Posts
THE
ABSURD TIMES
Johnson: meet Donald of Orange
Illustration:
A view of our 19th
Century version of Donald the Orange
Johnson
is Trump
Erstens:
Ich
hätte kein Problem damit, dass der derzeitige Bundeskanzler (und
Quantenbiologe) ein Handelsabkommen mit Russland eingeht, solange
solare Technologie und Lagerung einbezogen sind.
That
having been said, let me further say that I have absolutely no desire
to comment on the foolishness of Hillary Clinton (who seems to be
revealing herself as an underground “Goldwater Girl again).
Further,
I have no real interest in American history. However, when our
politicians start playing games with the Constitution and act like a
freakish cult in public, I feel forced to do something. Therefore, I
am publishing the transcript of an interview showing how Donald Trump
is very much like Andrew Johnson, the previous legitimately impeached
President.
The
trial took place way back in 1868 (in the U.S. that is a long time)
of the successor to Abraham Lincoln. Understand
that at that time the Republicans were closer to the Democrats of
today: the positions were, in other words, reversed. There
is no doubt that Trump should be tossed out of the white house on his
ass, but we can only wait for the inevitable outcome. This
interview, however, is most important and enlightening (I even
learned from it) and so I am publishing here after checking the
facts. Every detail in important and accurate and the only one left
out is that in those days the Vice President was a member of the
opposition party. This may explain at least part of the motivation
for Lincoln’s death.
Transcript
This
is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: On
the opening day of just the third presidential impeachment trial in
U.S. history, the Senate approved the rules for the trial of
President Trump in a party-line vote. The vote came after a marathon
13-hour session. Under the rules, each side will be given 24 hours
over a three-day period for opening arguments. Senators also agreed
to automatically admit evidence from the House inquiry into the
trial record.
The
Senate trial comes a month after the House impeached the president
for pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political rival Joe Biden.
Since the House vote to impeach Trump, more evidence has come to
light about the administration’s actions, but it remains unclear
if any of this evidence will be presented to the Senate. Just before
midnight, the Office of Management and Budget released nearly 200
pages of heavily redacted records related to the Trump
administration’s handling of aid to Ukraine.
AMY GOODMAN: During
the opening day of the trial, Republican senators rejected 11
amendments from Democrats to subpoena documents and witnesses,
including former national security adviser John Bolton. Senator
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer spoke earlier on Tuesday, laying out
the Democratic case for impeachment.
MINORITY LEADER CHUCK SCHUMER: President Trump is accused of coercing a foreign leader into interfering in our elections to benefit himself, and then doing everything in his power to cover it up. If proved, the president’s actions are crimes against democracy itself. It’s hard to imagine a greater subversion of our democracy than for powers outside our borders to determine the elections from within. For a foreign country to attempt such a thing on its own is bad enough. For an American president to deliberately solicit such a thing, to blackmail a foreign country with military assistance to help him win an election, is unimaginably worse. I can’t imagine any other president doing this.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Democrats
repeatedly accused the Republican leadership of orchestrating a
cover-up by blocking witnesses at this stage in the trial. This is
Democratic Congressman Jerry Nadler, one of the House impeachment
managers.
REP. JERROLD NADLER: Ambassador Bolton has made clear that he is ready, willing and able to testify about everything he witnessed. But President Trump does not want you to hear from Ambassador Bolton. And the reason has nothing to do with executive privilege or this other nonsense. And the reason has nothing to do with national security. If the president cared about national security, he would not have blocked military assistance to a vulnerable strategic ally in the attempt to secure a personal political favor for himself. No, the president does not want you to hear from Ambassador Bolton, because the president does not want the American people to hear firsthand testimony about the misconduct at the heart of this trial.
The question is whether the Senate will be complicit in the president’s crimes by covering them up. Any senator who votes against Ambassador Bolton’s testimony or any relevant testimony shows that he or she wants to be part of the cover-up. What other possible reason is there to prohibit a relevant witness from testifying here? Unfortunately, so far, I’ve seen every Republican senator has shown that they want to be part of the cover-up by voting against every document and witness proposed.
AMY GOODMAN: President
Trump’s personal lawyer, Jay Sekulow, responded to Judiciary
chair, House manager, Congressman Jerry Nadler.
JAY SEKULOW: Mr. Chief Justice, members of the Senate, Chairman Nadler talked about treacherous. At about 12:10 a.m., January 22nd, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, at this body, on the floor of this Senate, said “executive privilege and other nonsense.” Now, think about that for a moment, “executive privilege and other nonsense.” Mr. Nadler, it is not nonsense. These are privileges recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States. And to shred the Constitution on the floor of the Senate, to serve what purpose? The Senate is not on trial. The Constitution doesn’t allow what just took place.
AMY GOODMAN: After
Trump’s lawyer, Sekulow, and the House manager, Nadler, went at
it, Chief Justice John Roberts admonished them, saying, “Those
addressing the Senate should remember where they are,” and talked
about a word that was used a century ago, in 1905, called
“pettifogging.”
Well,
so we thought we’d go to a historian. Yes, we go to Manisha Sinha,
professor of American history at the University of Connecticut. She
has closely studied the presidency of Andrew Johnson, who became the
first president to be impeached, in 1868. She is the author of The
Slave’s Cause: A History of Abolition.
In November, she wrote an opinion
piece for The
New York Times headlined
“Donald Trump, Meet Your Precursor.”
Well,
you know, because this is only the third time in U.S. history that
there has been a Senate impeachment trial, it’s really relevant,
Professor Sinha, to look at what you’re talking about. Compare.
Tell us about Andrew Johnson and why you think President Trump
follows in his footsteps.
MANISHA SINHA: Well,
Andrew Johnson was a lot like Trump. He was known to rile up racial
divisions. He was known to ignore the powers of Congress. He was
also known to use this idea of executive privilege to an
unprecedented degree, to interfere in the program of Reconstruction
in the South immediately after the Civil War, which would have given
freed people basic civil and political rights. So both in terms of
thinking that the presidency allows its occupant to pretty much do
anything he wants and also in terms of really endangering national
ideals, national interests, and in flouting the rule of law, Johnson
was a lot like Trump.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And
in terms of his actual trial, could you talk about the length of it
and the whole issue of witnesses and evidence, compared to this rush
to verdict that the Senate Republicans wish to impose or are
attempting to impose on this trial?
MANISHA SINHA: Absolutely.
So, Johnson’s trial lasted a long time. Witnesses were called.
House managers, led by the wonderful Thaddeus Stevens, a leading
radical Republican in Congress, and by John Bingham, who was the
author of the 14th Amendment, that guaranteed national birthright
citizenship — and these men had enough time to lay out the
case in detail. There were many more articles of impeachment against
Johnson — 11 articles, to be exact. The first nine had to deal
with his violation of the Tenure of Office Act. But the last two
were quite similar to the articles against Trump. They accused him
of abuse of power, of interfering with an investigation in Congress.
So, in that sense, you know, Johnson actually went through a larger,
a more fair process, a process that involved evidence and witnesses.
What
is happening with Trump’s impeachment is actually quite
unprecedented. Even in the Clinton impeachment case, we had evidence
and witnesses. So, I think it is important to say that this is not
just a matter of form and civil discourse. This is also a matter of
the rule of law and justice in the republic. And it’s quite
frightening to think that we are going through this in a very rushed
manner, when the president is being charged with having committed
some serious crimes against the Constitution and the republic.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor
Sinha, if you can talk about the context of when this took place,
after the Civil War? What we haven’t talked about yet is the
animus, the racial hatred that motivated Johnson, and the
comparisons to Trump. But lay out that period and how he was trying
to continue the disenfranchisement of black people and of freed
slaves, freed enslaved people.
MANISHA SINHA: Yes,
absolutely. You know, there is some misconception, advocated even by
Mike Pence in a recent op-ed,
that Johnson was simply continuing President Lincoln’s policies
towards the South. What Johnson did was basically endanger the
result of the Civil War, which was emancipation. He allowed Southern
state governments to pretty much issue Black Codes that would put
black people back to as close a state to slavery as possible. There
was racial terrorism, “outrages,” as they called it then,
against a freed people throughout the South. People were being
murdered. In one case, Johnson personally intervened to make sure
the man responsible for it would get off scot-free. And he kept
interfering in the Reconstruction plans of Congress.
Now,
under President Lincoln, the federal government had established the
Freedmen’s Bureau to oversee this transition from slavery to
freedom in the South. When that bill to extend the life of the
bureau came before Johnson, he vetoed it. There was another bill,
the civil rights law, which — the first civil rights law ever
passed in United States history, to ensure the protection of the
persons and property of freed people, who were being attacked with
impunity by former Confederates and Southern elites. Both cases,
Johnson vetoed those laws.
And
he was, in a way, really guided by this idea that the United States
should remain what he called a white man’s country. And that kind
of very crude racism guided Johnson. This notion that if you would
extend some of even the most basic citizenship rights to the
formerly enslaved, that you were somehow taking away rights from
whites, that’s a very pernicious logic that has motivated racists
in this country since then. And in that sense, I would say that if
you look at the scene immediately after the Civil War in the South,
the Republicans in Congress had no choice but to intervene and to
rein in Johnson in his very sort of destructive way of completely
undermining the results of a very hard-fought war, which was
basically emancipation and the end of slavery.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: But,
ultimately, he was not convicted, by just one vote, because the
Senate needed a two-thirds majority to remove him, correct?
MANISHA SINHA: Yes.
Johnson came very close to being convicted. There was seven
Republicans, moderates, who voted to let Johnson go scot-free, if he
promised not to interfere in Reconstruction again. And they were
given that assurance. But one of those votes belonged to Edmund
Ross, a senator from Kansas, extremely corrupt, who had bought his
way, literally, into the Senate through bribery. And unfortunately,
he was put in John F. Kennedy’s book Profiles
in Courage as
a courageous man who voted his conscience. Now, we know that book
was probably ghostwritten, but it went out under JFK’s name. And I
think part of it may be to appease Dixiecrats at that time. But it
has lent a very — it has sort of propagated a false view of
history, especially the history of Reconstruction.
Unfortunately,
Mike Pence, in that editorial in The
Wall Street Journal that
I referred to, picks up on this theme that Edmund Ross was a profile
in courage. We know now, through the work of historians like David
Stewart, who has written on the impeachment of Johnson, that in fact
Edmund Ross was bribed for his vote. So he was not a profile in
courage; he was a profile in corruption. And for the Republican
Party today to bring up both, you know, a defense of Johnson and
portray Ross as an honorable person is astounding for the party of
Lincoln, for the party of Thaddeus Stevens and the radical
Republicans who led the charge for the impeachment of Andrew
Johnson.
AMY GOODMAN: Which
takes us to Donald Trump’s lawyer Pat Cipollone speaking yesterday
in the impeachment trial. He incorrectly stated no president had
ever been impeached in an election year.
PAT CIPOLLONE: They’re not here to steal one election. They’re here to steal two elections. It’s buried in the small print of their ridiculous articles of impeachment. They want to remove the President Trump from the ballot. They won’t tell you that. They don’t have the guts to say it directly, but that’s exactly what they’re here to do. They’re asking the Senate to attack one of the most sacred rights we have as American — Americans: the right to choose our president. In an election year, it’s never been done before.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor
Manisha Sinha, in fact, that’s not true. Right? Talk about 1868.
MANISHA SINHA: Yes.
So, Johnson is impeached in 1868, the year of a presidential
election. So, Mr. Cipollone was obviously inaccurate, to put it
politely, when he made that statement. I will let constitutional
lawyers talk about his lack of understanding of the Constitution,
because the impeachment, of course, is not meant to overthrow an
election. It is meant as a check on a corrupt president, and it is
in the Constitution.
But
historically, too, he is wrong. There was, like in the case of
Trump, a momentum growing to impeach Johnson because of the ways in
which he flouted the rule of law, the way in which he flouted
democratic governance and the separation of powers between Congress
and the president. But it was his firing of Lincoln’s secretary of
war, Edwin Stanton, who was overseeing Reconstruction in the South,
that finally led to his impeachment. That was the smoking gun. And
that proceeding took place in 1868, a presidential election year.
And in fact, Johnson is impeached in 1868. He is also tried in the
Senate in 1868. So, Mr. Cipollone — and, you know, there were so
many errors, both of law and the Constitution, but as a historian, I
was astounded that he could brazenly make that statement, which was
completely wrong.
AMY GOODMAN: And,
of course, then President Johnson went on to lose the November
election to Ulysses Grant. Manisha Sinha, I want to thank you for
being with us, professor of American history at the University of
Connecticut, author of The
Slave’s Cause: A History of Abolition.
And we’ll link to your piece in The
New York Times headlined
“Donald Trump, Meet Your Precursor.”
This
is Democracy
Now!
The
original content of this program is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United
States License.
Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some
of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be
separately licensed. For further information or additional
permissions, contact us.
No comments:
Post a Comment