Oversight and president ial misconduct. This is part of an ongoing series by the National History center that brings historical issues thatto congress is currently addressing. Centerd stress that the is a strictly nonpartisan entity and is the purpose of this program and the others we do in the series are not to advocate for any particular policies, but to provide Historical Context that can help inform policymakers and the public as they deal with difficult issues. Toore handing this over james banner, i want to thank the support of the mellon foundation, which makes the series possible. I also want to thank rachel at the back of the room, the assistant director who has organized this. And i want to thank the office of congressman Jerry Connolly who booked the room today. Will beo note that we collecting questions on note cards. If you have not received one and need it, let me know. The second half of the hour q a, we have q1 day, write down your question. James banner good morning. I want to briefly set the context for this discussion and introduce our speakers. Session is devoted to the subject of congressional oversight of president ial behavior, but it originates from a book that was public last summer published last on president ial misconduct. Usyears ago, a number of participated in the preparation of a report at the request of the impeachment inquiry of the. Ouse committee 11 of us put together a report in eight weeks under the management of a yale historian and submitted the report to mr. Ford, who was preparing to distribute it to members of the committee and the president resigned. That more or less consigned to the report to oblivion. The text was in Public Domain and picked up by dell publishing and issued without advertisement to the public and a drop upon publication. No one knew about it. Most historians do not know about it. And there it was for about 44 years. A year ago, jill discovered the book for the first time in her life. She called me and asked what it was. I explained it. I knew what was going on. She read about it for the new yorker, where she is h staff writer. He became clear the report of 1974 had to be brought up to date. That report had covered president ial misconduct or responses by president s to charges of misconduct for the presidency of Lyndon Johnson. Updateed incumbent we that report. Somentified and recruited historians. The report has been brought up to date and published as president ial misconduct. The report is factual and goes ,rom president to president episode by episode. It is nonpartisan. In some respects, bland. But it presents a record of president ial misconduct from George Washington through the last days of Barack Obamas presidency. The record, the unprecedented record. It is an unprecedented record of its subject for over 230 years. It is from the contents of that book that this briefing emerges because it turns out when you are laying down the facts about president ial misconduct and years, thereof over 230 you are dealing with countervailing forces. Press, nonprofit organizations, nongovernment organizations, aroused citizenry, and your nested date and the United States conduct congress. My colleagues have extracted the guts of the subject of congressional efforts to corral and respond to president ial misconduct, including of the president s family. Let me introduce our speakers and i will step aside. Hryn brownell is an expert and professor at purdue university. She is the offer author of which titletics gives away the emergence of the celebrity presidency and is working on a book covering the political history of cable television. Nbc, time for magazine, writers, the washington post, and is the coeditor of the history section of the washington post. Ri, fromhave jeremi su the university of texas. He is a member of the history department. Books onthored several the subject of american politics and Foreign Policy and hosts a weekly podcast known as this is democracy. These are skilled, published, thoughtful historians on the subject of congressional oversight of president ial history. Jeremi. Art with [applause] i am delighted to be here. I want to thank the National History center and the staff are making this possible. Historian of the presidency, democracy, and evolution of american politics. Have devoted i over 20 years to research and teaching the subjects. Facts are important. I want to begin by pointing out there are historical facts. We do research and goes to go to documents. What i want to present today are important president ial facts. Interpretationut later, but these are facts. Let me start with my conclusion. Is a historical statement of fact and i am sure every historian would agree. Congress has always played a vital role in the investigation and adjudication of a legend president ial misconduct. Congress has investigated many president s for misconduct, following the lead of various informants, including journalists and whistleblowers. The story of whistleblowers goes back before the founding of the republic, back to the 18th century and the continental congress. Our congress has punished many president s with a variety of instruments. A variety of instruments by punish president ial administrations for misuse of power, including funding cuts, restrictive legislation, censure, and impeachment. We have to think about impeachment on a spectrum. That is what congress has always done historically. Hold president s accountable for this misuse of power. Congress isay andilling their old role continuing role in the democracy. Historicalasic thesis. I want to go through a few points. President ial misconduct is common in American History. Its not new. As the founders expected and as we all know, power corrupts. President s have succumbed to the temptation of power. Verye 19th century, the frequent misuse of president ial power surrounded the offering of favors. Jobs, contacts, and advantages to friends and supporters. Andrew jackson called it the spoils system. There was an inordinate number of illiterate, drunk, incompetent men put into government jobs by president s, often as thanks for electoral support. Textbook corruption. After the civil war, contracts for railroads often went to and manipulative machine politicians. Members of congress were not immune to this corruption themselves. But congress nonetheless played as a body that was the main area for efforts to reverse and prevent this form of misconduct. Favoritism andd civil service. Malfeasance and government contracts, prosecutions and other laws followed these acts of oversight. Numerous president ial appointees and advisors went to jail as a consequence to this work. Misconduct was commonly overseen and responded to by congress. It was one of their duties. Century, the frequent misuse of president ial power through favoritism, especially after world war ii, was connected to what eisenhower called the rise of the militaryindustrial complex. Truman as a senator had warned of this. 30srned in the 20s and following alleged misuse of military money during world war i. He predicted the u. S. Would find itself in a situation where president s would use more power and unaccountable ways. Was one of the first to president s to be accused of doing this. Robert taft in 1950 criticized german for conducting Police Actions without congressional oversight. This open the door to president ial misconduct throughout the 20 century. What taft was referring to was the nonconsent from congress toward the use of president ial overseas andpower acting congress to support it without real oversight. We know this happened. Withold war is filled foreign to coups. Dishonest wars like vietnam and afghanistan, dishonest because not only the administrations not informed congress, but often intentionally miss informed congress about what they were doing. Perhaps the most egregious case was the irancontra affair. Ronald reagans white house violated legislation prohibiting military aid in nicaragua. Participationect of Vice President george h w. Ush money was secretly sold to iran sales ofoney from the weapons was sent to nicaragua. Congress conducted investigations of the misuse of military power. These hearings educated the public and began with many in the public and many on the side of president claiming hearings were an excessive use of congressional power there is almost no historian today who criticizes the existence of the hearings. These hearings are what congress was supposed to do. We go back and read the hearings to this day to understand how president s were using their power. Thats the context for the watergate hearings. Watergate is not just about the misuse of power with regard to the election. Broaderbout congressional efforts to rein in president ial misuse of power abroad and at home and why watergate hearings triggered a decade of reform to limit the use of president ial power at home and abroad. This is Congress Stepping in to limit the extensive use of president ial power. Oftengh president s have bristled under this role in congress and demanded privilege in certain areas, no president until now has ever questioned congress is right to investigate. They have questioned the details and if certain people must testify. A particular material needs to be turned over to congress. The members of the white house have recognized that this is their role this is congresss role. Its part of a historical consensus. We can debate with the role means that the existence of the role has been recognized by president s in congress. And congress determines a president misuses power, violations have almost never been about direct financial benefits the president. Nixon proves the rule. Conduct anls investigation is common in American History. Is directt common president ial benefit from the misuse of power. In other words, there is almost always some distance between the beneficiaries of power and the president himself and president s have set it up that way. Almost every president has wanted to make sure certain people get certain favors and wanted to come close to crossing the law but always wanted to separate himself from that and create distance. Most every president has wanted not to touch the dirtiest explications of power surrounding the office. I have read probably more than 10,000 transcripts for meetings and president ial communications. Transcripts over the 200 years are filled with all kinds of lying and misuse of power. But i have never read a president before this one demand personal favors with such repetition and flavorants flagrance. And place the personal above policy issues so obviously. The overwhelming nature of it and way in which the personal claims outweigh the role of the office is overwhelming in this case in comparison to any and all that preceded it. As historians we are in a position to make that judgment. We reached transcripts and compare what we are seeing. When they wanted something personal, they have historically avoided being explicit. They try to serve policy while also serving interests. Explanation explains what congress has resorted to impeachment rarely. Its not that there has not been his conduct with the congress has not wanted to bring down the hammer. Its that prior president s were still seen as doing the job and there was a belief congress could restrict their behavior from conduct during continuing continuing their misconduct. With reagan and the irancontra hearings, Congress Found evidence that the president had broken the law. Congress, including democratic leaders, chose not to impeach reagan because he did not directly and personally benefit. They believed he was doing when he did to serve the interests of the country as he saw it and they do not think he would continue to do it. They believed the process of investigation would limit the malfeasance. If they had believed this would continue, there is a high likelihood they would have sought impeachment at this time at that time. Although president s have anduently lied to congress to america, congress has always most ofit can trust what president s say. Investigations have focused on the few areas where the legislature has reason to doubt president ial honesty. Thats why you investigate. Parent history, separation of powers has presumed different branches of government will pursue different policies but they are expected to act honestly and in good faith with one another. Although most president s have been responsible for some misconduct, they have generally still acted in good faith toward our system. Both of those are true at the same time. Has dented the good faith of the president , they have investigated. Doubted thes has good faith of the president , they have investigated and ,emanded honesty, not agreement from the executive branch. That is what oversight is all about. So i am talking about the role congress has historically played in the role it has in a free government of affirming it has the right and duty to oversee president ial misconduct, which we know will always exist. It is the role of congress to investigate and punish it when necessary. Congress has always played a vital role in the investigation and adjudication of alleged president ials conduct and investigated many president s using a range of responses to misconductd punish from funding cuts to impeachment and that in doing that today, i think the facts are such we can only conclude that congress is performing their historical duty when there was evidence to believe the president is misusing his power, widening, and perhaps jeopardizing national interest. [applause] ms. Brownell thank you for having me here. Thank you to the National History center for organizing these briefings that bring insights of history to our environment. I want to focus my comments to add to what you were just presented and focus on a pressing historical truth that pervades the current question of impeachment. Normss both laws and shape the boundaries of acceptable political behavior. Congressional investigations into president ial misconduct has been central in evaluating and determining the parameters of acceptable and legal behavior for members and the executive branch, including the president , their family members, and advisors. Today, i want to emphasize three points. The first, the definition of what constitutes president ial misconduct has changed over time. So have the laws governing it and congressional strategy grappling with it. The second points are about the importance of recent american political history. I think that is key to understanding the contemporary environment. Watergate transformed questions of president ial misconduct into a central aspect of american politics. It elevated the role of Investigative Journalism and paved the way for ethical investigations as a legitimate, legal point of political, partisan debate and inquiry. Watergate shadows of and clinton impeachment grew large. But we should not simply follow either script or rely on either event to understand what is happening today. Both brought about dramatic changes to the political environment and we see those changes on display. Only by understanding the ways Congress Took on the common the question of president ial misconduct and changes to laws and norms resulted in both these investigations during clinton and Nixon Administrations can we understand the depth of the challenge we face today. Lets start with nixon. Nixon broke the law. Clearly. Inpromised government favor exchange for campaign donations. He oversaw burglaries like the and was partakin of the coverup that included using Campaign Funds to buy silence. Clear violations of the law. Other actions were not as clearly defined. There were not necessarily framed as a legal at the time, including the secret bombing of cambodia, wiretapping of journalists, and a Massive Surveillance Program on american citizens. In the aftermath of the watergate investigation that exposed all of these abuses of president ial power, when it came to the surface, congress decided to take action and they passed a variety of reforms to clearly set the goal events on president ial behavior. That is the flurry of reforms jeremi spoke of. You have the 1978 ethics in Government Act and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 1978. All of this legislation attempted to set boundaries of president ial conduct. Many of nixons successors frequently ignored them, especially una came to questions especiallypolicy when it came to questions of Foreign Policy and surveillance of citizens. Investigationate and reform refuted the central argument that nixon made about his action and what he could do was president. Nixon said when a president does it, it is notcongress disagreed. It took action to move forward on impeachment because it disagreed with that, and it clarified the law after nixons resignation to more firmly show that there were legal boundaries in terms of what the president could and could not do. ,hese postwatergate reforms however, also reshaped practices in the halls of congress and in the media as well. The push for ethics and transparency in politics soon became a vehicle for a different war that usesan scandal to attack political opponents. The rise of Investigative Journalism also expanded the spotlight on the personal lives president s, and administrations responded to this coverage by building a wall between them and the press and congress and the people, by hiring Communications Professionals to dismantle the allegations. These developments ultimately reached a peak with the clinton administration, when accusations of misconduct were explicitly used as a partisan tool to undermine president ial legitimacy and distract from the president s legislative agenda. Investigations with clinton began around seemingly trivial questions. The first major one was called , which looked into when clinton fired seven employees from the office of travel for financial impropriety , and replace them with his own people. Into ay soon evolved more partisan effort to show obstruction of justice or executive overreach or some way in which the president had violated the law. An immediate thirst for exposing scandal fueled these investigations as well. The impeachment investigation and the trial focused on the question of perjury and obstruction of justice in regards to clintons affair with white house intern monica lewinsky. The topic of the investigation, however, was notably different from the conversation about president ial misconduct that took place under nixon. It ultimately demonstrated the shift in ideas about president ial misconduct that took place after watergate. Misconductt personal and moral failings that clinton himself claimed were private issues and not a public liability. Clinton responded to these allegations by using an effective and well seasoned war room to make his case to the public and to his democratic allies in the senate. Privateain, these were issues and not a public liability. And it worked. Though a judge later held the president in the civil contempt for having making for having made false statements under oath, clinton won the that offer Public Opinion by dismantling republican arguments about his actions being a high crime that warranted his removal from office. And so he remained in office. The clinton impeachment set new norms that shaped todays environment. Private indiscretions have become political liabilities. Impeachment continued to be framed as a partisan tool in the aftermath of clintons administration. Notably, every president since clinton has endured heightened scrutiny of their personal lives, as well as calls for impeachment by political rivals. Of what partisan legacy is famously referred to as the politics of personal destruction, is now used to distract from the central question that should be at the core of the impeachment today, the central question that was at the core of investigations into watergate and nixons administration. Trumps, has president this regarded the law and will congress allow this to happen . Tohink the key lesson here learn from nixon and clinton is that congress does have a responsibility to determine what constitutes morally and andcally dubious behavior, perhaps something voters should be evaluating when they go to the polls, and what is illegal and unconstitutional. It needs to be something that congress has to address with the very specific tools the constitution provides congress to do so. Clearly shows the stakes of this conversation. Or inaction today, both with impeachment or any potential reforms passed in the aftermath, congress will set the boundaries. Both the laws and the norms for how the presidency operates not just today but in the future. Thank you. [applause] we are collecting questions, which i will pose to everyone in a moment. Thank you. These are questions and to ask the two of you, both of you to answer. The first, has congress ever drawn on the emoluments clause in response to acts of corruption by previous president s . Prof. Suri as far as i know, the emoluments clause has never actually been used by congress actionlize or take against the president , but it has been in debate before. This is not the first time people have questioned whether a president is somehow personally benefiting from his behavior. This came up even with the first president bush, he and the question of and the question of oil interests. This is not the first time, but the flagrant of it, weve not had a president that i know of that has talked of hosting International Visitors in a setting where he would personally financially benefit. When Lyndon Johnson brought foreign visitors to the ranch, he did not read a financial benefit from it in a way that perhaps the current president would. Mr. Banner another question. In past examples of misconduct investigations, how did the president s party react . Gopdoes the current attitude fit with past investigations . Prof. Brownell i think thats a really good question. The Nixon Administration and the watergate investigation is a great example of the challenge this brings to party politics. One of the things that really strengthened the case against nixon and legitimized it was the fact that it was bipartisan, and there were many republicans who studied the evidence, they looked at the reports, they listened to the tapes when they finally were released, looked at the transcripts released in advance, and they came to the conclusion that nixon had done something wrong. Studying it, and thinking not simply of their Party Affiliation but their constitutional responsibility, that they needed to take action against nixon. And they worked with the dedocrats and cited si with them when they were drawing up the articles of impeachment. I think that is really significant. It was important to bring in a variety of republicans to legitimize this. Arguerse, nixon wanted to that this was just a partisan ploy by his enemies to undermine his presidency, but once the facts were there and republicans decided they needed to Pay Attention to those and that they had a constitutional responsibility, not a party responsibility, a constitutional one, to think about the check that congress has on the executive branch, they decided they would prioritize that constitutional responsibility over party loyalty. Prof. Suri i agree with that. I do think, though, that every impeachment and every issue of residential this conduct is partisan. That is not something new to today. The johnson impeachment is strange because he is of the party innocence that is impeaching him, or so it would seem at first. I think what is significant is not that members of Congress Today are being more partisan i dont find partisanship new. I think what is different today is there doesnt seem to be the same interest as we have seen in the past and the role of congress. Its not that i think members in the past cared more about the constitution, they might have. But that members in the past jealously guarded the privileges of congress. I think one of the reasons we both have tried to make the case that congressional oversight works, even though you are partisan, you want your body to matter and you want to go back to constituents and say that you matter. Today, for a variety of reasons that i think has to do with the primary system and fundraising, etc. , there is less of an interest in guarding the role of congress. The way i would understand and interpret watergate is members of Congress Like howard baker and others were not just concerned about the constitution, but their role as members of congress. That is a question today and i think thats what we will see in the senate, right . To what extent do the members of the senate want to protect their role as senators . To what extent to they want to roll over on the issue . Prof. Brownell i think it is important to note that campaignfinance reform began before the watergate investigation. In war powers act was passed 1973. So congress was aware that the executive had become so powerful. Of books thatw came out in the early 1970s that talked about the imperial presidency and the abuses of power that were happening before the exposure of the misdeeds of the Nixon Administration. Even before the specifics of what happened in watergate with the burglary, congress was aware that the executive had become too powerful and they needed to rein it in with specific reform. Mr. Banner let me followup your answers im going to pull together three that i think follow from it. Let me read all three and then you can decide how to answer which ones. How can congress ever get back to a nonpartisan framing of impeachment . In if trump gets acquitted the senate, how does congress ever overcome this president . But there is another question, a third, that i want to add to the stew. Would you support a constitutional amendment clarifying what is an Impeachable Offense beyond the current constitutional language . Prof. Suri you want to go first . Mr. Banner did you get those three . You can fight over who answers. So i willk, take them in order. I dont think theres ever going to be a nonpartisan process. I am not for nonpartisanship. Nonpartisanship sounds to me like tyranny. Maybe we should have more than two parties, but i am not for nonpartisanship. Factionalism, those are different things, but there is a reason why we have had parties since the founding of the republic. I dont think there is a nonpartisan alternative but there are different ways in which partisanship can be managed in the legislative context. I think you can be partisan but still have a commitment to the oversight role of your body and to the legislative role of your body and still be a partisan individual and still get involved in the kind of partisan compromise that people like Lyndon Johnson and others are famous for. Ronald reagan and tip oneill is another example. Partisanship can be a source of productivity around these issues if it is managed with attention to the role of the body. Quite frankly, with pride in the role your body lies within the broader framework. I think whether trump is acquitted in the senate obviously matters a lot, but from a historic point of view, the vote that occurred while we were speaking in the House Judiciary Committee and then presumptively in the house as a whole is already playing a vital and Important Role because the house of representatives is standing up and saying this is their role. Whether the president gets acquitted or not in the senate. Same thing happened with andrew johnson. Andrew johnson was not convicted in the senate but it was a normal important it was enormously important that it even came down to the senate. I think weve already made important constitutional progress in the last few days with this investigation. It would have been much worse if congress had looked the other way. On a constitutional amendment, i am not for a constitutional amendment to lay out what , i amhable offenses are for other constitutional amendments. A right to vote, for example. But on impeachment, i think the founders got it right, and the nature of misconduct changes over time. Founders never could have imagined that a president could lie to the country and sent americans to war for 10 years in the way that Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon did without congressional oversight. They would never have put that in. We dont know what the misconduct of the future will become a we only know there will be misconduct, and we need congress to play its role in investigating, overseeing, punishing, and deterring that this conduct. Prof. Brownell i agree with those points. On the first one, i dont think you want a nonpartisan process. I think the idea is, can you get a bipartisan can you get people to put the process, and the idea ofntioned, checks and balances, over party . Thats the biggest challenge right now, having the conversations that do not hew simply to partisan talking points on one side or the other but actually talk with one another and see if there is a way, if there is some point of agreement to get a bipartisan discussion on something. He doesnt have to be every article it doesnt have to be every article of impeachment, but is there something people can agree on that needs to be reformed . I think this goes to the second question, that again we dont know what is going to happen, but i think reform going forward, legislative reform that deals with the very issues, foreign interference in elections, how to grapple with these core questions, i think passing reforms. Just like you saw in the aftermath of watergate. What are the key issues that are really allowing some of these allegations of misconduct to come to the forefront in terms of personal interest and business interest . All of these things i think Congress Needs to think about, the specific reforms to grapple with them in the aftermath of this process. Ad i agree about constitutional amendment, i would not be in support of a constitutional amendment that says these are the very specifics. Because the founders created the idea of high crimes and misdemeanors, they made it vague on purpose because there is an understanding that impeachment will be a political process, and that is a political definition of how we understand that. Does change. T circumstances change, what we allow for changes as well. So i think that that is why those reforms, setting that law that these are the parameters, i think that is really important in the future. And i do think the fact that congress has moved forward with impeachment does make a statement regardless of the outcome. I would agree on that point as well. By countering nixons argument that when the president does it, it isnt illegal, i think that is one of the major outcomes of watergate. That Congress Said you are wrong, there are legal parameters and the president is not above the law. Mr. Banner there are two specific subjects that make a president open to impeachment, and that is bribery and treason, already stated. You are not for the number of stated grounds for impeachment in the constitution. Prof. Suri even with bribery, theres a question as to what bribery means. I think in the end, it is the role of congress, as katie said, to determine how to act in the face of misconduct, and what misconduct rises to the level of impeachment. That is a congressional role to play and they should play that role. Mr. Banner katie, im going to give this question to you. Could you elaborate on the role of the press, both print and cable, in congressional oversight . Prof. Brownell i could talk a lot about this. Prof. Suri that is another lecture. Mr. Banner i assume so. Prof. Brownell i think the press has played an instrumental role in serving as a watchdog, if you will, the fourth estate. I think, especially thinking about what happened during watergate, even before watergate, the press tarted to realize that the white house was actively lying to the media and lying to the american people. That what they saw happening in vietnam was not what Lyndon Johnson would say was happening from the oval office. Gap thate credibility theges in the 1960s fuels investigation that really came to the forefront with the Nixon Administration. It was only one component. I think that is key, the press plays a vital role, but we cannot just rely on the press for oversight. Thats why i think with watergate, the press played a role, the courts played a role, Congress Played a role, the fbi played a role. You see all of these different institutions working together. And i think that the nature of that mediathe form takes, the landscape has changed dramatically in the wake of watergate, in part because of watergate. So now we almost become immune to accusations of scandal. We see scandal every day. There is something new going on. That also shows that the press is out there constantly looking for things. Some of it is trivial, some of it is very serious. I think there is that challenge cells foring what forngs what sells ratings and what is a serious offense. That is the challenge that we as viewers and readers needed to understand. But one thing that is very different today that happens in part because of watergate is the power of the conservative media. Many conservatives felt that nixon was a target of what they called the liberal media. In the wake of watergate, conservative media activists worked for several decades to form alternative media institutions to get their message out there to the public. They really expanded those efforts. Conservative media has become much more powerful today with cable television, with talk radio. That is something that is a player in the Republican Party in a way it was not previously. I think you can see that role and those calculations at hand with the Republican Party today. Mr. Banner thank you. I want to introduce the next question with the issue of the definition of misconduct that the three of us wrestled with bringing up the 1974 report. We were working from a general definition of misconduct, embodying two credible considerations, one was defiance of the known, existing law, and the other was use of Public Office for private gain. And keeping those two elements of misconduct in mind, let me read you the following question. Does the unprecedented ties to personal benefits make it easier to prove a high crime . Is there a difference between abuse of power for policy reasons and abuse of power for personal reasons . Prof. Brownell i will let you. Prof. Suri i think first of all we should recognize that there are many different forms of misconduct. , and you arewo certainly right, what we focused on in the book are defiance of the law and use of office for private gain or for nonprivate gain nonpublic gain, lets put it that way. One can abuse power to enrich oneself for personal benefits. I think what you have seen generally in American History, as i tried to lay out, is the use of office for the gains of individuals one cares about. So it is personal but not directly personal to the president. Or abuse of power to serve a policy interest that the president or those around the president care deeply about. Ronald reagan falls precisely in that area in both sections. For example, he looks the other way and his attorney general misreporting his investments, misuse of his office for personal gain. He looks the other way. Reagan does not personally gain from that but it falls under the category of personal benefits to the front of the president. As i discussed, he abuses his power, breaks the law survey policy interest he has in getting hostages released in iran, and in aiding anticommunist forces in nicaragua. We have a broad umbrella here of different things. I believe that the personal benefits president s are able to accrue from office are harder to get away with today. What is interesting about our moment is we have a president in office who is seeking to do more of that, but doing it in the open light that we all see around us. We know what is happening. I am not sure that the issue is about whether it is happening, its what we are going to do about it, right . And perhaps a strategy that might work on his part is to say there is so much of it i am doing, it should be normalized. I dont think we will end up in that place but i dont think it is that president s are able to more get away from personally benefiting themselves, it is that when they do it, we are more knowledgeable of it. I think thats why there was less of it in the last 3040 years. America, president s have benefited personally. Now we have 19thcentury abuses and 20thcentury abuses with the same administration. Mr. Banner i would editorialize and say thats what makes this crisis extraordinarily grave. It mixes both kinds of misconduct within the same white house. The white house venturing into misconduct, and a shadow government inside and outside the government trying to promote policies not authorized by congress. Prof. Brownell i think adding to that, it is important to remember that a 19thcentury presidency was significantly smaller. That is the shift that happened with world war ii, 1945, the institutional power of the presidency grew tremendously during world war ii. And in the aftermath of world war ii. And very intentionally by acts of congress. They gave it that power. See thatw you institutional authority, a 19thcentury president there is no remote possibility they could do what a 20thcentury president can do because of the institutional power. I think that is keep you that is key. Prof. Suri it would not surprise a 19thcentury president that trump has somebody like giuliani around, but that giuliani is negotiating in crane, that is the merger of 19thcentury crony politics with the global power of United States today. Mr. Banner given the Authority Vested in me, i will make this the final question because we ours time. D the h accusations of wars inct in pursuit of iraq and afghanistan. Declinedrepeatedly either to extend or repeal authorization for use of military force in those cases. Wasnt congress directly expressing excuse me, deliberately exposing president s to charges of misconduct by refusing to act . Prof. Suri that is a great question. I think there is no question that it is an abrogation of congressional duty not to take a position on war when we are clearly at war. It always astonishes our undergraduates when we tell them that i guess we havent been at war since world war ii, since we havent declared one. The authorization of military force, the language was designed to be delimited in its timeframe and we continue to extend it. There is no doubt that congress is creating a moral hazard for the president by encouraging them to go to war and not authorizing it, intentionally. But that is separate from misuse of power. What the recent documents revealed about afghanistan is what we already knew youd whether you are for or against it, already knew. Whether you are for or against it, members of the executive branch lying to congress. Whether congress authorized or did not authorize the use of force, when you intentionally prevaricate and give arenformation and those who providing financial means, that is a misuse of power. Any of us would be fired for that in our jobs. The authorization of military force is one issue but theyre still the question of intentionally misleading congress, which has happened repeatedly in american wars, and it is too easy for president s, democrat and republican, to do this. Because of their direct, daytoday control over this large, military machine. It is not a conspiracy or the generals. It is civilian control over the military machine and over its uses. One of the outcomes of watergate and vietnam was much better control over information by the pentagon and the military, and the president s monopoly of the use of that information to shape what we think and what we know when we try to evaluate the use of that force. I think there is no doubt that in afghanistan and iraq, like vietnam, see intentional prevarication to congress by the executive, which is misconduct. Will then draw this briefing to a close. Thank you both very much for helping us out. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2019] from George Washington to george w. Bush, every sunday we feature the presidency, a weekly series exporting the president s, policies and legacies. You are watching American History tv, all we can, every weekend on cspan3. My name is adam and i am the 2018 cspan studentcam winner. I am here to encourage you to continue to wrap up this competition as the deadline gets close. Dont worry, you still have time. This is about the time i started filming my documentary the first year i entered. I am in the d. C. Offices right now and im going to tell you that cspan studentcam was an Incredible Opportunity for me to express my thoughts and views about the Political Climate in the current day as well as connect with some local and state leaders in political office. Im extremely excited that you all are interested in this and pursuing this, because its a onceinalifetime opportunity and i am excited you are taking it. There is still time to enter the cspan studentcam competition viewed you have until generate 20th two complete a 56 minute documentary that explores an issue you want candidates to address during campaign 2020. We are giving away a total of 100,000 in cash prizes with the grand prize of 5,000. For more information, go to our website, studentcam. Org. American history tv is on cspan3 every weekend, featuring tours, archival films, and programs on the presidency and more. Complex concept. It says, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the government. If you just stop and think about what that means. Actually take this one of thethe one claws larger sentence, and break it into its component parts. Truth whatird does the third truth mean . , theirst thing it means first thing it says quite clearly is that the purpose of government is to protect rights. It does not say that the purpose of government is to make men good or virtuous. It does not say that the purpose of government is to make all men equal or the same. It says that the purpose is to protect rights. What rights does it mean . The rights contained in the second selfevident truth, the thet to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, which includes the right to property. So that is it. Thethat creates it is sole purpose of government, to protect rights. That means by definition, a very limited kind of government, and that takes us to the second part of the third truth, which is that governments are necessary to secure rights. The first thing to know here is that americas Founding Fathers were not anarchists. They believed that there is a legitimate role for government to play in a free society. Other can watch this and American History programs on our website, where all of our video is archived. That is cspan. Org history. In dubai, you compare it to being on the jetsons. It is not there yet, but that is the vision. The vision is to have flying airships early in this coming decade. And not just a few of them carrying around rich people to golf courses and luxury hotels. They want to have flying airships carrying all kinds of people, and they want a flying network, like a metro system with little stops all over dubai with flying machines carrying people back and forth. Stephen baker, whose latest book looks at how technology is changing transportation. Watch the communicators monday night on cspan2. Each week, american artifacts visit museums, archives and historic places. Up next, we travel about 45 miles west of the nations capitol for a tour of former u. S. Army Communication Base in warrenton, virginia, that now
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.