“What the German people regret, you soon find, is not that they made this war, but that they lost it. If only Hitler had listened to his generals during the Russian campaign . . .”
–William L. Shirer, Berlin, Nov. 3, 1945. End of a Berlin Diary (Knopf, 1947), p 131
You can’t say much for their morals, but even postwar Germans did not admire Hitler’s generals for their subservience to the Fuehrer, according to William L. Shirer, author of the landmark Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Rather than harboring Donald Trump’s reported view of “the kind of generals that Hitler had,” in hindsight, they felt that Adolf Schicklgruber had led his country to ruin in refusing to be guided by his generals.
Trump has denied making the statement about Hitler’s generals. However, the subtext stands intact: there is little doubt that in military matters a President Trump would be perfectly willing to replace ability with malleability. After all, it’s what he has tried to do with the U.S. economy and the U.S. justice system. And while I eschew hysterical accusations of fascism and careless allusions to Hitler—especially from people silent on the reprisals in Gaza–the subtext assessment of Hitler’s generals is valid. As Shirer summed up,
“In other words, the German military went along. Not a single general, until it was too late, had the guts really to stand up to Hitler.”
End of a Berlin Diary, p 312
As said, Trump has denied making the statement. It will be interesting to see whether the two reported hearers go public.
Meanwhile, you can see why he has denied it. For one thing, blusterers usually retreat from pushback. For another, it’s a classic Sillyman comment. Wishing for the kind of generals Hitler had—btw, Germany lost the war—is a little like saying, “We need more officers like General Custer.” Or “I need the kind of generals that Jeff Davis had.” (The South lost the Civil War.) Probably Trump’s denial will pass muster with his firmest supporters. To do them justice, they can point to all the times Trump was wrongly dismissed out of hand—the sneering at his “germophobia” before the pandemic; the smugly wrong predictions that no vaccine could be produced for years; the supposed impossibility of his winning in 2016; etc.
Civilian control of the military is essential in a democracy. The principle is bedrock in the U.S. Constitution. But honest counsel is also essential. Historians, philosophers, and poets have concurred for millennia that tyrants do not get good counsel. Hence, a gasbag and a bully is not a genuine strong man.
He can still do genuine harm. The gasbag now posturing as a shadow president and soliciting foreign dictators is facilitating the slaughter in Gaza. Stepping outside the Constitution and beyond the water’s edge, he is basically giving Netanyahu carte blanche.
Under the United States’ federal form of government, elections are administered by the states. Why are state constitutions being left out of the picture?
“No person shall […] hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, […] who, having previously taken an oath […] as an officer of the United States […] to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same[.]”
The section seems clear to a non-lawyer but is being characterized as vague or not spelled out. Setting aside definition of “officer of the United States” for now, the key term is insurrection.
The U.S. Constitution itself refers to insurrection only briefly—very, very briefly—in enumerating powers of Congress: in Section 8, Congress can call forth the militia to “suppress insurrections.”
No definition is given for “insurrections,” suggesting that none was considered necessary; and suppressing insurrections is a power of Congress, not only of the Commander in Chief. (Sadly, the D.C. Code states that local authorities in Washington, D.C., can call upon the Commander in Chief for help in suppressing riots. An update may be needed.)
The brief statement on insurrection in the U.S. Constitution is reinforced by state constitutions. This is not a federal-government-versus-state-government issue.
For the record, the state constitutions of Colorado, Iowa, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Florida, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Idaho, New Mexico, Nevada, and Arizona all refer to “insurrection,” not favorably but as a self-evident ill to address. So do the constitutions of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.
I have not gotten to the other 29 state constitutions yet, but so far an unshakeable pattern has emerged. To summarize, in the states named, without exception,
The governor has power to suppress insurrection.
The state can take on public debt and/or appropriate funds against insurrection.
In regard to public debt and insurrection, North Carolina goes farther.
Section 3 (4): “Certain debts barred. The General Assembly shall never assume or pay any debt or obligation, express or implied, incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”
Section 4 (4): “Certain debts barred. No county, city or town, or other unit of local government shall assume or pay any debt or the interest thereon contracted directly or indirectly in aid or support of rebellion or insurrection against the United States.”
Variations of language do not disrupt the patterns, the state powers to address insurrection. For example, the governor can call out the state militia and put down insurrection even where, as in South Carolina, Arkansas, or Pennsylvania, the same section does not explicitly designate him “commander in chief.”
Also, for whatever historical reasons, the state constitutions of Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, Maryland, and Arizona do not contain the word “rebellion,” often in other states associated with “insurrection” or “invasion.” But as said, they all address “insurrection.”
There are two more overall patterns to mention here.
Many state constitutions—though not all—say that the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in connection with insurrection, rebellion, or invasion. The state constitutions of Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, Arizona, and Maryland do not have this provision but say flatly that habeas corpus shall not be suspended.
No state constitution uses the word “convicted” in connection with insurrection, rebellion, or invasion. (If an example turns up, I will include it in a later post.)
With all due deference to Rep. Phillips, none of the references to insurrection or rebellion in any state constitution say anything about being convicted. When the word “convicted” is used about public officials, it mainly refers to offenses like bribery and embezzlement.
Obviously, some state constitutions were written or rewritten after the Civil War, with the Confederacy in mind, although provisions against insurrection pre-dated the Civil War in older states. There was little need for conviction on Civil War actions, when the actions were highly public; the identities of Jefferson Davis et al. were widely known.
In this respect, Donald J. Trump’s actions are indeed analogous to the highly public actions of southeastern states after Fort Sumter. Trump’s actions are always highly public—televised, videorecorded, ongoing even after January 6; trumpeted in rallies, on Trump’s own social media, and at Mar-a-Lago; used flamboyantly in fundraising appeals coast to coast.
Speaking of being convicted, or not, on the related topic of impeachment, the state constitutions create another unshakeable pattern:
As in the U.S. Constitution, punishment in impeachment extends only to removal from office and disqualification from serving in public office in the future. Neither the U.S. Congress nor state legislatures can jail a convicted individual, and rightly not. BUT, also as in the U.S. Constitution, the outcome of an impeachment trial does not protect an official from prosecution or from other actions of the law after office. This provision is stated clearly in the constitutions of Colorado, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, and Iowa.
Trump’s weakest ground is his weird insistence that he is immune to prosecution because he is out of office but was once in office.
“The party, whether convicted or acquitted, shall be liable to trial and punishment according to law.”
UPDATE 12/22/23. Add the Michigan state constitution to the list of documents upholding the governor’s power to deal with “insurrection.” The Detroit News today reported that Donald Trump was caught on tape pressuring state election officials in Michigan to avoid certifying the 2020 presidential vote in that state. Also on the call was Ronna McDaniel, Chair of the Republication National Committee. The telephone conversation as reported would induce them to violate their oath of faithfully performing the duties of their office, but Trump backed up McDaniel in assuring them that they would have legal protection. McDaniel is recorded saying, “We will get you attorneys,” and Trump, “We’ll take care of that.”
On the demise, maybe, of the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses, today’s New York Times has this.
It was an inauspicious debut, to say the least. In February 1975, a little-known governor from Georgia named Jimmy Carter showed up in Des Moines, Iowa, to kick off an improbable campaign for president. His team rented a hotel ballroom and bought enough food for a crowd of 200 people. Three showed up.
So Carter started working the streets and stores. Gerald Rafshoon, who was his media adviser, recalled the other day a story that later became famous. “Carter walks into a barbershop and says, ‘My name is Jimmy Carter and I’m running for president,’ Rafshoon told me. “And the barber said, ‘Yeah, the boys and I were just laughing about that.'”
Today the self-deprecating humor is attributed to Jimmy Carter. As homage, it is appropriate in style and tenor to Carter, by far the greatest living ex-President of the United States. As history, it lacks a few things, including accuracy and chronology. Undoubtedly quite a few Times readers will thread references to Mo Udall, with whom the anecdote is usually connected.
Some recent books have connected it to John McCain. (See Paul Alexander’s Man of the People and Meghan McCain’s Bad Republican.)
I have to recall my Morris Udall joke, who said – when – which has been stolen by every presidential candidate in history about Morris Udall going to a barber shop in Manchester, New Hampshire, and said: Hi, I’m Morris Udall from Arizona, and I’m running for president of the United States. And the barber said, yeah, we were just laughing about that this morning. (Laughter.) Thank you for your – (inaudible). (Laughter.)
Growing up, I used to read political books when I could get them. I had read that bit of self-deprecating humor and thought it came from Harry Truman or Adlai Stevenson, or Hubert Humphrey, or maybe Fred Harris. Sure enough, CBS News gives it to Truman.
Sorry, but impeachment is for government officials. As a private citizen, Mr. Trump can be charged with and prosecuted for crimes and misdemeanors. But he cannot be impeached.
Call it a pandemic project. Back when, I wrote dozens of columns published in the Prince George’s Journal, and now I’m pulling them out of the closet.
The P. G. Journal ceased to exist years ago, of course. Some of the columns have dated, but some still look timely, all things considered.
This column was my first freelance piece in the Journal. My baby had spent two weeks in the neonatal intensive care unit at the local hospital, diagnosed the second day of his little life with spinal meningitis. After unforgettable care and fear, he came out fine, and bright and beautiful. More than ten years later, I finally wrote about the experience.
The column is about what was often referred to in media as ‘drive-by maternity’. It was and is entirely factual. Aside from wanting to convey the message and the information, I never saw any reason why an Op-ed should be limited strictly to ‘opinion’.
Follow-up: mothers of newborns still need adequate time in the hospital, though today that need must be balanced against risk of contagion. In my individual case, the HMOs treated us right, paying the enormous hospital bills without demur. The Reagan years did seem to have overturned or undone cleanness and sanitation protocols in hospitals.
President/Constitution/Supreme Court/Senate Gobbledygook, part I.
Nothing in the U. S. Constitution says ‘a president’s fourth year doesn’t count.’ What the Constitution does say about the president’s term:
“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:” (Article 2, Section 1)
Nothing in the U. S. Constitution says ‘a president cannot nominate a Supreme Court justice in the fourth year of his term.’ What the Constitution does say about a president’s nominating a justice for the high court:
“He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” (Article 2, Section 2)
Nothing in the U. S. Constitution says ‘a Senator can refuse to advise and consent if he doesn’t feel like it.’ What the Constitution does say about Senators’ powers:
“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.” (Article 1, Section 5) (Also see Article 2, Section 2 again)
Cut through the gobbledygook. Key word: EXPULSION.
I think the same thing this time that I thought last time (2016).
The president’s term is four years.
Mitch McConnell should be expelled from the Senate.
Before I clarify points a) and b), later, a short comment on the headlines. Forget about the day’s mantra from the national political press or prominent Democrats – that the GOP leadership, i.e. Mitch McConnell and henchmen, are being “hypocritical” or “inconsistent.” To do it justice, the GOP in the Senate is not being inconsistent. It is being consistent. It pursued a scurvy strategy last time; it is pursuing a scurvy strategy this time. The strategy is to improperly control nominations to the U. S. Supreme Court, an executive power, by legislators. The tactics are somewhat different (not entirely, but I’ll get to that later), but the strategy is consistent. It is also openly and blatantly unconstitutional. Separation of powers in three branches of government is a cornerstone of U. S. government.
As to “hypocrisy,” hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue, as La Rochefoucauld used to say. To call McConnell’s action “hypocrisy” or “hypocritical” is just an insult to hypocrites. McConnell and his allies in Senate and party are barely pretending to do the right thing. They’re not even pretending aggressively to seem as though they think they are doing the right thing. They’re legislators (of a sort) trying to control an executive branch power, appointments to the high court. They’re making no bones about it.
(The flip side of the same coin is that they don’t tend to be eager to legislate, when legislation would benefit the public. For example, Congress could heal Social Security simply by removing the arbitrary cap on income that supports it.)
If the Democrats and a few Republicans in the Senate are paying attention, they will at least ensure that any nominee for the highest court in the land is sufficiently vetted. And the time remaining is not enough time for vetting. This is one occasion upon which a genuine filibuster might work.
On February 7, according to this morning’s* Washington Post, President Donald Trump told reporter Bob Woodward that the corona virus was “deadly stuff,” describing it as very dangerous and more.
What should have happened is easy to say, up to a point. Woodward should have hotfooted the news to the front page of the Post. It should have appeared on February 8* at latest. Congress would have been informed while still in town and able to gather.
States with large cities could theoretically have been alerted. States, counties, and towns could conceivably have looked to their hospitals, EMT, emergency supplies.
Admittedly thinking ahead is not everybody’s strong point. Some people don’t even try to do it. (Woodward seems to have been looking ahead to his next book, the president to the next election.) And not much information had developed at that point.
But shortness of information has not deterred the hysterics out to do nothing but attack Trump, producing nothing that would benefit the public, on any other issue. It is virtually incontestable that some of the regular leakers in the administration and around the White House could have, and would have, gone to news outlets with a hot new set of leaks on an Asian epidemic about to hit this country.
The public would have been informed, at least partly, while still mobile, while still employed, still getting a paycheck, children at school, still alive and well, the stores still stocked—in other words, when ordinary citizens had a chance to take steps and prepare.
Maybe even some of the nation’s nursing homes would have benefited from the heads-up.
While my brother was still alive.
Sorry, people, but Mr. Woodward’s version of reporting is not reporting. It’s not-reporting. It is a moral disgrace.
And now the Washington Post is running the story that didn’t run—free media for Woodward’s book. So that’s what matters; a star reporter and millionaire author will get another windfall. Woodward will return to the luminous ranks of John Bolton, Michael Cohen, and the other literati who rake in big bucks from publishers by going TrumpTrumpTrump, catering to the mob-lust of underqualified people in publishing and outside it who seem to have centered their thinking if not their lives around a hysterical gestalt that every human being on earth has abandoned and rejected President Trump. I consider the behavior sick, and I am not a Trump voter.
Since many people consider the news media the face of the Democratic Party, the sick big-media behavior on the star-reporter model may also cost Democrats the election.
*I am a WaPo subscriber in P. G. Stories in the print edition/s often come a day or more behind the online edition, so I just saw this detail today. (I didn’t hear it reported on cable or networks.) No, I don’t return to my PC—where I usually start the day writing–to catch breaking news in the small hours.
To be fair, media personnel may have expected Bernie Sanders to win the New Hampshire primary. (After all, ‘he’s from a neighboring state’.)
Sanders (reuse wiki)
Still, that said–here is a quick rundown of today’s headlines about New Hampshire 2020. “BERNIE WINS NEW HAMPSHIRE”? “SANDERS WINS 2ND DEM CONTEST”? Well, no, mainly not. Some respectable news outlets conveyed the straight fact, “SANDERS WINS NEW HAMPSHIRE.” But prominently, on February 12, 2020, the morning after the extensively covered first primary and second voting event of the 2020 presidential election, we get this sampling:
From my (print) issue of The Washington Post: “With win in N.H., Sanders controls Democrats’ left wing”
From The New York Times: “Bernie Sanders Scores Narrow Victory in New Hampshire”
From NYT Wednesday Briefing: “Bernie Sanders edges out Pete Buttigieg”
From USA Today: “Bernie Sanders’ campaign defends narrow win in New Hampshire after big 2016 showing”
From Fox News: “Sanders edges out Buttigieg to win New Hampshire, as Klobuchar surges to third”
From the New York Post: “Bernie Sanders a limp leader after barely squeaking by in New Hampshire”
From Axios: “Bernie Sanders’ uneasy New Hampshire win”
For my money, the WaPo headline stinks most. Again to be fair, Amazon, owned by Jeff Bezos, who also owns The Washington Post, willingly markets Sanders book and campaign merchandise. So that’s something saved from the wreck. But the Post headline is a swift two-fer using Sanders to blank out Elizabeth Warren, figuratively speaking.
Meanwhile, most of the national political press is comparing 2020 turnout to 2008 turnout for Obama.
More later on the ‘turnout’ narratives trending in media.
Update, 9:26 AM:
From Politico’s “Playbook”: “Bernie wins New Hampshire by a whisker”
Update, 10:07 AM:
From Politico “Morning Score”: “Sanders edges Buttigieg in New Hampshire”
Many thanks to the sources posting that #WhistleblowerComplaint online. Being able to read the full text is a boon.
Media outlets (Wall Street Journal, MSNBC) have already published ‘Takeaway’ round-ups about the filing. Here is another one.
1. “inter alia”? Seriously? Is the author trying to sound like a lawyer? Trying to sound like a more serious lawyer than he is? He uses “among other things” in the second graf; why not stick to English? Details are a giveaway.
2. Citing “multiple” sources re a phone conversation between the U.S. and Ukraine governments, mainly “White House officials,” the author says, “I do not know which side initiated the call.” How could he not know that, given the knowledge of content he claims? Didn’t he ask?
3. The author says, “I do not know whether similar measures were taken to restrict access to other records of the call, such as contemporaneous handwritten notes taken by those who listened in.” Same questions.
4. The author says, “I do not know whether anyone was physically present with the President during the call.” Same questions.
5. The author identifies “a State Department official, T. Ulrich Brechbuhl,” as having listened in. This is the only listener identified by name. CBS News has reported that Mr. Brechbuhl did not listen in. What’s going on here?
6. The author identifies himself as a “non-White House official.” Is he a full-time government employee? Some of this stuff has ‘disgruntled government contractor’ written all over it. Or maybe [DITTO DITTO] ‘consultant’? ‘Communications manager’?
By the way, why would the fact that a Ukraine politician lost/won a primary in a ‘landslide’ be classified information, conveyed only in the ‘Enclosure’?
Guess we know what questions Chuck Todd will not be raising on MSNBC this evening.
Still a question whether a ‘blue wave’ is coming on November 6.
Making Democrats look good
Arithmetic-of-the-field numbers make the Democrats look good. In races for open seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, the Republicans have far more seats to defend than the Democrats. Fundraising for Democrats has largely been off the charts. Polling for weeks between Labor Day and last week seemed largely positive for Democrats in congressional races and to some extent in state races.
Politico’s morning tip sheets pounded a big-blue changed congress for weeks, as in this article from October 9:
The Republican House majority continues to show signs of collapsing, with Democrats steadily gaining ground toward erasing the 23-seat margin and ending eight years of GOP control.
A total of 68 seats currently held by Republicans are firmly in play — rated as ‘Lean Republican’ or worse for the GOP — presenting a stark contrast to the Democratic side, where only a half-dozen Democratic seats are in similar jeopardy [ . . .]
With a month to go until Election Day, there are now 209 seats either firmly or leaning in the Democratic column — only 9 shy of the 218 the party needs to wrest away control of the chamber — according to the latest update of POLITICO’s race ratings.
Twenty days later, some of the same outlook:
White House political director Bill Stepien wrote a three-page memo this week in which he outlined the political landscape confronting the GOP and bluntly warned that the party’s prospects for the House are ‘challenging.’ … [I]n the memo, Stepien attempted to divert blame from Trump toward several other factors that he said made a ‘traditionally challenging year even more difficult.’
He noted that dozens of Republican incumbents had retired, creating a plethora of vacant seats for the party to defend. Stepien also highlighted the fundraising challenges confronting the GOP, noting that 92 Democratic challengers outraised incumbent House Republicans during the third fundraising quarter.
Then there’s that historical pattern that the presidential party loses congressional seats in the first midterm election, also noted: “And he pointed out that the party in power historically suffers significant losses during a president’s first midterm election.”
Some of the predictions are coming true, depending on location. After days of early and absentee (mail-in) voting, the three states on the West Coast look solidly Blue, not that that’s a surprise. Virginia is trending Democratic, if the polling is accurate. Iowa and Minnesota seem to be returning to or staying in the fold, respectively.
Making Democrats look bad
But below the radar of the ‘influencers’, making the Democrats look bad, is the perception created by some of the very individuals and entities supporting the Dems, or at least opposing the White House.
In the perception of the voiceless, and we’re right about being voiceless, there are reasons why they/we don’t have much voice:
I. Money speaks loudest. I’ll keep this short, because the point needs no belaboring: the inundation of money, donations, may signal a certain kind of support in elections, but it’s no sign of small-d democracy. Candidates and campaigns have to raise funds, but the seemingly ceaseless, breathless hype about the tidal wave of funds going to Democratic-aligned super PACs is anti-democratic, anti-voiceless. Every headline about another twenty million from Michael Bloomberg, et al., confirms that these are people who have more than you and I have.
II. Big-time media speak loudest. I’ll condense this, since it calls for a book, but the bottom line is that the hysterical contingent in the news media is damaging Democrats. It is not the news media’s job to help Democrats, of course. And there is little or nothing that candidates can do about a certain kind of support. There is no (lawful, public) way the Democratic Party can rein in the relentless triumphalism, name-calling, and ganging-up in some of the biggest media outlets. It is free expression, albeit very well-paid expression. But the ugly boasting about destroying President Trump; the moral outrage of wrapping themselves in the mantle of the Resistance of World War II; and the foolish insistence that they’re winning, crushing all opposition, whatever–as in hyping a ‘blue wave’–turn many people off.
As they should. For millennia, self-awareness has been considered part of human wisdom. When big media outlets go holier-than-thou, wisdom is not what comes across. You can see why news media don’t want to revisit the (long) era when the U.S. press supported racial segregation. But the refusal to mention their support for invading Iraq is breathtaking. Then there’s the extent of how wrong they all were about the 2016 election. Then there’s Juanita Broaddrick. I believe Christine Blasey Ford, and said so in writing. But I also believe Juanita Broaddrick, and have said so.
That brings me to point number three:
III. Loudmouths speak loudest. Social gestures can be misconstrued, and will be misconstrued. I don’t think Amy Schumer’s getting herself arrested will benefit Democrats on Nov 6. Nor am I sure it will benefit women or rape victims. Schumer is probably a good person acting with good intentions, but we need more rape crisis hotlines, more support for law enforcement and prosecutors in criminal assault cases, better processes for ‘electing’ judges (the process is dreadful in Maryland), and more research into the causes and the incidence of rape–not another reminder that some people can afford to get arrested where others can’t.
The relationship between celebrity and feminism is mixed. There have always been female celebrities, in societies by no stretch of the imagination gender-equal. Tragically, demonstrators against rape at the Capitol probably came across like the over-painted loudmouths on Bravo’s Real Housewives franchise or the ladies on Bridezilla. (By the way, why are those shows on the air?) Rep. Mazie Hirono’s (D-HI) saying that men should “shut up” did not help, nor is it feminist. Too bad, because her solid comments on Kavanaugh’s dishonesty before Ford’s testimony should have gotten more cogent media attention at the time.
Meanwhile, that argument about ‘your sons’ being at risk of some day being falsely accused is powerful, and yet Democrats and their allies in media pretended that it wasn’t. Like the ‘bathrooms’ issue, it may be bogus, but it’s effective.
Combination of all the above: For the past two years, our 9.9 percent in the public discourse could hardly have done more to come across as entitled, elitist, and oblivious, had they been given a script.
Oblivious, in combination with entitled and elitist, comes across as–frankly–stupid. Once again, lesson learned–by the rest of us: rich people don’t pay for stupid mistakes the way poor people do.
Not a winning message for the Democratic Party, regardless of outcome tomorrow.
