JOE BIDEN IN IOWA: UNCIVIL OR READY FOR A FIGHT?

Last week, former Vice President Joe

Biden confronted an Iowa voter, telling him, “You’re a damn liar, man.” The incident generated heat on cable news and the political websites and an intense disagreement among the three of us. We concluded airing our disagreement illuminates our differing world views on politics in general and on how Democrats best respond in the face of President Trump’s bare-knuckled, take-no-prisoners style.

At a town hall meeting, a voter claimed Biden “sent” his son, Hunter, to Ukraine for service on the board of a gas company, an industry the man said Hunter Biden knew nothing about, so he could improperly influence U.S. – Ukrainian policy. The man also claimed Biden was “too old” to run for President.

The former vice president reminded him no evidence exists Hunter Biden improperly engaged in influence peddling. Biden also challenged the man to a pushups contest as a fitness check.

Woodson and Henry think Biden overreacted, while Rob offers a full-throated defense of the former vice president:

Woodson: Calm in the Face of Insult Signals Strength, not Weakness

I want a candidate who won’t wilt under President Trump’s inevitable personal attacks. But I oppose the idea the challenger should respond in kind. I also oppose the idea that primary candidates should hone their skills on primary voters.

The Iowa voter questioned Hunter Biden’s involvement with the Ukrainian company Burisma. He was entitled to a thoughtful answer. When did we start holding voters to standards of eloquence in political speech? Biden’s response was disappointing when he called the voter a “damn liar” and challenged him to a pushups contest. Both responses were beneath the dignity of the office of President of the United States. It was bullying. Will Biden call Trump a “damn liar” when he raises questions about Burisma or challenge Trump to a pushups contest should he question Biden’s physical fitness? Bullying is bullying, whether done by Trump, Biden, Republican, or Democrat.

We need a return to the quiet strength Barack Obama displayed  while President.  When Mitch McConnell declared, soon after Obama’s election, that the number one objective for Republicans was making Obama a one-term president; when repeatedly accused of not being a U.S. citizen; when during a joint address to Congress South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson shouted, “You lie,” Obama remained calm. That’s the kind of quiet strength we need in a President, not more bombast. If Biden wants to be President, he should take lessons from the man under whom he served for eight years and elevate the discourse.

Henry: A Preference for Civility

Much of the initial commentary about

Biden calls man "damn liar" in Iowa

what happened in Iowa centered on how it might affect voter behavior. Some thought it might help Biden and others saw it hurting him. I’m possibly the worst person on earth at making a political calculus. I own an awful impact prediction record. My reaction to Biden, therefore, rests not on potential voter impact, but on my views about how I should respond to other human beings.

I prefer a reasoned, respectful, logical response in almost any human endeavor. I believe we may be called on to conduct ourselves in accordance with

our values. I can’t, at this point, think of important values Biden’s response reflects. I realize, ironically enough, Biden may have responded in a way that reflects values I don’t now recognize. My view may only spring from how I see personal conduct obligations. 

Though I make no predictions about short term voter reaction, in the long run, I believe civility, calm, logic, and empathy win.  

                           

         

Rob: “Damn Right”

I appreciate and respect the desire of my esteemed colleagues for civil discourse in political dialogue, but they

remind me of the old adage about the folly of bringing a knife to a gunfight. I always want peace, but I don’t want it at any price. I fear their approach offers just that in the age of Trump.

Joe Biden’s response to the Iowa voter’s misinformed charges warmed my heart. It said that if Biden wins the

Democratic nomination, stands on the debate stage with Trump, and absorbs his insults, he’ll give as much as he gets. Joe Biden defended his son and his own integrity in straightforward terms leaving no doubt about the strength of

his convictions or his determination to stand up for his own interests and the people he represents. If Biden wins the Democratic nomination, he’ll represent me as someone who desperately wants Trump gone so I can reclaim my country from lawlessness and insanity.

Too often Democrats, in seeking “reasoned discourse,” come off as cowards or wimps in the face of brutal, unfair attacks from Republican hate mongers and disinformation specialists. Joe Biden showed me he won’t fit in that category if he wins the nomination. If he was a little impolitic, if he could have been more “civil,” more “reasoned,” I forgive that as the price of letting Trump and his henchmen know unilateral disarmament won’t happen in this campaign.

And you think?

      

IMPEACHMENT: LET US COUNT THE WAYS

If, as appears increasingly likely, the House of Representatives moves forward with impeaching President Donald Trump, lawmakers will find themselves working in a target-rich environment. Trump has committed so many wrongs, we should expect several articles of impeachment. Most recent attention has focused on Trump’s July phone call to Ukraine  President Volodymyr Zelevksy, in which Trump reportedly pressured Zelevsky about investigating former Vice President and potential 2020 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and Biden’s son, Hunter, who served on the board of a Ukrainian company. That’s the tip of the iceberg.

We’d remind everyone of the ten likely acts of obstruction of justice outlined in Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller’s report. Oh, and

don't forget the federal campaign fiance issue rasied by hush money payments that apparently bought the silence of two women, Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal,concern-

ing affairs they had with Trump before the 2016 election. His former attorney, Michael Cohen, remains in federal prison for his role in that. Trump was named as an unindicted co-conspirator and might also be in prison except for the policy against

prosecuting a sitting president. Today, however, we’ll focus on Trump’s financial transgressions, the ones from which he directly or indirectly profits as a result of being president.

         

Emoluments

Article I, section 9, clause 8 of the United States constitution provides:

“…no person holding any office of profit or trust […] shall without the consent of the Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office, or Title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince, or foreign state.”

                       

This obscure, somewhat awkwardly written section – the emoluments clause – essentially means presidents can’t profit from being president through gifts or financial benefits received from foreign actors. In numerous ways, Trump has flaunted that provision.

The G-7 Suggestion

In late August, at the end of this year’s G-7 meetings in France, Trump suggested holding next year’s G-7 meeting at his Trump Doral resort in Florida. He promoted the location (“near the airport” Trump claimed), the “luxurious rooms,” and the spacious bungalows. He raised the point in a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

         

Others didn’t think much of the idea. Jordan Libowitz, communications director for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, called holding such a gathering at Trump’s resort, “a free, giant international promotion” for Trump’s business interests. It also sounds like an emoluments clause violation, since those foreign governments would spend all that money on rooms, food, and whatever else at Trump’s place. He didn’t offer Doral free of charge. 

Trump International Hotel -- Washington

Unlike most presidents who put their business interests in a blind trust or divest them  altogether upon taking office, Trump maintains his real estate and other holdings,

including Trump International Hotel in Washington. The Washington Post reports that hotel generated $80 million for the Trump organization since he took office, one tenth of the company’s revenues. Hotel officials claim they donate to charity all profits realized from foreign visitors. Still, Trump International remains a major attraction for officials of foreign governments. Whether the hotel constitutes a real violation of the emoluments clause, it doesn’t pass the smell test.

Vice President Pence

It’s not just foreigners who’re benefitting Trump. On a recent trip to Ireland, the

Vice President's business took him to Dublin, where he met with leaders of the Irish government. So, where did Pence stay? At Trump’s National Resort in Doonbeg, 180 miles away. Pence said Trump “suggested” he stay there, then claimed the reason was the “footprint” of

his security detail and staff.  Who paid the $600, 000 in ground transpor-tation costs? U.S. taxpayers, of course.  Who profited from the hotel stays? Trump, that’s who.

Air Force Stopovers

Several U.S. news outlets reported earlier this month that in September 2018, a unit of the Maine Air National Guard stopped at Prestwick, a small commercial airport near Trump’s Turnberry resort in Scotland.  An Air Force C-17 crew also stopped there on a trip to Kuwait. The U.S. Air Force has had a contract at that airport for refueling since 2015, but crews staffing those flights made their overnight stays at other area hotels. Only since Trump became president have U.S. military crews stayed at Trump’s property. An investigation is underway by the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee.

In fairness, we must acknowledge some confusion exists about the meaning of the emoluments clause. What’s a violation? Who has standing to sue? The issue hasn’t been litigated, mostly because no president has ever done what Trump has done – retain a vast business enterprise that offers services in just the kinds of things that encourage patronizing of those services by those seeking the president’s favor. Foreign governments wanting influence over U.S. foreign policy, lobbyists seeking government contracts or presidential support for or against legislation, and American government officials looking for favorable treatment of their agencies by the White House all have an incentive for currying favor with this president by patronizing his hotels and resorts.

Cases are now working their way through the lower federal courts, so perhaps we’ll soon have a reading on how the judiciary views the emolu- ments clause. If we’re lucky, those cases will become moot soon because Trump has left office.  We can only hope.