TOPICS – Page 98 – * Failed Pols

The 2018 farm bill was defeated with a vote of 213-198, with all House Democrats and 30 House Freedom Caucus Republicans voting against it. The first farm bill was passed in 1933, and since then, farm bills have generally had bipartisan support. But with the polarities that currently exist both within and between parties, it should not be a shock that this farm bill didn’t pass. If even a bill that has traditionally enjoyed the backing of both parties can fail, we could look at the 2018 farm bill as reminder of just how politically divided we are today.

Most Republicans urged a vote on the passage of immigration policy before voting on the 2018 farm bill, however. The farm bill became a bargaining chip as Republicans worked to get support for a stringent immigration bill, The Goodlatte-McCaul bill. Goodlatte-McCaul cracks down on sanctuary cities, authorizes the building of a border wall, provides temporary three-year guest work permits without a path to citizenship and allows for negotiation with Trump on the fate of the DACA recipients.

The current farm bill expires on September 30, so there is still time to draft and vote on a satisfactory replacement. But putting off a vote for the farm bill in order to address stricter immigration policy is likely to result in the stalling of satisfactory decisions on both issues.

Traditionally, farm bills have been designed to support both very urban and very rural districts. They have done so by providing subsidies for farmers, and subsidized food programs in the form of either SNAP (food stamps) or subsidized school breakfasts and lunches for those living in poverty. For the past 50 years, farm bills have changed very little.

The 2018 farm bill, however, contains changes food stamp eligibility that Democrats see as too harsh, and that Freedom Caucus members see as not going far enough. Food stamp changes would require adults to work 20 hours a week or participate in a state-run training program in order to be eligible for benefits. Democrats fear that at least a million people could lose benefits under these guidelines, since most states don’t have the resources to establish and maintain such training programs.

Meanwhile, farmers and those who need food assistance wait uneasily for the outcome. With the wide ideological gaps that exist among the GOP members themselves, however, it doesn’t seem likely that any farm bill could ever make it through a House vote.

30 House Republicans join Democrats to defeat farm bill | Fox News [2018-05-19]

Farm Bill Fails In The House | CNBC [2018-05-18]

If Special Counsel Robert Mueller finds evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Donald Trump, can Trump be indicted? His supporters, including Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, emphatically say, “No.” Many of Trump’s opponents say a confident “Yes.” The more accurate answer to whether Trump could be indicted lies somewhere in between.

Since 1973, according to Warren Richey of the Christian Science Monitor, “The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has maintained a policy that a sitting president may not be prosecuted or indicted.”

But this does not mean that the president is above the law. Most people are aware that when a president is found guilty of serious wrongdoing or commits a breach of public trust, the Constitutional remedy would be impeachment by the House of Representatives. Impeachment is akin to indictment, and would be the first step in the process of removal from office, which could then lead to criminal prosecution. Though impeachment is akin to indictment, we’ve learned from the Clinton years that impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office.

Following impeachment by the House, (and still prior to removal from office), the next step would be a conviction by the Senate. Here’s what the U.S. Constitution says about impeachment:

“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” (U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7)

One could interpret the above clause this way: Impeachment does not go beyond removal from office and disqualification from holding any future public office. But if the president is impeached (by the House), convicted (by the Senate), and removed from the office of the Presidency, he or she could then be indicted, stand trial, and receive punishment in a regular court of law.

During the Clinton administration, the policy that a sitting president could not be indicted or prosecuted was reaffirmed, with this statement: “The policy seeks to insulate the nation’s chief executive from prosecutorial pressures that would ‘impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.’”

It’s true that we would not want a president, perhaps especially Donald Trump, to be distracted by the pressures of an indictment or a prosecution. This could place Americans at peril and jeopardize many aspects of our government’s workings.

On the other hand, if a president were found guilty of wrongdoing or of breaching public trust, would we really want that president to continue his or her duties as our leader? This answer is undoubtedly not clear-cut; for those who would support Donald Trump’s indictment, the answer is a simple “No.” But for those who support Trump, even an indictment and subsequent prosecution would likely not be enough to deter their backing.

Rudy Giuliani says Mueller won’t indict Trump | Fox Business [2018-05-16]

Senator: Giuliani is wrong. Trump can be indicted. | CNN [2018-05-16]

Category: TOPICS

Historically Uncontroversial, But in 2018, Farm Bill Fails

Is Donald Trump Above Indictment?