us congress

by

Republican Values

Despite his rejection by a clear majority of the American people, and despite having lost the House and then the Senate to the Democrats, Donald Trump seems to have an incredible hold over the Republican Party. Whilst it is clear the leadership can’t wish him far enough, and criticise his role in the events of 6 January, they are still circumspect in their actions and words. Many members of the party have still failed to say a word against him.

The willingness to call out the ex-presidents behaviour seems to be closely correlated to the distance from re-election. For members of the House that is very soon and they are loath to risk the ire of a man renown for his commitment to revenge. The threat of being primaried or having some of the Trump war chest deployed against them retains their public if not private loyalty.

Some, of course, may be believers in Trumpism. They genuinely think the policies and practices of the past four years are consistent with the constitution and the principles of liberal democracy. In which case one cannot question their integrity though you might their judgement.

It is the ones that know Trump is definitely in the running for the worst American president of all time that are really difficult to fathom. They know the scale of the threat he has been to American Democracy but cannot bring themselves to stand up and be counted.

The job of an American Congressman, is reasonably well paid. The salary is $174,000 per annum for all members of the House and the Senate. There are no additional amounts for being the Chair of a Committee, however, the majority and minority leader in both houses receive $193k and the Speaker of the House receives $223,500.

On top of their base salary they can earn up to a maximum of 15% of a separately based figure with a current maximum allowance of $28,440 giving a potential total earnings from all employments of $202,440, approximately equivalent to £144k.

One cannot believe the concern Republican members have for the Constitution and their nations democracy is exceeded by their salary. There must be some other values which they hold so dear as to be willing to stand silent in the face of incitement to insurrection.

What can those values be?

by

The Case for Impeachment

It is a sad but unsurprising comment on the Trump Presidency that in April this year (2017), less than three months into his term of office, an American professor of history, Allen J Lichtman, should think it worthwhile publishing a work entitled “The Case for Impeachment”. The book considers Trump’s behaviour generally and specifically in his first few weeks in office to present the “… foundation for building a case for his impeachment”.

He makes the point that impeachment proceedings are not confined to the actions of a President in office. Politically unlikely, but constitutionally possible is the impeachment of Trump for actions which were committed before he became President. More likely such actions may be considered as evidence of his character and propensity to behave in particular ways as part of an impeachment hearing for things related to his campaign for the Presidency and his time in office.

Professor Lichtman summarises a whole series of areas which he believes provide grounds for action to impeach Trump. A key one is his attitude to the law. He summarises the various laws that Trump has broken over the years: racial discrimination in housing; illegal use of charitable funds; failure to pay taxes; sexual discrimination against female  employees in his casinos; establishing a fraudulent “University” (one which offered no course credits, conferred no degrees, did not grade students and did not submit to outside review); and, perhaps most ironically, the exploitation of undocumented immigrants in the construction of Trump Tower in 1980.

Whilst impeachment may not be instituted because of any of the above transgressions they provide evidence of his attitude towards the law. Details of the above cases betray an attitude which sees it as a tool to gag and intimidate people who oppose him but to be ignored or subverted where it stands in the way of what he wants to do. His modus operandi is to spend his way out of trouble by, for instance, paying $25m to settle the case relating to his bogus university whilst at the same time claiming this as a victory. He has certainly had plenty of practice finessing the law it being reported he has been plaintiff in 1,900 legal actions, defendant in 1,450, and involved in bankruptcy or third-party suits 150 times.

The book catalogues the various and multiple conflicts of interest created by Trump’s ongoing business interests around the world and makes the point that the high level of debt many of his companies rely upon creates real leverage for the holders of that debt if something goes wrong and his businesses cannot repay their loans. The only way to avoid these conflicts and risks would be by selling all his assets, liquidating his debt and putting the proceeds into a blind Trust operated by a third part not reporting to the President. He has refused to do this rather handing over control of his business empire to his two sons!

Trumps propensity to see the truth as whatever serves his purpose is considered. The independent fact-checker PolitiFact reviewed all the presidential candidates at the end of the nomination process and found Trump had more “Pants on Fire” ratings than all twenty-one other candidates… combined! The point is made that lying under oath about his relationship with Ms Lewinsky was a key driver of the impeachment of Bill Clinton. A series of outstanding lawsuits against Trump could result in his having to testify under oath and create a similar risk for him if he failed to tell the truth.

Of course the big issue is the Russia connection and the book provides a summary of the nature of the pro-Trump Russian intervention in the election and the many links Trump has to Russia, and oligarchs close to Putin. It charts the pro-Russia interventions made by the Trump administration and the links going back to the 2013 Miss Universe pageant which Trump took to Moscow. It also mentions the fact that, at the time, Trump had tweeted “Trump Tower Moscow is next.” Since the book was published in April evidence has emerged that Trump Tower Moscow was more than a vague dream. It appears, despite statements to the contrary, that Trump Tower Moscow is a live project. Indeed in 2016 Mr Trump signed a letter of intent about the project.

Given what we know about the actions of Trump since the election the question arises, why has he not been impeached already. The cold reality according to Prof. Lichtman is that the Republican Party has a programme of change they want to see through. It involves, tax reform, de-regulation, eviscerating climate change laws, repeal of the affordable care act, shifting investment towards the military away from social programmes, and generally reducing the role of the state. Whilst it is judged Trump is capable of delivering on this the Republicans will not move against him and their control of the House and Senate means therefore impeachment would not succeed.

Given Trump’s spectacular failure to deliver pretty much anything since he came into office the GOP may well be starting to think about plan B. If they were to impeach Trump then, theoretically, Mike Pence, as Vice President, should take over which may have looked an attractive option at some point. However, this may not be so appealing if there is a risk that the investigations of special counsel Bob Mueller finds that Mr Pence has, in some way, colluded in the Russia connection or, even worse, the cover up of the same.

It is difficult to see how President Trump can survive to the end of his first term. His propensity to dig  when he is in a hole is spectacular. Whilst it is a comment on the times a book could be published 4 months into his Presidency making the case for impeachment it is even more instructive that 6 months later the book looks significantly out of date as to the weight of evidence mounting and pressure building on this presidency.

There is a sense President Trump has created a new standard for shock. He has set the bar much higher for outrage. However, in the background the prosaic investigations of the Mueller inquiry grind on. The President may find at some point the civilised standards of ordinary people reassert themselves and that no one is above the rule of law. If he does not – God help America.

The Case For Impeachment. A J Lichtman. Harper Colllins 2017

 

by

If you don’t know the answer don’t ask the question

What on earth is the West’s strategy in relation to Syria. Following the defeat of the executive in Britain, President Obama is setting things up for a rerun in the US. Congress cannot agree the time of day at the moment. The idea that they will vote for a strike to degrade Assad’s chemical weapon capacity is at best optimistic.

Congress might be persuaded that the credibility of US foreign policy is at stake and that it will undermine their authority globally, far beyond the issue of Syria, if they vote against the President on this key issue. If they do vote for it however, it will be on a motion so restrictive that Obama will have no room to respond to whatever the consequences are.

If they vote against it and Obama stands the troops down what will the consequences be? Too awful to contemplate for the opposition forces and civilians in Damascus. Whilst Assad is clearly a man with little regard for world opinion not knowing what the West would do will have stayed his hand, even if only slightly. When the West declares they are going to do nothing then nothing will stay his hand.

David Cameron has displayed a spectacular level of incompetence. He neither developed a compelling rationale for action nor managed his party in the division lobby with ministers allegedly missing the vote. He is now attempting to transform a humiliating defeat into a triumph for democracy. It is not. It has made an awful position a whole lot worse. Even having seen the mess in the UK President Obama is set to compound the problem. The decision of the UK to step back from taking action damages the credibility of our foreign policy. If the US steps back it damages the credibility of the West.

It is impossible to imagine circumstances in which Syria is going to end well. What is more it is set to ignite conflicts beyond its borders in the Middle East which looks more dangerous than it has for a long time. Beyond this the superpowers are banging up against each other. With all this it is highly unlikely that the West and the UK will not be forced to engage in the region in the not too distant future. It is a holy mess which it is impossible to see a way out of. I do not know whether now is the right time to intervene and whether intervention would have the desired effect. I am absolutely certain however that threatening to intervene and then withdrawing is the worst of all possible worlds.

by

Fight, fight and fight again…

The Parliamentary debate on Syria has been an unedifying spectacle of incompetence and the scramble to secure the support of public opinion. Nowhere amongst the leaders of any of the main parties has there been a whiff of integrity. The prime minister has spectacularly misjudged his own party but has also failed to provide a compelling vision. A vision of how a limited strike against Assad, for acts of state sponsored terrorism against his own citizens, will improve matters for ordinary Syrians.

Mr Milliband has dithered to a position, which in the short term seems to be benefiting him. Starting from surprisingly strong support for the Government to a second position of significant caveats through to whipping his party to vote against an intervention. At best you can say he has read the mood of his backbenchers and tacked accordingly.

Considering the gravity of the issue neither the PM nor the leader of the opposition have adopted a position of principle and stuck with it. In 1960 Hugh Gaitskell lost a vote at the Labour Party conference on unilateral nuclear disarmament. He Did not say that he now “got it”. He did not extol the virtues of debate and the benefits of Party Conference democracy. His response was that he would “fight,fight and fight again…”

At the time it was an incredibly divisive debate and did have implications for Britains defence posture. However it was not about immediately committing the UK to military action in a foreign theatre. If the PM comes to the view that  that there is sufficient reason to contemplate this then he should not accept a defeat in the Commons as the end of the story. He should fight to reverse the decision or resign. Acts of war, which this would be are probably the most significant single decisions a prime minister makes. When they come to that decision, putting British lives in harms way, they need to be certain that what they are proposing is critical to British interests.

Britain is a Parliamentary democracy, not a democracy run by parliament. Parliament is a safety valve, a way of voting down a government which is doing something they deem unacceptable. When voting down a government MP’s minds are focused by the reality of a consequent election. It is said the House was stunned when the vote was announced. Clearly the result was not expected or wanted by David Cameron. We will never know but one suspects it was neither expected nor probably wanted by Ed Milliband.

I do not know whether we should have engaged in the current action to deter Assad in the use of chemical weapons against his own people. However, it is probably only a matter of time before we (the West) has to intervene in the Middle East. Syria is not an isolated problem, it is part of a region which is being torn apart by the religious schism between Shia and Sunni Muslim believers. Behind them are global powers with their own agendas and interests. There are a wide range of economic and security interests the UK has in the region which means almost inevitably we will have to engage.

The poor judgement of a Prime Minister casts a long shadow. The Iraq war was an unmitigated disaster albeit its citizens were subject to the same oppression by an odious tyrant, one who incidentally used nerve gas against his citizens in the Al-Anfal campaign in the 1980’s with impunity. Accepting Mr Blair acted in good faith then he is guilty of making one of the worst judgement calls in British Foreign policy, one which has reverberated through the current debates and one which may have fatally undermined Britain’s ability to develop an effective foreign policy for years to come. Mr Cameron’s judgement call was almost as bad and has compounded the problem. Many would argue that his handling of domestic policy is not right but it is at least arguable. His handling of foreign policy and defence is a disaster.