."
And you may want to agree with former President Calvin Coolidge that this is appropriate, that as he said, "the business of America is business." You may want a president who is financially supported by, comfortable with, and indebted to, the Wall Street "Finance/Insurance/Real Estate" interests -- those who play a disproportionate role in running the country anyway. If so, as she once said, "I'm your girl."
Otherwise, you might want to look around and see if there is an alternative.
