Certifying a U.S. Presidential Election: A Constitutional Conflict of Interest

That it should go without saying that a constitution providing a government with its basic framework and procedures should not contain any conflicts of interest makes it all the more astonishing when an actual constitution is found to contain a obvious yet undetected conflict of interest that could be exploited by an institutional or officeholder and yet is easy to obviate, or fix. The implication in such a case is that a society can be too comfortable with institutional conflicts of interest without realizing that if such a conflict is exploitable, it is likely that it eventually will be even if not right away. Because U.S. President Don Trump’s pressure on his vice president, Mike Pence, on January 6, 2021 to refuse to certify the votes of the electors in some of the states did not result in any serious proposals to have another office than the vice presidency preside, a societal tolerance for even known conflicts of interests in general and in a constitution more particularly can be inferred. I submit that such a tacit willingness to continue with the status quo can eventually put even a republic itself at risk.

Speaking on January 6, 2024, U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris referred to her constitutional duty of presiding in a joint-session of Congress tasked with certifying the election that she had lost as something she took very seriously. The American people should not have to worry about whether a vice president might exploit the presiding role by resisting or thwarting a peaceful transfer of power. “Today was obviously a very important day,” she said, “and it was about what should be the norm and what the American people should be able to take for granted, which is that one of the most important pillars of our democracy is that there will be a peaceful transfer of power.”[1] Such a transfer lies at the core of representative democracy, so it is important that any risk of any impediment, whether an opportunistic person outside of a constitution or something lying in a constitution itself, be minimized. It is not, in other words, a minor matter.

Simply tasking the loser of an election with presiding over the counting of votes and the announcement of the winner should give anyone pause. At the very least, no one should be duty-bound to perform such a function—which can be thought of as “rubbing one’s face” in the affair, which can feel humiliating to the person.

Furthermore, politically, whether a vice president is a candidate for president as Harris was or is pressured to do the partisan or personal bidding of a president as Pence had been, having a partisan office preside is itself problematic not only for the presidency itself in terms sheer credibility, but also for a vice president in terms of the election process itself. Simply put, the vice president who is running for president or for another term as vice president is an active player in the contest and thus should not preside over the tabulation and certification of the results. As simple as this is to grasp, it must be difficult for enough Americans that the problem has been allowed to persist.

This is especially damning because the conflict of interest is easy to remove. The chief justice, or any justice, of the U.S. Supreme Court would be a natural fit for the presiding role as the judiciary is not (supposed to be) partisan. Put another way, a sitting president pressuring the vice president to declare some state slates of electors invalid is more likely than pressuring the chief justice to do that same. Institutionally, given the separation of powers in the U.S. Government, reaching out to the chief justice would be much more difficult than trying to pressure a vice president of one’s own administration. Having the chief justice, who swears in presidents, preside over the Congressional counting of the Electoral College votes for president as both the sitting vice president and Speaker of the House look on makes so much sense that it is sad state of affairs when the status quo is almost mindlessly retained even four years after the conflict of interest could have been exploited, with a riotous mob of partisans literally breaching the Capitol to convey additional pressure.

Putting the loser of an election in the position of having to publicly announce the victor is the smoke that points to an underlying constitutional conflict of interest; a mob pressuring a loser on a presidential ticket to abuse the presiding role of the vice president is more like fire than smoke. That the ensuing public discourse did not contain a proposal of a constitutional amendment assigning the task to the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court reflects very badly not only on the elected office-holders (and the media), but also on the American people, as it is government ultimately by the people. Perhaps a people gets the government, and constitution, that they deserve, for institutional conflicts of interest should be obviated whether in government, business, or in non-profit institutions.

Neither institutional relations nor processes should contain conflicts of interest that can be exploited because human nature is itself rather inclined to exploit them because of the instinctual urges that manifest as self-, office-, and institutional-interest even at the expense of the interest of the whole. Even though governments and economic systems tend to be based on such interests, the latter don’t have to be encouraged by the ongoing existence of institutional conflicts of interest. Continuing with the status quo can itself be thought of as a choice—one that reflects a certain underlying set of beliefs and assumptions that are valued, and even the extent of basic awareness.  Having seen not only smoke, but even fire, a people can indeed be faulted for having insufficient awareness, and this verdict is perhaps even more damning than that which concerns the naivete concerning human nature being able to withstand conflicts of interest without exploiting them in the long run. The sting of these verdicts hurts all the more when an institutional conflict of interest can be obviated relatively easily with a solution that is, or should be, obvious. Because power is that which is channeled in a political constitution, risking the exploitation of a conflict of interest that is in a constitution is not a smart choice if a viable, ongoing republic is desired.

---

1. Aditi Sangal, “Congress Certifies Trump’s 2024 Election Win,” CNN.com, January 6, 2025.

Glimpsing behind the Curtain: Vice President Lyndon Johnson and the Kennedy Assassination

Robert Ross interviewed Lyndon Johnson’s mistress, Madeleine Duncan Brown what Ross titled, “The Clint Murchison Meeting in Dallas November 21, 1963.” The interview took place sometime before her death on June 22, 2002. The content is revealing, and she comes across as very credible as it is obvious she still had feelings even then for the late president. She also had a credible motive for opening up to the American people. So in watching the interview, I did not view it as just another conspiracy theory; I paid attention. Sometimes the truth finally emerges in plain sight, rather than through complicated theories as in Oliver Stone’s film, JFK (1991). The most revealing facts to emerge from the interview are that Jack Ruby, who killed Oswald just two days after the assassination, had been at the meeting at Murchison’s mansion on the night before the assassination, and that LBJ told Madeleine while leaving Murchison’s house after the meeting, “After tomorrow, those SOB’s will never embarrass me again.” That the official narrative from the Warren Commission would still carry weight as the default account at least in the first two decades of the next century astounded me. At the very least, all of Madeleine’s knowledge of the players should have caused at least a tremor when the interview was made public. The status quo has that much inertia. Even so, the American public can gleam from Brown’s account just how different the reality of the power-brokers in (and outside of) the U.S. Government can be from what the public knows. Unfortunately, the patina or gloss even of acting can have incredible staying-power even in the face of the facts revealed. Members of the political elite and their companions may want to protect their legacies in old age, or want the freedom of conscience that comes from the impunity that can only come with death. The resulting piecemeal facts must justify themselves, however, whereas the long-standing official version often has the benefits of not only protective power and entrenchment that comes with having been the default for so long, but also a coherent (i.e., contrived) narrative.  

Madeleine had met LBJ in 1948. By her reckoning, she and Lyndon had a “wonderful relationship.” Johnson fathered Madeleine’s son, Steve Brown, who had died of cancer by the time of the interview. In spite of having cancer, Steve had sued to get part of Johnson’s estate. Madeleine was hurt by the way the power structure in Texas had handled Steve by preventing him from appearing in court. “I probably would never have opened my mouth, but the way they handled my son. They can’t take anything from me now. The public needs to know.” Essentially, she says in the interview that the assassination of Kennedy was the result of a domestic plot that been planned since the 1960 Dem Convention.

Joe Kennedy and H. L Hunt met three days before the convention and they cut a deal: Johnson would be the VP. At the time, Hunt told Madeleine, “We may have lost a battle but we’re going to win the war.” On the day of the assassination, he would tell her, “We won the war.” Madeleine concluded the assassination was “a political crime for political power.” H.L. Hunt, the richest man in the world at the time, and others “mapped a plot to get rid of John Kennedy” from just after the convention. The 8-f group included oil men such as Clint Murchison and Hunt, Texas politicians such as John Connally, and even occasionally J. Edgar Hoover.

Meeting the night before the assassination at Clint Murchison’s house on Nov 21, 1963 were Lyndon Johnson, Edgar Hoover, John McCloy, H.L. Hunt (who had had flyers “Wanted for Treason: John F. Kennedy” passed out in downtown Dallas), John Currington, George Brown, Richard Nixon, Amen J. Carter, Jr, Texas Gov. John Connally, Earle Cabell (mayor of Dallas, whose brother Kennedy had fired after the botched Bay of Pigs invasion), W. O. Bankston, Clint Peoples, Bill Dicker (sheriff of Dallas county), Cliff Carter, Malcom Wallace, and, representing the mafia, Carlos Marchellas, Joe Civilla, and Jack Ruby (an old buddy, Madeleine remarks). I submit that the mafia had a motive to kill the president whose brother Robert had turned the U.S. Department of Justice on the mob, including very mobster in Chicago, Sam Giancana, who is said to have put Illinois over the top in voting for Kennedy. It is particularly relevant, therefore, that Ruby, who would later he killed Oswald out of anger for assassinating the president, was at a meeting with such notable insiders on the night before the assassination. Also, the inclusion of the FBI and the sheriff of Dallas County fit with the obvious need to cover-up the crime. That Richard Nixon, who had lost the 1960 election to Kennedy—unfairly according to the man known as “tricky Dick”—would be in a meeting with Johnson supporters should also raise some eyeballs; it would make sense, however, if the Democrats wanted assurances that the other party would not try to uncover the plot. It is therefore significant that Nixon was already in town; he and Johnson had met two days earlier.

At any rate, the social party at the mansion, for which Madeleine had been invited, broke up at 11 p.m. when the Vice President arrived. He and others went into a conference room. Jack Ruby brought a call-girl, Shirley, to the meeting. When Johnson came out of the meeting at its conclusion, he told Madeleine: “After tomorrow, those SOB’s [i.e. sons of bitches] will never embarrass me again.” Johnson was angry. “The Irish mafia, I think,” Madeleine says in the interview when Ross asks her whom Johnson was referring to. However, in her book written five years earlier, Madeleine wrote that Johnson had told her, “After tomorrow, those goddamned Kennedy’s will never embarrass me again.”[1] Because she looks like her mind is going astray at that point in the interview—she would, after all, die soon—I suspect she confused Lyndon’s antipathy at the Irish mob with his loathing of the two Kennedy brothers. 

Even if Johnson didn’t get along with a mobster, his frustrating relationship with the Kennedy brothers in the White House is well documented. Regardless of whomever he was angry at, that Lyndon Johnson knew that something would be very different for him on the next day—the day of the assassination—suggests that he knew of it beforehand. In fact, that he made such a statement with such strident certainty just after the meeting suggests to me that its purpose had been to decide on whether to go ahead with the plan. If indeed Lyndon Johnson had at the very least been aware of the assassination beforehand, the way in which he publicly reacted after it can be seen in a different light—as being acted out rather than authentic. By implication, the American people had no clue as to what was actually going on behind the scenes. The sheer difference ought to be of concern from the standpoint of democracy, because the sheer degree of acting can be used on an ongoing basis to hoodwink the electorate.

People on the periphery of the plotting group were in an interesting predicament, being let into at least some of the inside information and yet not truly part of the group. Hence they could be expected to share at least one of their points of reference with the public and thus feel guilty enough to speak, or finally turn on the insiders by divulging the tidbits of information even in the face of a seemingly overwhelming public narrative. Clint Murchison’s secretary, for instance, committed suicide days after the assassination. Even though Madeleine still had feelings for Johnson (i.e., they had not ended on a bad note), she was convinced that he had been in on the assassination and yet she said nothing of this publicly until she was old, after her sons had died so she had nothing to lose. For one thing, she says in the interview that if Kennedy had not been assassinated when he was, Johnson would have faced “serious political problems when he returned to Washington.” He had been involved in the Billy Sol Estas and the Billy Baker scandals, and Kennedy was already looking for another VP candidate for 1964, according to Kennedy’s secretary, Evelyn Lincoln.[2] At the time of the assassination, a U.S. House committee was planning to indict Johnson. A man, who would later be shot, was going to testify that Johnson had taken kick-backs from agricultural programs. When Lyndon was president, he kept the Vietnam War going on for so long because he was getting kickbacks on military contracts to his business friends.

Johnson’s real mentality, however, went deeper than corruption. According to Madeleine, Malcolm “Mac” Wallace was Johnson’s hit-man. In a letter to the Department of Justice in 1984, Douglas Caddy, the lawyer for Billie Sol Estes, claimed to have evidence that Johnson order hits on eight men, including Kennedy.[3] Johnson “had no qualm about having someone killed,” the still-smitten Madeleine says in the interview. “Whatever it takes to get a job done,” she says of Lyndon’s mentality. She agrees with Ross in his conclusion that Johnson must have thought the end justified the means. Madeleine points out that Johnson even had an innocent woman who had seen Madeleine and Johnson together in a hallway killed. Even just to conceive that a U.S. president had a hit man is difficult; to a public kept largely in the dark, such a thing—and that the American electorate voted for a mafia-like man in 1964—must seem inconceivable, or else fiction, like the series, House of Cards. Hence the vulnerability lodged in American democracy wherein the electorate is left with mere superficial or artificial perceptions of the candidates and office-holders remains largely hidden from view.

All of the above hitherto hidden from view does not even count the stealth role of corporations in influencing Congress, the President, and even the regulatory agencies that regulate the specific corporations or industries. The relationship can indeed be quite cozy in spite of the conflicts of interest that should be obvious. The allowance of “dark money” contributions to political campaigns affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in its Citizens United case is just one indication of how the real relationship between business and government in the U.S. can be deliberately hidden from plain view, and especially this disinfectant effect of sunlight. If sunlight is essential for the popular sovereign (i.e., the People) to hold its government officials accountable, then representative democracy in the U.S. is seriously flawed. To get caught up in debating who shot Kennedy may be just what the political elite wants because not only such myopic investigations tend to be premised on the Warren Commission’s report as the default narrative to be disproven, but also the obsession of one historical event comes at the expense of uncovering the true nature of the current office-holders in government and the real relationship between business and government.

---

[1] Madeleine Duncan Brown, Texas in the Morning: The Love Story of Madeleine Brown and President Lyndon Baines Johnson (Conservatory Press, 1997).

[2] James Hepburn, Farewell America: The Plot to Kill JFK (Penmarin Books: 2002).

[3] Ibid.

Preparing for the U.S. Presidency: Build a Resume

How should an aspiring candidate for President of the United States go about attaining that esteemed office?—an office whose occupant was regularly referred to as “the leader of the free world” when part of that world was behind an iron curtain. Mitt Romney spent six years of his life campaigning for the job only to lose it to an incumbent whose record on “pocket-book issues: was mixed at best. Perhaps it is possible to want something too much. Fortunately, a more substantive alternative is also possible.

Hillary Clinton as U.S. Secretary of State.           

                                                                                                           
As Hillary Clinton was nearing the end of her tenure as U.S. Secretary of State, Michael Bloomberg, who was nearing the end of his own mayoralty in New York City, encouraged her to run for his office. Being every bit “New York,” the New York Times refers to the option as “trading international diplomacy for municipal management on the grandest scale.” In case anyone misses my sarcasm here, I should add that being mayor of New York City is not merely executive experience on a grand scale. Being chief executive of The City could be comparable to being governor of some states. Accordingly, becoming mayor of the city that never sleeps could give the former legislator and chief diplomat significant experience as a chief executive. Ironically, the latter could be most essential to the presidency.

Alternatively, were Hillary Clinton really intent at the time on running for presidency, political consultants might have been whispering in her other ear, “you need to get up to New Hampshire and over to Iowa.” However, early and regular visits to those states do not, as the case of Mitt Romney suggests, necessarily translate into winning come election day. This is not to say that a third alternative, such as taking a well-deserved break—maybe writing a book—might not be preferable to being mayor of New York City. Nevertheless, in the choice between never-ending campaigning and governing, it would be nice to think that the American people would reward substance over excess eagerness. The people have not exactly demanded of a president that he (or she) be a senior statesman when it comes to governmental experience. John Adams had been U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain (besides having had a hand in the writing of the U.S. Constitution) before being elected president. Thomas Jefferson had been the U.S. Secretary of State (besides having had a hand in, well…you know). Had he lived, James Hamilton might have been president after having served as Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury. Experience can even be ex post facto, as when President Taft joined the U.S. Supreme Court after serving as president.

From the perspective of having several substantive governmental offices, an occupant of the office of U.S. president can have both wisdom and perspective. That is, such a person would be more likely to discern instinctively the forest from those particular trees that demand too much attention. Such a person would be more oriented to the system as a whole, as President Jackson was when he opposed funding the Second National Bank of the U.S. even as he opposed South Carolina’s nullification act (by which the state legislature could invalidate U.S. laws detrimental to the state’s interest). That is to say, the president was oriented to protecting what he saw as a balance in the federal system. His perspective was systemic and thus not primarily partisan or even bureaucratic in nature.

To be sure, putting someone in the office who might be suspected of sporting a suitable countenance is ultimately up to the American people—whether we value it enough. Lest it be pointed out that few candidates could be found, it is also up to the candidates themselves—whether they are willing to substitute more governmental experience for the seemingly endless parade of chicken dinners. To those candidates, I would say: focus on the knitting and the campaigning will take care of itself; focus on the campaigning, however, and the sweater could slowly unravel from all the waving and handshakes. In short: have faith that investing in governing now will pay off later. This could mean trusting in the judgment of the American electorate, or being a leader (hence gaining leadership experience!) by providing a higher example of real presidential material. Of course, the people may not be wise or virtuous enough of character to grasp such leadership, in which case the republic itself will decline even in spite of the suitable candidates.

Source:

Michael Barbaro, “Clinton for Mayor in ’13?Bloomberg Asked Her to Consider Succeeding Him,” The New York Times, December 4, 2012.

Flavor of the Month: The Achilles' Heel of American Democracy?

The New York Times Sunday Magazine ran a feature toward the end of 2009 on Joe Biden, who was then Vice President of the United States.  Besides his experience and knowledge from having been a seasoned U.S. senator, Joe Biden is a man genuinely content in his own skin, and, it might be said, genuinely happy.  This, perhaps more than anything else, is vital to high level public official because sound judgment is important in those jobs. Ruling is not simply about how much one knows, or even how much experience one has; it is fundamentally about feeling at ease in who one is.  Ultimately, a positive vision springs from one’s state of mind and innate values.  One need only contrast Joe Biden with Richard Nixon, for example. Foreign policy comes up for both, but their mentalities could not be different.

My question is this: to what extent is our “Electoral College as popular election” geared to selecting the best candidate for president?  If the most popular is apt to be a people-pleaser, how comfortable is he (or she) likely to be in his (or her) own skin?  Furthermore, is the most popular necessarily seasoned with experience?  In short, if our current mechanism for selecting the president is oriented to privileging the flavor of the day, is this really the way we want to pick our presidents?    When we see a people-pleasing president cave to the business interests for support because popularity is not a sufficient basis of legitmacy, should we really be surprised?   What I see is a seasoned and knowledgeable vice president who is generally happy and getting along with people at the White House and in Congress, yet he did not do well at all in the popularity contests (i.e., the primaries).   I suggest that we have it backwards if we assume that Joe Biden is best as vice president because he did not fare well in the electoral contest.  As a case in point, he has been urging restraint in acquiescing to the pressure to add troops to Afganistan.  He wants a narrow focus, rather than a sensationalistic “surge.”  I suspect that he would stand up to big business and the military were he president because he wouldn’t need their approval to be content in his own skin.  Were he president, I suspect he wouldn’t need a second term.  Could that be said of a person who relishes popularity?

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/magazine/29Biden-t.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=joe%20biden&st=cse