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 investig