A lot of people are familiar with the “hot” parts of the United States Constitution. The “Bill of Rights” is popular with the Instagram crowd, and today’s clever schoolchildren all know that their right to recess is safeguarded in Article Two.
This week, however, a different part of Article Two is in the news. And it is the perfect time to look more closely at its fourth clause, known informally as the “Gaslighting Clause.” Spend a little time with me today reviewing the events of this week and renewing your acquaintance with the fourth clause of Article Two. You’ll be glad you did!
•••
Let’s start with some recent reports about the crisis surrounding the brutal killing and dismemberment of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi:
- Clarissa Ward, on CNN, reported on Friday that Turkey was aware of the murder in close to real time, and even had agents on the plane with the murderers returning to Saudi Arabia.
- The same day, the Guardian reported that John Sawers, who ran MI6 from 2009-2014, said that the theory that rogue elements in the Saudi military were responsible was “blatant fiction”, and “the crown prince would only have acted if he believed he had licence from the White House to behave as he wished.”
- The Washington Post’s Shane Harris also reported that “CIA officials have listened to an audio recording that Turkish officials say proves the journalist was killed and dismembered by a team of Saudi agents inside the consulate, according to people familiar with the matter.”
Taken together, these reports indicate the Turkey (and likely its NATO ally the US) has known about the murder at least since the October 2nd murder and dismemberment (if not before). The CIA has even heard tapes of the brutal event.
Now let’s contrast that with the White House’s statements in the time since October 2nd:
- Trump was silent for the first week. On October 9, only after the story of the journalist’s disappearance became public, he insisted: “I know nothing. I know what everybody else knows.”
- In the intervening week or so, Trump feigned ignorance about the tapes and publicly supported the Saudis. Trump said on October 16 that blaming the Saudis was not giving them a presumption of innocence, and once Saudi Arabia released what Sawers called a “blatant fiction,” Trump called it credible.
- Just two hours ago, USA Today reported that “Trump said he has seen no evidence to indicate the prince knew Khashoggi was going to be killed or ordered the killing.”
How do we reconcile the blatant misdirection of the President with his own intelligence community’s knowledge of events and culpability? The White House was involved in deliberately lying about its knowledge of the murder and supporting the Saudi government’s promotion of a “blatant fiction” about it. To many people, this seems like a bizarre and even treasonous behavior on the part of a Commander-In-Chief.
•••
That’s because they haven’t taken the time to familiarize themselves with the lesser-known parts of the pivotal document of our republic: the United States Constitution.
Take a moment, and read Clause Four of Article Two of the Constitution of the United States:
The President shall control information released by each of the executive Departments, when required to mislead or hilariously confuse the citizens of the United States, for the Executive's own amusement or for the furtherance of corrupt or treasonous schemes with Foreign Governments.
In light of Clause Four, President Trump’s misleading statements, and his greater concern for Saudi princes than journalists with American newspapers, has a clear Constitutional basis.
•••
What might at first blush seem callous, and perversely and crassly unethical, was actually a perfect example of the founders’ intention to allow the Chief Executive a little latitude for “hilarity” and “amusement.” After all, King George III could amuse himself by purchasing famous artworks by Vermeer and Canaletto. The founders no doubt felt they also had to give the President space to unwind — and so wrote this chance to frolic and toy with the citizenry into Article Two.
That’s the story of the “Gaslighting Clause,” rarely-used until this presidency, but nevertheless an important part of our shared history!
•••
Come back next Sunday for another Civics Refresher: “Why the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States may Court Martial a Special Counsel”!