Today, I am concerned with abuse of Power, specifically with the power of the presidency. We cannot avoid this matter because it lies at the heart of the questions and concerns with which we are currently struggling. There are perhaps three main points that should occupy our minds as we move closer to impeachment charges, and to the 2020 elections. They are found in the 159-page decision recently released by federal judge, Ketanji Brown Jackson, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who said former White House counsel Don McGahn must appear before Congress. Judge Jackson made the following very clear points about the power of the presidency:
Presidents Are Not Kings
The Founding Fathers who gathered in Philadelphia in Summer 1787, to decide how a new government might look, were people who had a difficult experience with a young king, George III, who upon the death of his father, ascended to the throne at age 22 in 1760. In addition to the crown, he inherited an ongoing world war, religious strife and changing social issues.
With the British Empire deeply in debt at the end of the Seven Years' War, George Grenville, Prime Minister (and the King’s advisor), looked to the American colonies as a source of revenue. He reasoned that since the colonies had benefited from the outcome of the war and British troops were needed in North America to protect them, they should pay for it.
King George agreed with his reasoning and supported the Sugar Act of 1764 and the Stamp Act in 1765.
In the colonies, the Stamp Act was met with outrage, contempt and, for some tax collectors, violence. Claims of “no taxation without representation!” rang out in Boston, Massachusetts, and in other colonies. King George and Parliament were well on their way to being regarded as heads of a despotic government as far as the colonists were concerned.
Though the Stamp Act was repealed, Parliament passed the Declaratory Act in 1766, stating the colonies were subordinate to Parliament and subject to British Law. Parliament then proceeded to pass more tax laws.
The strife between the Colonies and the Crown deepened, leading to the Declaration of Independence in 1776 that spelled-out “a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”
That stated list of ‘usurpations’ reads like similar objections to despotism and authoritarianism that have come to the fore in many despotic countries and colonial lands. Some of those objections that relate directly to the establishment of ‘tyranny’ may look all too familiar to many of us.
v “Has refused his
assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good” (see my post
of 10/2/2019 for some ‘necessary’ laws being buried in the Senate right now
because Leader Mitch McConnell will not bring them to a vote without having
presidential approval!)
v “He has endeavored to
prevent the population of these states…obstructing the laws of Naturalization
of Foreigners; refusing…to encourage their migration hither” (Islamic
countries, African “s…h… countries” and countries of Central and South America
know all-too-well the Trump manipulation of immigration, asylum and
naturalization)
v “He has made Judges
dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices” (Not on original
preferred lists, Bret Cavanaugh was chosen by Trump for SCOTUS because he would
do his bidding; now Trump is populating lower courts with nominees for
judgeships who have little legal experience but have absolute loyalty to their
President)
v “He has obstructed
the Administration of Justice” (Obstruction of justice, especially regarding
his own administration, constitutes one of Trump’s major abuses of presidential
power)
v “He has erected a
multitude of new Offices” (Trump has turned Office missions upside-down)
v For cutting off our
trade with all parts of the world (scuttled trade deals dot this
administration’s list of actions; plus, tariffs have widened trade conflicts)
v For taking away our
charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the
forms of our governments’ (Trump has abandoned world-wide agreements such as
the Paris Accords on Climate Change; struck down regulations of all kinds that
affect manufacturing and financial businesses; and is currently altering public
education to be privately run, along with prisons)
v For suspending our own legislature (Trump has shut-down
the government over trumped-up ‘national emergencies’, and continues to
threaten such action when Congress does not give him what he wants)
v “He has excited
domestic insurrections amongst us” (Trump incites his rabid followers to violence
by his rhetoric; Charlottesville was indicative; Walmart shooter in Texas left
a message indicating just such a connection)
v “He has refused for a
long time after dissolution…to cause others to be elected (appointed?) (Trump
loves to leave positions vacant or to fill them with temporary appointees in
order to reduce central government control while enhancing his own control)
v “For protecting them
(armed officers)… from punishment for any murders which they should commit on
the inhabitants of these States” (Trump does nothing about killings of presumed
innocent children and adults by rogue cops; recently, he also protected a Navy
Seal from prosecution by a military court)
"Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that presidents are not kings," Jackson said in her ruling. "This means that they do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control."
That
conclusion from her pen leads us directly to another point that is equally
straightforward and substantial.
No One is Above the Law – Absolute Immunity is a Myth
The
White House has asserted that senior advisers who work with the president have
absolute immunity from subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives. In
short, they can ignore subpoenas that relate to the adviser’s official duties.
That
same doctrine was raised to another level in the House lawsuit against former
White House Counsel Don McGahn. The case
argued in federal court last month, had the Justice Department contending that
courts have no power to act in a dispute between Congress and the president. In
other words, the House can never invoke the power of the courts against the
executive branch because of absolute immunity. (NEWSDAY)
“In
a sweepingly worded decision, federal Judge Jackson…ruled Monday that there was
no legal or constitutional basis for the Trump administration’s claim that top
White House aides have “absolute immunity” from being compelled to testify
before Congress.as she denied the absolute immunity of White House aides. Here is what she said:
““It
is clear to this Court for the reasons explained above that, with respect to
senior-level presidential aides, absolute immunity from compelled congressional
process simply does not exist,”
““That
is to say, however busy or essential a presidential aide might be, and whatever
their proximity to sensitive domestic and national-security projects, the
President does not have the power to excuse him or her” from complying with a
valid congressional subpoena. (quoted in Yahoo News)
This
decision has far greater repercussions than its relationship to this one
case. In conjunction with the bold
statement that “Presidents are not Kings,” it flies in the face of all the
absolutes that Donald Trump has trumpeted.
He claims absolute rights and privileges on a regular basis, and here
are just a few of his many claims (some according to DailyKos.com):
·
refusal to provide
his tax returns to the American people, as every other modern POTUS since
Richard M. Nixon has done
·
to appoint anyone he
wants to the Executive Branch and the Judiciary
·
to classify and un-classify
documents as he sees fit
·
to grant pardons
(presumably even to himself)
·
to grant high
security clearance to relatives and others
·
claims he has the
constitutional authority to absolutely refuse to provide any information to any
entity seeking oversight of the Executive Branch including but not limited to
the federal courts; the US Congress or anyone else authorized by the US
Constitution under the Rule of Law to effectuate oversight of his presidency.
·
that he cannot even
be investigated by any entity while he serves as POTUS let alone be indicted
and/or prosecuted for such crimes. White House Lawyers have literally argued
this position in Federal Courts to prevent congressional oversight (based upon
the somewhat nebulous assertion in a document from the Office of Legal Counsel
[OLC] within the US Justice Department; a memo, that asserts a “sitting POTUS
cannot be indicted for crimes while actively serving as POTUS.” Of course, it must be pointed out, that the
OLC “memo” is merely an opinion expressed by legal entities within the OLC).
Conclusion drawn by DailyKos:
“According
to the concept of the “Rule of Law”, everyone in our Constitutional Republic,
including the President of the United States, is subject to the law and due
process of law. In our Constitutional Republic no one is above the law, most
particularly the President of the United States.
Such
an assertion by President Trump that he is effectively “above the law” and
therefore an Imperial President, is absurd on its face.
Claims
of “absolute executive privilege” and “absolute executive immunity” can be
found nowhere in the US Constitution.
Such assertions simply do not exist.
It exists only in the deranged and delusional imagination of President
Trump and the sycophantic people who submit to his imperial will.
If
President Trump is deemed to be “above the law”, we are now living in a
dictatorship wherein we must submit to his “imperial presidency”.
Such
an imperial presidency is in keeping with totalitarian, fascist states such as
China; Russia; Syria; Iran or Saudi Arabia and other third world dictatorships.
No
such claim of “absolute power” has ever been asserted before in the history of
the United States of America.
No
other President has ever asserted such a claim of absolute immunity; privilege
or power.”
Abuse of Power has Many Facets
My own conclusion based on the above is that the narrow articles of impeachment that the House Judiciary Committee will recommend to the full House of Representatives are appropriate, but inadequate. The Republicans on that Committee, and their sycophantic partners in the Senate will have little problem conveying the message that the charges:
1.
are puny and have no fact
witnesses
2.
do not rise to the
standard of high crimes and misdemeanors
3.
are based on
political motives (of losing an election) and not on constitutional concerns
and therefore should be settled by the next election
4.
have been concocted
by prejudiced investigative bodies and restrictive committee rules that
abrogated due process
5.
are more related to
disagreement with policies than are charges of high crimes
The Democrats have chosen to pursue a simple set of charges based on one incident involving the solicitation of a foreign government’s interference in our 2020 presidential election that will not convince the necessary number of Senators, nor possible voters, to concur in the ouster of Trump as President.
While it is believable that simple and clearly defined charges related to one instance of “high crime” will be more understandable to the average voter, the Democrats missed the point that such simplicity attacked by emotional rantings and confusing conspiracy theories might leave the average voter with a SO WHAT? attitude that will simply carry the day in November of 2020.
What is missing are charges that demonstrate the breadth and depth of the criminality of this excuse for a president. For instance, why is the separation of children from their families at our southern border, and subsequent mistreatment of them not part of ‘abuse of power.’ It is a charge that voters would quickly understand as they already have in their past negative reactions forcing the administration to take some corrective action. The actions of the president and his administrators go to child abuse by responsible caretakers. It was a clear abuse of power and a clear instance of a charge that disturbed people greatly. Ukraine does not meet that double effect. Ukraine does not show a PATTERN of actions that exemplify the depth of this president’s corruption.
Another factor about the electorate that the Dems have missed is that a reasonable number of American voters probably more often than not allow a candidate a bit of slack if they think that the “offense” is a one-time occurrence. And, that is why I stated in my posting of 11/3/2019 that it is of major importance for impeachment charges to be brought that show a PATTERN of offenses that speaks to intent. That is what the Mueller Report tried to do in relation to obstruction of justice, but it was blunted by the way in which that report was presented to the viewing public.
Thus, we are left with two articles of impeachment which will not sway many minds toward ouster of this imperial president. As he has done all his business life, Trump will once again escape accountability for his actions by using strategies such as the Big Lie, prurient propaganda, politicizing the courts, and capturing the fawning loyalty of believers in his decadent agenda and his scurrilous ambitions. He has already broken or at least damaged most of our democratic values, ideals and institutions, and now he will have the upper hand in approaching what he has desired all along: absolute power over others and absolute immunity from any repercussions. He who would be King has moved into position to become King Donald I, despite Judge Brown Jackson’s statement of historical truth that “Presidents are not Kings”!
