The Impeachment Sequel, Starring Liz Cheney as Fredo

The quintessential Godfather series stands out for its brilliance in portraying, among other things, the complexities of family loyalty, power, and honor as the Corleone family struggles to maintain its status as the alpha crime family in New York's notorious mafia underworld. I'm no film critic, and my pithy summary does the acclaimed series no justice in terms of its wonderfully dramatic story-telling and overall intensity.

One of the most memorable scenes and exchanges in the entire series involves the two brothers, Michael and Fredo, where the latter was sent to Las Vegas to learn the highly profitable casino-hotel business under Moe Green, a Corleone family ally whose casino-hotel was financed by the Corleones. Michael travels to Vegas to buyout Moe Greene's stake, and when the three meet, Michael's surprising offer offends Green resulting in a testy exchange and refusal. Fredo, caught between upholding family loyalty versus defending his friendship with Green and his newfound significance in the casino industry, reacts against his brother and what he sees as an affront to one of Vegas' premier powerbrokers. Michael's response is epic, timeless, and illustrative of the dangers of negotiating between competing loyalties.

Fredo (Emphatic) "Mike, you don't come to Las Vegas and talk to a man like Moe Green like that!"

Michael (Calm and composed): "Fredo, you're my older brother, and I love you, but don't ever take sides with anyone against the family again...ever."

Fredo drew his line in the sand and paid for it with his life. Moe Green, likewise, sealed his fate when Michael unleashed targeted hits against the five families as part of his reign of terror and rise to power. Ultimately, this scene captures the essence of loyalties and the influence of organizational power. All that said, I in no way am making a comparison between the Corleone's, the Godfather, and Republicans. Equally, I absolutely do not endorse the use of threats and violence to intimidate and destroy opposition. Just as Michael spoke to his brother Fredo reminding him of his first duty to the family, his words, without threat for my purposes, are applicable to Liz Cheney in that she, in her leadership role, has a duty to her Congressional colleagues to which I will now explore.

Today, GOP politics is all the buzz, and the aftermath of the Trump presidency with newly introduced Articles of Impeachment against the departed President have caught the world by storm. With impeachment talk hanging over Trump even before he was elected, impeachment redux was expected due to the catastrophic events that unfolded at the U.S. Capitol building on January 6th and given the Democrats' propensity to disgrace Trump by any means necessary(1).

Enter Congresswoman Liz Cheney. The two-term Republican representative from Wyoming is daughter to the notable Dick Cheney, whose career in GOP politics and government spans approximately four decades and covers stints as a member of Congress (1978-1988), Secretary of Defense (1989-1993), and, most notably, Vice President of the United States (2001-2009). Clearly, Liz Cheney is no stranger to GOP politics, but now she finds herself fighting for her political career due to her decision to support the most recent impeachment efforts by the Democrats.

Currently, Liz is the House Republican Conference Chairwoman, which makes her the third highest ranking Republican in the House of Representatives. This leadership position gives her unprecedented influence and visibility and thus makes her decision to support Democratic impeachment against the former President highly controversial and problematic. Subsequent to her announcement, she now has a primary challenger and has been censured by the Wyoming Carbon County Republican Party. She also is facing the prospects of being removed from her leadership position as the House Republican Conference Chairwoman.

Everything mentioned thus far is prologue for the remaining analysis, which poses the question, as House GOP Conference Chairwoman, was Liz Cheney wrong for supporting the Democrats impeachment effort? Cheney's impeachment statement reads as follows:

On January 6, 2021 a violent mob attacked the United States Capitol to obstruct the process of our democracy and stop the counting of presidential electoral votes. This insurrection caused injury, death and destruction in the most sacred space in our Republic. Much more will become clear in coming days and weeks, but what we know now is enough. The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the President. The President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not. There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution.

I will vote to impeach the President."

Again, let me highlight the following from above, "...but what we know now is enough. The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack.

There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution.

Cheney's statement essentially holds then President Trump responsible for organizing and inspiring a "mob" to attack the U.S. Capitol. She concludes that upon doing so, he betrayed his oath of office.

Prior to the rally on December 19, 2020, Trump tweeted, "Be there, will be wild!". In a subsequent and related Facebook posting, the following are captured by the New York Times(2).

If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism,” a member of the Red-State Secession group on Facebook posted on Tuesday, the eve of the appointed day, Jan. 6.

Beneath it, dozens of people posted comments that included photographs of the weaponry — including assault rifles — that they said they planned to bring to the rally. There were also comments referring to “occupying” the Capitol and forcing Congress to overturn the November election that Joseph R. Biden Jr. had won — and Mr. Trump had lost.

At the rally, which was held on the rotunda just below the U.S. Capitol, he at one point stated, "We will never give up,”. We will never concede. It will never happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore."

Cheney and the Democrats use these combined statements, both oral and digital, to assert Trump's culpability for the turbulent events at the U.S. Capitol. However, Cheney and her Democratic allies seem to be on shaky ground because the Constitution's language regarding impeachment in Article II Section IV explicitly refers to the "current" President, not former. To use the impeachment clause retroactively appears to be a gross violation on its face, without legal merit or precedent, and hazardous to future impeachment cases writ large. Not to mention, the impeachment process lacks due process and procedural protocol, which are held sacrosanct for the United States as the standard bearer for democratic ideals and Constitutional governance globally.

If Cheney felt so strongly about impeachment, then she should have first stepped down from her Republican leadership position. Her personal moral convictions were in direct conflict with her role as Conference Chair for the House Republican Party. The House GOP website summarizes her position as follows:

...the House Republican Conference is responsible for electing the House Republican leadership, approving GOP Member committee assignments, managing leadership-driven floor debates, and executing a communications strategy that is executed within the party and is conveyed to constituents through the media.

Externally, the House Republican Conference coordinates media availability...and generally communicates the House Republican message to the public.

Given her announced disposition regarding impeachment, it stands to reason that she would've had reservations about executing all internal and external functions that were in opposition to impeachment. As such, her resignation would have been reasonable, appropriate, and in the interest of House Republicans, who voted overwhelmingly against the Democrats' Articles of Impeachment (201 Nay 10 Yea). I strongly believe that this was her prima facie moral duty as Conference Chair, but by remaining onboard in leadership, it was morally irresponsible and harmful to her Congressional colleagues as dissenters collectively. Cheney "took sides against the party", and this was leadership failure, morally, politically, and Constitutionally.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Washington Post, January 7, 2017. The frontpage headline reads, "The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun". Underneath, the first sentence states, "The effort to impeach President Donald John Trump is already underway."

2. New York Times, January 6, 2021. ‘Be There. Will Be Wild!’: Trump All but Circled the Date. Barry, Dan and Frenkel, Sheera.

The Fed Savior Complex and COVID-19

From testing to treatment, there has been much angst over the federal response to the COVID-19 crisis. I get it insofar as the growing concern over the rising exposure and death toll numbers nationally, for everyone has every reason to be concerned about maintaining public safety, especially for family, friends, and themselves. However, what seems to be lacking is a fuller appreciation, understanding of, and respect for the belief that "all healthcare is local". This is because New Deal era thinking has shifted the modern mindset to expect the federal government to be the great savior whenever catastrophe arises. Hence, pervasive in American political thought is what I have termed the "Fed Saviour Complex", and it is alive and well during today's COVID-19 pandemic. While similar to and different from the oft cited "White Savior Complex", what exactly does this Fed Savior Complex mean?

Psychology Today gives a very good working definition of the "savior complex" and details the mentality that's associated with this behavior or mental state. Psychology Today writes, "According to the blog PeopleSkillsDecoded.com, the savior complex can be best defined as “A psychological construct which makes a person feel the need to save other people. This person has a strong tendency to seek people who desperately need help and to assist them, often sacrificing their own needs for these people.” While this is a common condition that rears itself in relationships of all types, it is regarded as disordered and destructive to healthy human relations. But, what exactly is its connection to government, healthcare, and today's Coronavirus crisis?

Well, as I alluded to in the opening paragraph, it has become convenient and quite common-place to look to the federal government when local communities are confronted with crises and catastrophes that capture national interest. In fact, it is more of an obsession or "givenness" to look to the federal government for THE solution rather than form collaborative partnerships inter-governmentally for a shared or allied approach. In so doing, the federal government has become society's de facto savior no matter what, and this is why we have a Fed Savior Complex mindset every time chaos occurs. This is a serious problem in the public square, particularly because a one-size-fits-all approach (i.e. the federal government) is inefficient, ineffective, and in contradiction to the ideas and ideals expressed by our Constitution and its framers. As it relates to healthcare, a July 17, 2013 commentary at www.clintonfoundation.org makes this connection crystal clear. The article Healthcare is Local states the following:

The challenge we face is as great as ever. In 2010 the United States spent nearly a fifth of its GDP on healthcare, higher than any other developed nation. With childhood obesity, an aging population and the prevalence of chronic diseases, cost pressures are entrenched as part of the health care equation. When you add the fact that in this country, on average, there are only 25 physicians for every 10,000 patients, you begin to get an even clearer picture of a system that remains overwhelmed and threatens US competitiveness. One study found that, “ballooning dollar figures place a heavy burden on companies doing business in the United States and can put them at a substantial competitive disadvantage.”

While the national story is compelling, the truth is communities feel the real burden. In Harris County, close to 30 percent remain uninsured, surpassing the national average. The rising rate of obesity in Houston– the conditions it exacerbates and the diseases it causes — remains the single biggest threat to the health of the city and its families. To paraphrase, all healthcare is local.

That may be the answer, too. Because all healthcare is delivered locally, the healthcare system should be designed locally. It is at the local, community level where we are most likely to innovate and implement new healthcare delivery solutions. By piloting healthcare programs in specific markets we will be able to determine what works best in that particular city or region. Doing that while driving results, however, requires a systems approach and effective collaboration among multiple stakeholders — including policy-makers, providers (physicians and hospitals), purchasers (large-scale employers, etc.), and health plans (insurers). We are already seeing this approach working in cities around the country.

The quote above, despite being several years old, is timeless, persuasive, and refreshing in its relevance and application to a national healthcare crisis that today threatens our very existence. If only we could better appreciate the role state and local healthcare systems play in the delivery of quality healthcare outcomes, crises like COVID-19 could potentially be resolved in a much more unifying, responsive, and reliable manner than anything wished for from a cumbersome and overly bureaucratic federal government system.

In closing, If history is to be our guide, we would be well served to recapture and reapply the words of Thomas Jefferson if we hope to avoid undermining and compromising state and local government due to the Fed Savior Complex obsession. As an obsession, for it truly is, I'd classify it as disordered because the thinking and subsequent behavior is destructive and subversive to the separation of powers between government systems in our republican form of government. This the framers opposed in both spirit and practice. We must be reverse this trend now more than ever in order to preserve the integrity of our Union.

Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants at such a distance and from under the eye of their constituents . . . will invite the public agents to corruption, plunder, and waste. . . . What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office-building, and office-hunting would be produced by an assumption of all the state powers into the hands of the federal government! (1)

and...

The states can best govern our home concerns, and the [federal] government our foreign ones. (2)

---

1. See Healthcare and the Constitution at www.wallbuilders.com, footnote 11. Thomas Jefferson,The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903), Vol. X, pp. 167-168, Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, August 13, 1800.

2. See Healthcare and the Constitution at www.wallbuilders.com, footnote 12. Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XV, pp. 450, Thomas Jefferson to Judge William Johnson, June 12, 1823.

Impeachment Ethics: Recusal and the Conflicted Four

In just a few days the Senate will begin hearings to determine the fate of Donald Trump's future as President of the United States. There are only two articles of impeachment that were filed against the President and approved by the House of Representatives. Both articles assert that the President acted improperly by 1) soliciting foreign influence from the Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, his chief 2020 election opponent, and 2) withholding $391 million in security assistance to help the Ukraine defend against Russian aggression.

Senate Democrats and Republicans will debate the merits of the case against President Trump. Of particular interest is whether or not Senators Booker, Warren, Sanders, and Klobuchar should recuse themselves from the Senate hearings due to an apparent conflict of interest. All four are candidates for the 2020 Presidential election so each have a stake in the impeachment outcome as they seek to become the lone nominee for the Democratic Party.

Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO) addressed this issue head-on in his December 9, 2019 article, Presidential candidates servicing in the Senate must recuse themselves from impeachment proceedings. Smith persuasively argues the following:

It is important to note, Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the United States Constitution requires senators to swear an oath when sitting on a trial of impeachment. This oath, which is enshrined in our Constitution and laid out in Rule XXV of the Senate Rules in Impeachment Trials, requires senators to, “do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.” It is simply impossible for those senators running for office with the sole purpose of removing Donald Trump to uphold that oath.

Impartiality is a fundamental requirement to the rule of law and the administration of justice in America. In essence, impartiality means to be without bias and unfairness and the equal treatment of all parties involved. When it comes to the impeachment process, impartiality remains equally important and requires that there be no compromise on the part of all presiding legislators. For the four Democratic Senators to be both Presidential candidate and impeachment official, this is beyond the appearance of impropriety: it is a constitutional catastrophe, as expressed in Smith's quote above, and an egregious conflict of interest. In fact, the Senate impeachment committee has a prima facie duty to do everything it can to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest because of the political nature of impeachments and the political fallout that could result if the appearance were allowed to persist.

The credibility of the Senate as an institution and the integrity of the impeachment process is in severe crisis should these four Senators exempt themselves from recusal. Consider the following from the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics:

Preamble to Senate Resolution 266, 90th Congress, 2d Session, March 22, 1968

The Preamble to S. Res. 266, by which the Senate Code of Official Conduct was first adopted, provides that:

(a)  The ideal concept of public office, expressed by the words, “a public office is a public trust,” signifies that the officer has been entrusted with public power by the people; that the officer holds this power in trust to be used only for their benefit and never for the benefit of himself or of a few; and that the officer must never conduct his own affairs so as to infringe on the public interest.  All official conduct of Members of the Senate should be guided by this paramount concept of public office.

(b)  These rules, as the written expression of certain standards of conduct, complement the body of unwritten but generally accepted standards that continue to apply to the Senate.

Without recusal by the conflicted four, the Senate ethics provision above becomes meaningless, toothless, and impotent. Constitutional rigor must be restored in order to preserve the public trust and the ideals of Constitutional authority. We cannot allow political interest to compromise the efficacy of government and the administration of justice as fairness. It is that important and yet that simple, and politics in the Republic should not suffer to bias, rank partisanship, and juridical injustice.