← The Political Scene | The New Yorker
The Political Scene | The New Yorker
Adam Schiff, Hakeem Jeffries, and the Framers Weigh In on Impeachment
00:20:27
Adam Schiff, Hakeem Jeffries, and the Framers Weigh In on Impeachment
Loading summary
Transcript37 lines
- [00:00]
Mint Mobile Advertiser
As summer draws to a close and the kids go back to school, I know I'm going to want to keep in touch with my kids at a price I can afford. Back to school Shopping can be a hassle, but your phone plan shouldn't be. That's why I made the switch to Mint Mobile. For a limited time, Mint mobile is offering three months of unlimited premium wireless service for 15 bucks a month. So while other parents are sweating overage charges, I have a little bit more room in my budget for cool back to school threads. Say bye bye to your overpriced wireless plan's jaw dropping monthly bills and unexpected overages, Mint Mobile is here to rescue you. All plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. Use your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan and bring your phone number along with all your existing contacts. Dish overpriced wireless and get three months of premium wireless service from Mint Mobile for 15 bucks a month. This year. Skip breaking a sweat and breaking the bank. Get this new customer offer and your three month unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month@mintmobile.com New Yorker that's that's mintmobile.com New Yorker upfront payment of $45 required, equivalent to $15 a month limited time new customer offer for first three months only. Speeds may slow above 35 gigabytes on unlimited plan taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details.
- [01:17]
Dorothy Wickenden
This is the Political Scene, a weekly conversation with New Yorker writers and guests about Politics. It's Thursday, January 23rd. Dorothy I'm Dorothy Wickenden, executive editor of the New Yorker. The Senate trial of Donald Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress is well underway. Republican Representative Mark Meadows called the proceedings as predictable as the end of a Hallmark movie. The first day consisted of an extremely long session. Setting the rules. Still, sometimes the solemnity and drama of the occasion break through. Yesterday, Adam Schiff, who is the lead impeachment manager from the House and a former prosecutor, explained in his opening argument why Trump should be removed from office. Speaking of the framers of the Constitution.
- [02:08]
Adam Schiff
He said they did not intend for the power of impeachment to be used frequently or over mere matters of policy. But they put it in the Constitution for a reason. For a man who would subvert the interests of the nation to pursue his own interests. For a man who would seek to perpetuate himself in office by inviting foreign interference and cheating in an election. For a man who would be disdainful of constitutional limit, ignoring or defeating the other branches of government and their co equal powers. For a man who believed that the Constitution gave him the right to do anything he wanted and practiced in the art of deception. For a man who believed that he was above the law and beholden to no one, for a man, in short, who would be a king. We are here today in this hallowed chamber, undertaking this solemn action for only the third time in history because Donald J. Trump, the 45th president of the United States, has acted precisely as Hamilton and his contemporaries feared.
- [03:08]
Dorothy Wickenden
Jelani Cobb, a New Yorker staff writer and an American historian, joins me to discuss the politics of impeachment and how vicious partisanship is built into our system of government. Jelani, welcome back.
- [03:22]
Jelani Cobb
Thank you.
- [03:24]
Dorothy Wickenden
So let's start by talking about what else the framers feared. There weren't any political parties at the time because in large part Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton and others were afraid that parties would destroy the country. So given their apprehensions, how did they come about?
- [03:43]
Jelani Cobb
So it's really fascinating, especially looking at the tenor of the conversation in the Senate and even beyond that, the votes and the way that things have been so utterly predictable, following very strictly partisan lines. It raises the immediate question of how did we wind up with an impeachment system that is so beholden to partisanship? And one of the reasons that we have that is that there were not any political parties at the time that the Federalist Papers and the outlining of the ideas of impeachment and the Constitution were established. And so it's kind of a blind spot here. And, you know, Hamilton does make reference to it in Federalist 65, that the possibility of something like this happening, but there's no kind of clearly elucidated idea around, you know, how you avoid partisanship. And so to your point, Madison thought that political parties would be destructive to the fledgling democracy. Jefferson thought that political parties could be terrible. Hamilton has written about, and they called them factions at that point in time. And even in George Washington's Farewell Address, which is largely written by Alexander Hamilton, one of the parting bits of advice that Washington gives is to one, stay out of European affairs, but really emphasizes that he does not want the fledgling democracy to fall prey to factions or what we would call now partisanship. At the same time, of course, given that politicians often say one thing and do another thing, the very people, the very founders who are saying that political parties could be destructive are the figures around which these parties coalesce. You know, Jefferson is the guiding light of what they call the Democratic Republican Party. And Hamilton for the Federalists.
- [05:39]
Dorothy Wickenden
So the first election to pit one party against another came in 1828 when the incumbent, Andrew Jackson ran for a second time against John Quincy Adams. That was a really nastyreally nasty battle. People forget the gladiatorial nature of 19th century politics.
- [05:59]
Jelani Cobb
Sure, you know, we kind of think of ourselves as always having had a two party system, but effectively between 1812 and the election of 1828, we really basically had a one party state in the United States. The Democratic Republican Party, or later the Democratic Party had really taken off. And so one of the reasons why there's so much bitterness in 1828 is that Andrew Jackson feels, in a claim that we have heard more than once since then, Andrew Jackson feels that the election of 1824 was stolen from him. And so there are four candidates. No one achieves a majority in the Electoral College. And so the votes are divided between William Crawford of Georgia, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay. And with Jackson winning the majority, the largest number of electoral votes. But Adams strikes a deal with Clay. He's able to get his electors over to his side, which pushes him over the top, gets a majority of the Electoral College and turns around and appoints Henry Clay as Secretary, Secretary of State. This absolutely enrages Andrew Jackson to no end. What's interesting about this though, is that that is not really different from what would happen in a normal parliamentary democracy, that people would get together and decide how to put their votes together and form a government. Except that in our system, this was seen as outrageous, as corrupt, as the kind of indicator that everything was out, that all parties were out to stop Andrew. Jack. And so in 1828, when he wins, when he defeats John Quincy Adams for the presidency, it's really seen as a vindication of what happened in 1824.
- [07:52]
Dorothy Wickenden
And Andrew Jackson started the Democratic Party explicitly in order to defeat John Quincy Adams the second time.
- [07:59]
Jelani Cobb
Yes. And this party, by the way, the Democratic Party is kind of built on the roots of the Democratic Republican Party that Jefferson had founded. There's for a minute a national Republican Party that kind of dwindles and then the Whig Party that establishes itself as the counterpoint to Jacksonian Democrats. And really, I don't think there's much thought now about the extent to which we think of parties as kind of these grassroots functions, but we don't really think that much about how in American politics, our parties really were a reflection of a handful of individuals that people could elevate to a kind of symbolic cause and form a group around an identity around.
- [08:44]
Dorothy Wickenden
And there are these fascinating echoes. I mean, Jackson talked about a stolen election. Trump today would talk about it being rigged. And Bannon, when Trump was elected, said ecstatically, there's been no election like it since Jackson in 1828, presumably referring to this great populist uprising.
- [09:04]
Jelani Cobb
Right. And superficially, there's something there. You can see why someone would say this. They're both wealthy men who nonetheless ran as populists and were thought of as kind of risque or declasse people or uncouth people by their critics. But we found something else that they have in common. Now, the Democrats have hammered home again and again and again the administration's refusal to comply with subpoenas for documents, for evidence, for witnesses, for anything that would help them make the case about the president's behavior and why it should be considered impeachable and why he should be removed from power on the basis of it. Something similar happened with Andrew Jackson, and that's in 1832, when, famously, the Worcester versus Georgia case was decided. It was a very complicated case around Native American sovereignty and federal rights and so on. Andrew Jackson was very much critical of the Chief Justice, John Marshall, and reportedly said that Marshall has made his decision. Now let's see him enforce it, essentially saying that he was going to decline to enforce a Supreme Court dictum. We see these echoes of history popping up between these two men in maybe ways that people hadn't thought of. I guarantee you no one in the Trump administration was thinking about this as they were deciding to ignore the subpoenas.
- [10:29]
Mint Mobile Advertiser
America is changing, and so is the world.
- [10:33]
Jelani Cobb
But what's happening in America isn't just a cause of global upheaval. It's also a symptom of disruption that's happening everywhere.
- [10:41]
Mint Mobile Advertiser
I'm Asma Khalid in Washington, D.C. i'm.
- [10:44]
Jelani Cobb
Tristan Redman in London, and this is the Global Story.
- [10:47]
Mint Mobile Advertiser
Every weekday, we'll bring you a story from this intersection where the world and America meet.
- [10:53]
Jelani Cobb
Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [11:00]
Dorothy Wickenden
So we're now two weeks before the Iowa caucuses, and Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and Michael Bennett are all attending the impeachment trial, which leaves the campaign trail open, wide open for Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg. And Democrats have this existential challenge. So while Republicans are doing everything to ensure Mark Meadows happy Hallmark end, as they see it, the exoneration of Trump, Democrats can't figure out the best way to ensure his defeat in November. And last week, I spoke to Susan Glasser, on this program about this impending sense of gloom among Democratic voters that Trump will get off. He'll proclaim his innocence and his persecution by Democratic witch hunters for the next nine months and win a second term. Do you share that dark view?
- [11:53]
Jelani Cobb
I think at this point that it's certainly possible. But I think there are also reasons to be skeptical or for people who are critical of Donald Trump to be optimistic. You know, we saw the way that after Bill Clinton's impeachment, he was largely seen as, you know, a victim of overzealous partisanship on the part of Republicans, famously left office with very high approval ratings and so on. But the things that we're talking about here are fundamentally different. The idea that Bill Clinton was dishonest in his relaying of details related to, you know, personal indiscretion and obviously something that was disturbing to people on many levels, but they didn't think was an existential threat to American democracy. On the other hand, what Donald Trump is accused of is very much something that places American democracy, or at least American elections in jeopardy. And that's another thing coming to the point. So much of what we've seen in the last, you know, particularly last two years of American politics has been amazingly short term thinking that no Republican wants to be in a position of having a Democratic president solicit aid or assistance from a foreign government to prevent a Republican nominee from gaining traction with the voters. And so, all said, I think that this may turn out to be something that does have a blemishing effect on Donald Trump in a way that it did not with Bill Clinton. And also I should say that the people who don't like Donald Trump and did not like Donald Trump on November 9th of 2016 pretty much still don't. It's not like we've seen a whole lot of fluctuation or that he'll come out on the other side of this looking more appealing to people who didn't think highly of him from before, and they will vote.
- [13:44]
Dorothy Wickenden
But the other thing that's that struck me, and it was actually prompted by an email I got from you on Tuesday night, which was about the performance of one of the House managers, Hakeem Jeffries, which came long, long into the tedious opening hours of the trial. So one thing that is happening is some figures in the party are sort of coming to the fore. So Jeffries was responding to the remarks of Trump's personal lawyer, Jay Sekulow, who was arguing, of course, that his client is a victim of gross mistreatment by Democrats. And I just. I went immediately after your note to my computer to play the clip.
- [14:20]
Hakeem Jeffries
The question was asked by Mr. Sekulow as he opened before this, distinguished by why are we here? Let me see if I can just posit an answer to that question. We are here, sir, because President Trump pressured a foreign government to target an American citizen for political and personal gain. We are here, sir, because President Trump solicited foreign interference in the 2020 election and corrupted our democracy. We are here, sir, because President Trump withheld $391 million in military aid from a vulnerable Ukraine without justification, in a manner that has been deemed unlawful. We are here, sir, because President Donald Trump elevated his personal political interests and subordinated the national security interests of the United States of America. We are here, sir, because President Trump corruptly abused his power and then he tried to cover it up. And we are here, sir, to follow the facts, apply the law, be guided by the Constitution, and present the truth to the American people. That is why we are here, Mr. Sekulow. And if you don't know now, you.
- [15:59]
Jelani Cobb
Know, the opening day of this was kind of very much about procedural matters. And, you know, I had a criticism which was that, you know, if this was going to be a kind of foregone conclusion that Democrats should have a showier approach to talking about this, at least it seemed that the more boring it was, the more it benefited the administration. But Representative Hakeem Jeffries from the 8th district in New York comes up and just gives this really persuasive and I would say, moving, evocative statement about why it needed to happen. And then there was something that kind of caught my attention, was emailing you, and I was like, did he just conclude his remarks with a quote from Biggie? In fact, he had. He was like, if you don't know, now you know, which is a famous line coined by the rapper Notorious B.I.G.
- [17:02]
Dorothy Wickenden
So people who follow politics closely often talk about Jeffries as Nancy Pelosi's preferred successor. And they also sort of reflexively refer to him as they have to Beto o', Rourke, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker as the next Barack Obama. Obviously, the Democratic Party is desperately in search of the next Barack Obama. That, though, didn't help the first three in this race. It dropped out after failing to get enough traction. So what do you think about Jeffries future?
- [17:32]
Jelani Cobb
Yeah, I mean, so one of the interesting things to keep in mind about the Democratic leadership is that Steny Hoyer is 79 years old. Jim Clyburn is 79 or 80 years old, and Nancy Pelosi is 80 years old. And then you have Hakeem Jeffries, who is in his 40s, and, you know, this big generational gap between them. Some of his critics have actually claimed that he's too close to Nancy Pelosi. If you remember, when she herself forward for the speakership, there was a little bit of, like, back and forth and some disgruntled Democrats who were critical of her. And, you know, Hakeem Jeffries was right there by her side. And that made people kind of say, well, is he playing this safe? And, you know, is he just kind of within the establishment of the Democrats in terms of being the next Barack Obama? I think you're right. No one is going to be that. But he may well become the most influential black politician in the country, and that's not as far stretched, and that's no small thing.
- [18:39]
Dorothy Wickenden
So we will soon see with this trial whether Democrats will agree to any kind of witness swap. And Republicans suggested in the last day or so that they'd call Joe Biden's son Hunter in exchange for Trump's former national security adviser, John Bolton, who has been coyly claiming that he has something to say about the Ukraine controversy. Schiff called Hunter Biden irrelevant and immaterial and then derisively said, this isn't like some fantasy football trade. But what are the chances that there, do you think, in order to get at least some witnesses inside the room, that they would agree to something?
- [19:19]
Jelani Cobb
Sure. I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if that happened. But there's one thing that's been concerning to people, which is that no one quite knows what John Bolton is going to say. You know, certainly Bolton left the administration on bad terms and having been humiliated and embarrassed. And you kind of talk about Trump talk about kicking John Bolton around during the administration. You could certainly see why there would be some bad blood there. That said, when you saw the killing of General Soleimani in Iraq, that was right out of the John Bolton playbook. And so that raised questions for people about if John Bolton is getting the kind of Iran policy that he's built his career around, does that change his likelihood of saying something really damaging and negative about the Trump administration? Should he be called down to testify in the impeachment hearings?
- [20:11]
Dorothy Wickenden
So what is the best Democrats can hope for from a trial they will almost certainly lose?
- [20:18]
Jelani Cobb
I think that the best case scenario of this has been kind of hinted at by Nancy Pelosi. She has been saying, you know, Trump has been impeached for life. And, you know, he will always be impeached. He will always be thought of as the impeached president. And so if you are someone who harbors a great deal of animosity toward Donald Trump, that will mean something. But I think that it will also be something that he is able to move right past in terms of the support from his base and the people who seem to not be willing to part with him on any level. The best case scenario, I think, is that that they make a substantial case, that they are able to get a public airing of what exactly happened, what exactly people thought was the basis of an impeachment, something that we should add. Over 500 law professors in the United States signed a letter saying that they agreed with, that this behavior fell into the range of what should be considered impeachable, and that going toward the 2020 election, this becomes something that can be hung around Trump's neck and dragged to the finish line.
- [21:25]
Dorothy Wickenden
Okay, on that somewhat hopeful note, thank you so much, Jelani.
- [21:29]
Jelani Cobb
Thank you.
- [21:33]
Dorothy Wickenden
Jelani Cobb is a staff writer at the New Yorker, a professor of journalism at Columbia University, and the author of the Substance of Barack Obama and the Paradox of Progress. This has been the political scene. You can subscribe to this and other New Yorker podcasts by searching for the New Yorker in your podcast app and find more political analysis and commentary on newyorker.com feel free to rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. Our theme music is by Russell Gillespie. This program was produced by Alex Barron and Kylie Warner. For newyorker.com I'm Dorothy Wickenden.
- [22:12]
Katie Drummond
I'm Katie Drummond. I'm Wired's global editorial director. I'm Michael Colory, Wired's director of consumer, Tech and Culture. And I'm Lauren Good. I'm a senior correspondent at Wired. And our show, Uncanny Valley is about the people, power and influence of Silicon Valley. And right now, Silicon Valley and Washington have never been more intertwined. So each week we get together to talk about a big story, often at the intersection of tech and politics.
- [22:38]
Jelani Cobb
Right.
- [22:38]
Katie Drummond
So whether we're talking about Trump, Coin Doge, or Elon Musk, we will always explain how these Silicon Valley forces are affecting Washington and how they affect you. Make sure you're following Uncanny Valley in your podcast app of choice so you don't miss an episode.
- [22:59]
Jelani Cobb
From prx.