CONGRESSIONAL BAD ACTORS: CAN THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH POLICE ITSELF?

As President Biden pursues his agenda, Congress finds itself distracted by the behavior of

some of its Republican members. Democrats fear some Republicans may incite violence or even threaten their personal safety. Resolutions that would expel or censure Republican members have been introduced in both houses. A bipartisan vote stripped one GOP representative of her committee assignments because of her outrageous statements. The situation grows tenser by the day. 

Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared that threats “from within” exist in the House of Representative. 

Some Republicans want to take guns onto the floor and have refused to go through metal detectors installed outside the House chamber.     Danger from outside forces remains. Capitol police propose making permanent the fencing installed around the Capitol grounds for

the presidential inauguration. Meantime, the investigation into the January 6 insurrection seemingly turns up new and disturbing evidence every day.

The Greene Case

Freshman Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia got elected after suggesting the

execution of Pelosi, making threats against other Democrats, claiming that September 11 never happened, and denying the truth of school shootings, including the Parkland, Florida carnage in which 17 people died and 17 others were injured. Greene, an adherent of the QAnon

conspiracy movement, made other outlandish statements, including that lasers controlled by a Jewish-run company started wild fires in California.

Democrats urged that House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy strip Greene of her education and budget committee assignments, but he declined. Despite saying she regretted some of her statements, Greene lost her committee assignments on a vote of 230-199, with all Democrats and 11 Republicans voting in the affirmative.

“Disorderly Behaviour”

Article 1, section 5 of the United States 

Constitution gives each house of Congress power to regulate the conduct of its members. Both the House and the Senate can discipline members who engage in “disorderly Behaviour.” Punishment can include expulsion from Congress, though more often both houses have “censured” members for bad conduct. Expulsion requires a two-thirds vote, while a censure resolution needs only majority approval.

Fifteen senators have been expelled, the last in 

1862. Six were thrown out in 1797 for treason in connection with inciting participation of Native-American tribes in a British invasion of Florida. The other nine, kicked out in 1861 and 1862, supported the Confederacy in the Civil War.

Nine senators, most notably Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s, have been censured

for conduct that brought the Senate into dishonor and disrepute. Expulsion and censure cases have been prosecuted for abuse of office, fighting in the senate chamber, financial irregularities, sexual misconduct, and other bad acts. Very often, especially in recent times, senators brought up for expulsion or censure have resigned before senate action. Three members facing such sanctions since 1980 all resigned first.

In the House, 23 members have been censured, five since 1966. The House has expelled five members, two in the modern era. Michael Meyers was kicked out in 1980 on a 376-30 vote after a bribery conviction. James Traficant got his walking papers in 2002 by a vote of 420-1 following

convictions for conspiracy to commit bribery, defrauding the United States, obstruction of justice, and filing false tax returns. Three previous expulsions from the House, all in 1861, involved disloyalty by fighting for the Confederacy.

What’s Enough?

While it’s clear Congress can regulate its membership, the history of expulsion and censure raises the question of whether Congress needs criminal convictions before taking action against misbehaving members. In the House, that appears to have been the case, at least recently. Both expulsions in the 20^th and 21^st centuries came after convictions for real law breaking. The constitution doesn’t say criminal convictions must precede expulsion or censure, but Congress, especially the House, seems to have needed that in recent years before acting.

The Senate history presents a different picture, but one relevant to today. The 15 senators thrown out participated in inciting violence against the United States or its interests.  Given the events of January 6, Congress now may have to decide if threatening a member rises to the necessary level for action. 

How Did We Get Here?

Former President Donald Trump and compliant,

cowering Republican leaders justifiably get much of the blame. While we’d guess the impeachment trial won’t result in a conviction, we also believe the likely surge of civil and criminal cases against Trump will reveal the depth of his seditious behavior. Those cases, probably not tried until 2022 and 2023, should reveal just how far he stooped and how close the United States came to becoming a dictatorship, not a democracy.

But blaming Trump and his enablers isn’t enough. His rise to the presidency indicates a fundamental sickness in our society it may take years to eradicate. Because much of his appeal rests on anger and white supremacy, which have been with us since the beginning of the republic, it’s possible we won’t rid ourselves of this problem in the lifetime of anyone alive today. 

The congressional response to the threat of violence from both inside and outside the Capitol could say a good deal about the resolve of the nation to eliminate the abhorrent behavior that plagues so much of our politics. Things we could have never imagined now seem normal. Congress

can throw out members who make violence and the threat of violence part of their portfolios. History, however, shows senators and representatives have only reluctantly used that power. Now, it appears, we live in different times – times that call for a more aggressive use of that authority. 

TRUMP’S SENATORS: STAYING TRUE NO MATTER WHAT

As the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump moves into its second week, little has occurred that challenges the conventional

wisdom it will end in an acquittal. Almost no cracks have appeared in Trump's wall of 53 loyal Republican senators. Polling shows the public wants testimony from

Mick Mulvaney

witnesses like White House Chief-of-Staff Mick Mulvaney, former National Security Advisor John Bolton, and State Secretary Mike Pompeo. The public also supports subpoenaing executive branch documents Trump ordered withheld.

Whether either occurs remains in doubt and depends on four Republicans joining 47 Democrats in voting for witnesses and documents.

The slavish devotion Republican senators show for Trump, quite frankly, stuns us and we debated the possible reasons. We can’t get into those 53 heads, but we can examine

possible explanations, given what we know about human nature and the current political environment. It seems likely different considerations motivate different senators, so we can’t paint with too broad a brush. Still, we have some ideas.

The Dark Side

Some Republican senators, like some Democratic senators, operate on raging ideological convictions. As for Trump’s supporting senators, we see their objectives rooted in troubling, dark motivations. They

have  seen Trump at his worst and like what they see. These senators will, therefore, do anything necessary for protecting him and the power he wields. Put bluntly, this group of senators likes, maybe even adores, Trump’s white nationalism and xenophobia. His  “good people on both sides"

response after the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally in August 2017 provided this group with confirmation that they had found their man.

Senators in this category no doubt see Trump’s potential conviction as an existential threat to their way of looking at the world. They need Trump in office for the support and legitimacy he gives their cause. They cannot tolerate anything that might take him out of his lofty position. These senators live in a dark, unredeemable world reflecting the worst in America, demonstrating that no matter this nation’s greatness, we aren’t a perfect people.

The Usual Suspects

Much of the attention in the debate over

witnesses and documents focuses on four or five  GOP “moderates” who might break from the team that Trump coaches and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell quarterbacks. Whenever a controversial, party-line dispute erupts, the media and some Democrats parade them around as “getable” – Republican senators

who might jump ship and vote against Supreme Court nominee or, in the impeachment trial, in favor of issuing subpoenas for witnesses and documents. Their names are so familiar now as to (almost) not need repeating here – Susan Collins of Maine, Utah’s Mitt Romney, Cory Gardner of Colorado, Lisa Murkowski from Alaska, and Tennessee’s Lamar Alexander. For all the noise and false hope they  generate, however, almost always they get on board and stick with the team. Nothing has happened yet in this saga suggesting otherwise though, as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer says, “Hope springs eternal.”

Laissez les Bon Temps Rouler 

United States Senator sounds like a good job.

It  pays $174,000 a year (median U.S. household income is about $62K), provides generous health care and retirement benefits, and offers world-wide travel opportunities. It also comes

with perks -- people return your phone calls, you appear on television a lot, you get called “Chairman” if you run a committee. It’s sometimes a springboard to the presidency. We won’t even get into all the  money – making opportunities, above board and otherwise. We assume it’s the best job many senators ever had or will have. No wonder they work so hard at getting re-elected.

We’re confident many of Trump’s senators fall into this category – men and women who’ve recognized how good things are and won’t do anything that might jeopardize keeping the office. We think these Republicans have made a calculation – a business decision – that remaining in the senate, as they so desperately want, requires sticking with Trump. They’ve seen Trump punish wayward souls with Tweetstorms, insults in the broadcast media, and, ultimately, primary opponents. 

                   

We suspect these senators act only tangentially for ideological reasons. Sure, one or two things – confirmation of right-wing federal judges, property rights, disdain for federal regulation – motivates some of them, but that’s often secondary.  We know they’ve forgotten traditional Republican fiscal responsibility because they accept Trump’s historical deficits. They’ve been silent in the face of his coziness with

Vladimir Putin and other human rights violators. They haven’t promoted democratic values by insisting on a fair impeachment trial in the senate they control. We wonder how much they value government with three co-equal branches, defined by a system of checks and balances.   

   

We also think it unlikely their motivation resides in dedication to or affection for Trump, or from respect for his intellect and policy acumen. Many senators reportedly shake their heads at his incompetence and ignorance of simple issues, while cringing at the difficulty he has with complex problems.

This cohort of senators – we don’t know its size – most fears losing their perks. Knowing how Trump treats those who stray, they can’t take the chance of putting daylight between themselves and the man in the White House. Having made their calculation, they sit through the trial, listen fretfully to the utterly persuasive case presented by the House managers, will vote for Trump’s acquittal, then return to their regularly scheduled lives of privilege. Yes, let the good times roll.