Disparity

It's worth noting that the world's oldest democracy, the United Kingdom, saw its Prime Minister fall for having a party in violation of COVID rules, and then see him resign from Parliament for lying about it, while the United States is in serious danger of reelecting a President who attempted to overthrow an election.

June 8, 1920. Republican Convention, White House visitors, Churchill on uniforms.

Prominent woman Republican, Helen V. Boswell, at Republican Convention.

The Republican National Convention opened in Chicago on this day in 1920. There were six possible nominees for the position of Republican candidate going into the convention, including one surprising name in the list.  The candidates were:

Warreng G. Harding.
Leonard Wood.
Frank Lowden
Hiram Johnson
William Sproul
Nicholas Butler
Calvin Coolidge
Robert LaFollette

How LaFollette, the famed "Wisconsin Bolshevik" made that list is a mystery.

The convention was wide open so any of those running could have been chosen going into the convention.

On the same day Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks visited the White House.

Pickford and Fairbanks.

Fairbanks and Pickford had only recently been the subjects of a potential scandal when it was debated whether a prior divorce by one of them (I forget which one) had been finalized prior to their marriage.  Apparently it was worked out by now.  It was the second marriage for both, and it wouldn't be the last one as they'd divorce in 1936 and each would remarry again one final time.

Winston Churchill addressed parliament on the subject of British military uniforms, which was part of an overall debate on the subject.  He stated:

I propose to deal with the general aspect of this matter in a general statement. Although it may not completely answer all the points raised, I think it will be better if hon. Members have the opportunity of having this statement in their minds, and then they can see whether it is necessary to put down further questions next week. 

The only expenditure which will fall upon this year's Estimates in regard to full dress for the Army is that in respect of the Foot Guards, which are to be immediately supplied with full dress during the current year. The Household Cavalry have had full dress throughout the War, and it is only a question of maintaining this. The troops, of course, have a free issue. 

As regards the officers, new entrants will receive a grant of £150 towards the cost of uniform, and those who joined during the War will get £150, less the amount of outfit grant already received, which in most cases is £42 10s. The re-issue to the Guards and Household Cavalry troops of full dress stands in a special position on account of the ceremonial duties which these troops discharge in the capital of the Empire. 

The extension of full dress to the other branches and units of the Service, which my military advisers also consider desirable, will be spread over the next four or five years, unless it should be decided, when the Estimates are reviewed next year, that this programme should be abandoned. Ample notice will be given to all units, and no existing stock, either of khaki or khaki uniforms, will be wasted. Khaki with the cap or steel helmet will remain permanently the working service dress of the whole Army. There is not, nor ever has been, any question of its abolition. 

The only question which is now before us is the issue of full dress uniform to the Guards, and the retention of full dress uniform by the Household Cavalry. This involves an expenditure, not of £3,000,000, as one would suppose by reading a certain class of public criticism, but of £140,000 for other ranks and £20,000 for officers. This expenditure has been included in the Estimates of the present year. If we had decided against re-clothing the Guards in full dress and maintaining the full dress of the Household Cavalry, we should have to supply them with another complete new outfit of khaki at a cost of £30,000. 

The total avoidable expense is, therefore, not £160,000 but £130,000, and £130,000 and not £3,000,000 is the figure to which the Government is at present committed.

The abolition of full dress for the Household Cavalry and the Guards would mean that the Household Cavalry uniforms and the uniforms of the Household Cavalry and Guards bands, and approximately 7,000 bearskins now in stock, would become useless, and this would involve a waste of fully £80,000. The total net expense involved in re-clothing the Guards and retaining the Household Cavalry in scarlet is thus £130,000, while the total waste involved in discarding the existing stocks of full dress would be approximately £80,000. The transaction would therefore appear to be not unjustified, even from a purely financial standpoint.

So we've had a week of Impeachment hearings and

they don't make President Trump look good.  It's clear that he was pressuring the Ukrainians to engage in the investigation of Hunter Biden and that he had intellectual capitol invested in a conspiracy theory that nobody believes in who has looked at it.

Moreover, as Ms. Hill noted, the Administration's ongoing belief about Ukraine and election interference means that Vladimir Putin's efforts to mess with our election were not only successful, but it continues to be successful.

Yume, Vladimir Putin, and Buffy.  Any way you look at it, the figure who looms large over all of this is Vladimir Putin, the autocrat of Russia.  He has to be laughing as Americans openly continue to struggle with Russian interference in the 2016 election and the success of those efforts in destabilizing American democracy right up to the present moment.  Krelim official photograph, kremlin.ur.  

Beyond that, the current President doesn't seem to have any lines between the personal and political.

All of which is bad.

But is any of it illegal?

A reader poses the question if this conduct violates 52 U.S.C. § 30121

Apparently there's been some speculation out there that this is the provision that all this bad conduct violates.  

It doesn't.

Here's what this provision states:

Contributions and donations by foreign nationals  

(a)Prohibition 

It shall be unlawful for— 

(1)a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make— 

(A)a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election; 

(B)a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

(C)an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or 

(2)a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national. 

(b)“Foreign national” defined  

As used in this section, the term “foreign national” means— 

(1)a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States*; or 

(2)an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.

Let's take out the obvious.  Trump isn't a foreign national.

Okay, so in order for this statute to apply, the President would have to "to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national."

So, some are theorizing, by pressuring the Ukrainian president to investigate Hunter he's soliciting "a contribution or donation".

That's strained in the extreme.

Whether the Democrats rely on this provision in their upcoming articles of impeachment is yet to be seen, and I doubt they will.  Frankly, I don't think the articles will have any citations to statutory law at all.  It'll be a series of accusations that he did improper things, but they won't be things that they can pin as illegal.  Immoral?  Perhaps?  Exceptionally crude and inappropriate?  Perhaps again. Vested in debunked theories?  Perhaps yet again.  But violating a statutory code?  So far, that seems unlikely.**

All of which puts everyone in a bad spot.  

The simple solution to this is an election. But the Democrats now have so much invested in this that they seemingly  have to go forward no matter what. For that matter, the Republicans have been put in a terrible spot as well as they've been left with seeming little choice but to defend conduct that they never otherwise would have.  All of this is serving to elevate extremist in both parties to greater heights.  And that will serve to make the upcoming election ever more extreme.

Indeed, as a trial will occur in the Senate, at this point it's impossible not to imagine the Impeachment Trial turning into a weeks long Republican effort to praise the President and perhaps give credence to discredited theories and, moreover, for the entire process to be converted by the Administration as a way to dominate the news for election purposes.  It'll be one long campaign rally, potentially, just as the House Impeachment hearings have been one long No Confidence Hearing in a country that lacks a No Confidence feature in its Constitution.

All in all, this is doing damage to everything and now that the ship has sailed there's no recovering it.  The Democrats are yielding to uber snark rather than doing anything serious.  The GOP has been reduced in its arguments to defending conduct it no doubt doesn't really approve of, which may be why the GOP figures we've heard from in the House are people that we've never heard of before.  Adam Schiff is coming across like a pampas jackass.  Devin Nunes as somebody who needs to take a public speaking class. And Jim Jordan looks absurd.  The President comes across just as he always has, which shouldn't surprise anyone. Everyone looks pretty helpless.  

Indeed the only ones who have come out looking good so far are career diplomats and government service officers who are the heroes of the moment.  Unfortunately, at the exact same time this gives credit to those on the hard right who argue that Trump is sabotaged at every turn by "the Deep State" and disloyal staffers.  And not doubt those sort of claims will be amplified in the upcoming election.

Indeed, the election itself will become even more about Trump than it already is. And that's not going to be a good thing.  Issues and policies will be buried.  And that will mean, should the Democrats win in the fall, the country will have elected somebody it probably knows almost nothing about.  The vast field of Democratic candidates right now operates to to increase that problem in that its tough to know very much about any of them, particularly with this element of background chatter constantly going on.

All of which goes to show that those who claimed that Nancy Pelosi was a master politician were pretty much right.  Her instincts were to not go in this direction, and now we know why.  When she did, she probably didn't have much of a choice.  But my guess is that her absence from the press attention during this has been studied on her part.

________________________________________________________________________________

Addendum:

Thomas Jefferson.  Morally problematic and enigmatic, but still brilliant.  Has the day that he feared we'd get to arrived?

After I wrote it, but before it was published, I received an email from The New Republic which I think demonstrates the really surreal state of our republic at the current time.

The email linked in an article in the current issue entitled:

To Lock Up a President

It goes on to start off with:

Democrats seem to agree that Trump should be brought to justice. Whether they agree on the precise nature of that justice is an open question.

The Article notes that there are now protesters on the left wanting to "lock up" Trump. This quote from Bernie Sanders is included in the article.

“I think the people of this country are catching on to the degree that this president thinks he is above the law,” Sanders said. “And what the American people are saying, nobody is above the law. And I think what the American people are also saying is, in fact, that if this president did break the law, he should be prosecuted like any other individual who breaks the law.”

And hence the really disturbing problem.

Things may change, and if they did substantially I'd agree that the implications of violating the law are what they are. But so far, there's been no evidence at all that Trump broke the law.  What the evidence is that he mixed his personal political aspirations with official policy in a highly inappropriate way.

But that's political.

We've definitely had Presidents break the law.  Indeed, I'd argue that both George Bush II and Barack Obama broke the law in their licensing the use of military force without a Declaration of War, although I'm one of the very few people who seem bothered by that.  Richard Nixon undoubtedly broke the law.  Reagan's lieutenants broke the law in a way that would certainly seem to implicate Reagan.  Probably most of the Cold War Presidents crowded the law in some fashion.  But what we are really seeing here is the suggestion that Trump must have broken the law because, those people argue, they don't like what he did.

Well, that doesn't make it illegal.  There's been a lot of Presidents who did stuff that was outright icky and morally questionable in the extreme (John F. Kennedy for example), but that doesn't mean all of that was illegal (although the Bay of Pigs invasion may have been).

At some point since George Bush I we've started to stray into that dangerous area of making moral failings illegal and political failure illegal.  That's a scary development.  The entire effort to impeach Bill Clinton was a spectacular example of that, but there have been plenty of others.  Since at least the Clinton Administration simply being in an Administration has exposed office holders to potential prosecution simply for failure.  It's spread to industry and commerce as well, with "insider trading" laws being an example of actually making simply being in the know illegal, and crises to prosecute bankers for failed banking practices something we've heard since 2008.

Crises of "lock him up" can't come as too much of  surprise for somebody who campaigned against his 2016 opponent with cries that she was "Crooked Hillary" and who didn't shut down supporters when they yelled "lock her up".  So a person really can't feel too sorry for a politician who is now receiving treatment similar to that which he meted out.  But a person can feel sorry for the country.  People vilified nearly every President we ever had, but the efforts we've seen since Clinton to remove them on pretexts is new and distressing in the extreme.

When the country was founded, it was famously given a republican form of government which, as Benjamin Frankly wry noted, may be difficult to keep.  We have so far. A republican government is a democracy, in spite of those who really haven't thought it out occasionally stating "a republic isn't a democracy".  Yes, it is.  What we didn't get with that republic is a democracy without a written constitution, like the British Parliament, or a pure unrestrained democracy, like the ancient Athenian democracy.  And for good reason.

Thomas Jefferson theorized from the onset that American democracy was in fact completely doomed.  His view is that it would have a long run, but only as long as it had territory to expand into and therefore a population of yeomen farmers.  Once that class yielded to an urban class, and he was certain that it would, he was certain that the urban class would rise and that politicians would purchase its votes through favors to the urban class, which he regarded as a mob.

Jefferson proved absolutely correct that the yeoman unfortunately yielded to the urbanites.  But a lot of modern democracies are more urban than rural and appear very stable.  Quite a few of the European democracies were urban when they became democracies, although at least early in the history of most of them, and ongoing in some, a yeoman class was strongly represented politically.  Ironically, in recent years some European economies have become much more open and free market than our own and are functioning politically much better than we are.

At any rate, Jefferson's view was long term gloomy.  He probably didn't regard it as such as he thought that settling the western expanse of the continent would take 1,000 years, something he was massively off the mark on.  But there are real reasons to feel that what he featured would take place after the conclusion of that 1,000 years may have been right in some form.  Americans don't seem to interested in the democratic process any more.  Like Athenian democracy, they appear okay with screaming for the head of political opponents simply because they can, and are fine with making the opponents criminals because they are opponents. And like Jefferson feared, one party at least is pretty comfortable with buying the loyalty of voters in economic positions promising to fund all of life's decisions, from education (Sanders and others) to having children (Booker), and any other number of things that prior generations would have been insulted to have the government involved in.

A republic. . . if you can keep it.

Addendum, November 25, 2016.

This Week featured a couple of lawyers who are "Constitutional Scholars".  I don't know what their backgrounds are other than the very short snipped regarding them, and they may very well be that, although what that likely means is that they're academic lawyers.  Most practitioners don't get that title as a rule, unless they're being interviewed by the press on a specific topic or case.

Anyhow, they, and the panelist, irrespective of political persuasion, all tended towards the view that "high crime and misdemeanors" is sufficiently vague such that an impeachment can be done for political reasons.  That view surprises me, but it was the uniform view.  

Indeed, they discussed the current statute on bribery and debated if it is really relevant at all.  There was no real consensus.  Some suggested no, as it wasn't the law at the time.

Frankly, I think its relevant as the Constitution says "high crimes and misdemeanors", but the provisions are admittedly vague.  The uniform view is that its a political process, which means that as a quasi judicial process, if that view is held, it's more political than my general view here would have it.

_________________________________________________________________________________

*For those who might wonder, the line excepting foreign nationals who are U.S. citizens creates an exception for dual citizens.  It might frankly be impossible for a person to know who and who is not a dual citizen in common politics and therefore this exception precludes all sorts of accidental violations of the law.

**Indeed, in my view relying upon 52 U.S.C. § 30121 creates a legal risk as if the Senate was actually to remove Trump from office, which it is not going to do, it would raise the question on whether or not the Senate can remove a President from office for the violation of a crime upon which he has not been convicted.

This problem would exist anyhow, and always exists in Impeachment hearing in which the President has not been so convicted.  Of note, no U.S. President who has been subject to an impeachment trial has actually been convicted of a crime.  Nixon came the closest but he wasn't impeached.  Indeed, the Nixon example shows why the strange presumed prohibition on prosecuting a President for an actual violation of a crime during his office doesn't make any sense at all.  Anyhow, as no President has been removed, the impeachment clause of the Constitution has actually never been tested.

What we don't know, and its an interesting question, is what would happen if a President was removed.  It's a power clearly vested in Congress and up until quite recently such powers were pretty much absolute.  In recent years, however, the Supreme Court has held that they are not.  

In other words, had Nixon been impeached, or Clinton, and then they tried to take their impeachment to the Supreme Court, the Court would have ruled quickly it had no jurisdiction over the matter.  Now, we can't be so sure.  If the Court found it did have jurisdiction and took the matter up (there's some procedural matters that would have to occur in order for that to happen) it might very well hold that it has the exclusive right to interpret the clause and render a decision on its meaning.  There's good reason to hope that this never occurs.