The Daily Signal - INTERVIEW | The Presidential Candidate Who Ran for Office From Prison

Episode Date: April 6, 2023

The indictment of former President Donald Trump is unprecedented in American history. However, other former vice presidents and presidential candidates have faced legal problems. Fred Lucas and Jarrett Stepman join The Daily Signal podcast to discuss the bizarre presidential election of 1920, when socialist candidate Eugene V. Debs ran for office from prison. They also touch on the treason trial of vice president Aaron Burr and other presidents and vice presidents getting in legal hot water. Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is a daily signal podcast for Thursday, April 6th. I'm Fred Lucas. And I'm Jared Stettman. Jared was in New York City on Tuesday for the Donald Trump arraignment. He was there for the big circus. And today we're going to talk about some historical aspects. This does not have a historical parallel, to be certain. It's unprecedented that a former president would be indicted on criminal charges.

However, there have been some very high-profile cases, some investigations against setting presidents, against former presidents, and against some former vice presidents, and that's something we're going to talk about today. Yeah, thanks, thanks, Fred, for the introduction. As you said, it was definitely an unprecedented moment that happened yesterday. But, you know, what we're going to talk about a little bit is some individuals who've been running for president, who have been under investigation. I think a very big one actually happened in the 20th century. And maybe you can set that up for us a little bit, Fred, and talk about Eugene Debs, the socialist candidate for president. Yeah, yeah, that's something we had a piece about that in the daily signal a couple days ago, actually.

The first and so far only president to run a campaign from a prison cell. Eugene Debs had been the socialist party candidate pretty much since 1900 through 1920, and he managed actually to get 6% of the. the vote in the multi-candidate race of 1912. He came back in 1920 to run again. But this time, under the Wilson administration, he had been charged with sedition because he spoke out against America's involvement in World War I. And so, but he actually had quite a bit of support.

He was a very good orator. So he was handicapped in that aspect. He couldn't go out and do these rip-waring speeches. However, he wrote weekly campaign statements. Those were published by a wire service, United Press Wire Service at the time. And he was a very well-known figure, even though he was a third party. He was a perennial candidate, so people came to know him. He was sort of popular, even among non-socialists because he had sort of a big personality.

and he ended up getting about a million votes. That's almost 4% of the vote in 1920. And actually when Warren Harding came in the office, he ended up pardoning him. But this is an example and the only example of a presidential candidate running a campaign from behind bars. And now that sort of presents the possibility if Trump is convicted in this case, or in one of the other cases, what could potentially happen if he runs a campaign under conviction? Yeah, it is interesting because, of course, in the case of Debs, his campaign was much more in the line of, to, I suppose, pick a recent candidate.

You'd think of maybe a more of a Ralph Nader type. Yeah, or Bernie Sanders. Yeah, yeah. He's running something closer to a third party campaign rather than being one of the major parties on the ticket. So there was never much of a chance that Debs was actually going to win the 1920 election. Even if I think so, to a large extent, and I think many even recognize those who weren't certainly were not supportive of his socialist platform, that what had been done to him was maybe a bit much, especially that he was charged under the Sedition Act at the time for arguing, essentially for dodging the draft. There was a huge draft that took place in World War I. And I think a little remembered historical fact,

actually there were more people dodging the draft in World War I than there were the Vietnam War. I know the Vietnam War gets a lot of publicity for that, but this was actually a very big issue at the time. Woodrow Wilson hated Debs. His administration hated Debs. They wanted to go after him. They wanted to put him in jail.

They did so using the power of the federal government and wouldn't let up. They would not commute his sentence. It took a Republican. president, as you said, Warren G. Harding, who actually, I believe, invited Debs to the White House after. I believe his sentence got commuted on Christmas Day, I guess a Christmas gift to Debs. And apparently had a conversation, which Harding, a very, I think, genial man had a nice conversation with him. I think it is very interesting that, of course, that Harding ran on this

campaign of a return to normalcy, which I think that the Debs' commutation of his arrest, And, of course, he had very poor health while in jail was sort of that desire to return a normalcy in this country, that even though Debs had been arrested, that he should be released because we wanted to see the country return to normal in the 1920s. Yeah, yeah, and that was part of what Harding ran on. It was the, yeah, as you said, returned to normalcy. And moving past the World War I era laws of Wilson. Of course, I consider Wilson kind of as close to an authoritarian president as the country's ever had, really. And the World War I was really used to kind of bludgeon political opponents. And Debs was, you know, Exhibit A in that, I think.

Yeah, absolutely. So another case, I think we could talk about, Fred. And I know we discussed this before the show, which is maybe a little deeper history, which would be the trial of Aaron Burr, the Vice President Aaron Burr, who actually ended up in trial years after he was vice president. Can you kind of talk about that a little bit, Fred? Well, yeah, I mean, he's most famous for killing Alexander Hamilton. He didn't go to trial for that.

Dules were illegal at the time, but Aaron Burr, of course, you know, went on the serve out of one term with Thomas Jefferson, at least. And though he didn't get along very well with Jefferson, and that's a whole other story. But, yeah, after being out of power, and it's often said of Aaron Burry, he was most dangerous when he's out of power. He's actually, but he went on to sort of wanted to be an emperor in the Louisiana territory and Mexico and so forth.

Yeah, and it was, and he ends up getting, well, tried and acquitted on that point. Yeah, the whole trial was very interesting. Of course, Burr, I think there's definitely been some debate among historians, what exactly were his intentions in the Southwest. He went down there because a lot of his popularity went down after shooting and killing the former president secretary. So he wasn't so popular in New York City anymore. He went down to the southern territories, made a lot of friends, including some very

disparate ones, including Henry Clay and Andrew Jackson, a lot of people who would be political rivals in the future. And the question I, of course, revolved on what exactly was Burr doing down there? Was he trying to lop off that territory to create its own empire? Was he working with the Spanish government to try to, because of course, much of this was Spanish territory as well. And I think what's very interesting about that case is that the real villain in this case may have actually been General James Wilkinson. In fact, I think Peter Roosevelt years later said he was one of the most villainous characters in American history. People think of Benedict Arnold as this major trader for years, decades even.

it appears that Wilkinson was on the payroll of the Spanish government after an investigation into Spanish national records. And it seems that it was actually Wilkinson who orchestrated much of what was happening. In fact, doctored many documents in the lead up to the Burr trial, which I think is part of the reason why Burr got eventually acquitted in this, because it looked like, well, maybe Burr was doing something unseemly in the Southwest. He may not actually been a traitor. that's where some of the questions from the trial actually came up and why they ultimately did not convict him for treason, despite his unpopularity, despite the fact that the Jefferson administration would like to have seen him be prosecuted for that. They ultimately, under Justice John Marshall, the famous John Marshall, ultimately decided to acquit him. Yeah, and also, I mean, that was a

particular courtroom drama. I mean, Burr was a good politician, and he had some origin. in the courtroom in that case. And that also helped. It definitely helped. And I think it would also help too, is that the main prosecution in this case, which I believe was John Randolph of Roanoke, who was a very popular politician, kind of unusual character, didn't exactly have a long legal experience. He wasn't a lawyer by trade.

And I think there are definitely, I think there's a case to be made that he didn't make the case very well either in the court itself, which is, again, One of the reasons why this trial was eventually, it was declared that Burr was not guilty, which of course set a very high bar for actually prosecuting an American for treason. There has to be a direct connection to aiding, abetting enemies in wartime. And there was no direct connection to a war, to Burr's actual treason, whether his intent was to do so or not. and again, sitting that very high bar for what actually constitutes treason in the United States. Yeah, and it will be interesting.

I mean, a parallel here is that some people find, you know, at least certainly Trump's enemies, find him to be as unpleasant as people in that era would have found Burr to be. So it will be interesting to see if a jury of peers can look at a case objectively, even if they don't like someone politically. I think that is the big question here, Fred. I mean, especially as we look at this case and many of these cases in the past is how directly politicized this is. Is it simply no man being above the law or is this looking for essentially looking for a crime to prosecute somebody who is unpopular with many of, you could say, that the ruling class in the United States. And I think that's where the real fear here is.

And certainly, you know, you could feel it when I was. at the protests on Tuesday, a lot of feeling that this isn't just being done because Trump broke the law. It's because Trump is Trump. And they're looking for some kind of law to prosecute him, which would be, I think, certainly unprecedented in American history where you have a president who has been essentially thrown in jail for crimes, especially political crimes, would certainly be unprecedented. Right. While we're on the topic of VPs, Maybe look at the, you know, Burr was the most notorious vice president.

Let me look at the second most notorious vice president. That'd be Spiro Agnew. And the similarities there is that, well, there aren't a lot of similarities. But that's an example of a vice president who was struck a plea deal while he was in office. And that's rare because something that was talked about, lot during the Trump administration, also during the Clinton administration. Is it it's Justice Department policy not to bring charges against a setting president because that would undermine the entire executive branch, basically, and the elected leader's ability to exercise constitutional

authority. But it is a little different with a vice president. And Spiro Agnew was under scrutiny by the Justice Department. This was happening the same time Watergate, the Watergate, The Watergate scandal was being investigated. And there was actually some open talk that Spirole Agnew might become president. Of course, it has happened. Agnew a year after this winning 49 states along with Nixon, ended up resigning from office as part of this plea deal for quitting guilty to tax evasion that stemmed all the way back to his time as governor of Maryland.

And it was a bribery investigation. Yeah, it's very interesting, Fred. And I think it kind of brings up what kind of the issues are, what we're dealing with now, especially with Trump, is this idea that, well, if he faces prosecution, and if somehow he, even though it looks to be that the case against him at this moment seems to be quite weak, what happens if he actually gets jailed, what happens if he runs for president? What happens if he wins when he becomes present? Is he going to serve from a jail cell?

Is he going to seek office to protect himself from further punishment? This, of course, is part of what brought down the Roman Republic when Julius Caesar decided to go run for counsel to avoid prosecution. I mean, I think these are very big issues in the history of a republic. I think that Americans, I think, rightly have had a system in which we've been very fortunate, in which we've decided that it is important not to arrest our political enemies after they've served in office. And that has been a long tradition in this country. I think there is generally a feeling that if you go after people who had been in office, especially if it's coming from the other political party, that that is a hallmark of a dysfunctional banana republic.

And that it is best for the country not effectively to go after those who've served in office. who have lost an election for whatever reason. And that seems to be a long-standing president in this country that may have actually been changed. It seems like we are on untrodden ground here. Yeah. And in this particular case with the Trump case and Alvin Bragg, what's also interesting is that it seems like you're bringing a federal case at the state level or by this Manhattan DA, because this would be, if it's a campaign finance violation, it would be for a federal office.

And that's where it gets even more complicated. And also, I mean, what you were saying, and I mean, back to Debs a little bit. I mean, this is an unlikely event, but we're in uncharted waters already. So, I mean, if Trump were convicted and, I mean, imagine in the worst case, are imprisoned and then wins the election. I mean, what does happen then? Because a United States president could not pardon himself on a state charge. Eugene Debs said, if I win, I'll pardon myself because he was charged on a federal crime,

the sedition law. Trump's been charged on a state law. Yeah, and we can already see some of those issues propping up. I mean, there was a lot of negotiation even before Trump's indictment. arraignment, well, how are they going to deal with a secret service? And one can even project in the future, well, how is that going to work with a state versus federal authority where you have a president who's been literally in prison, who wins office? Is he going to call out the National Guard in his defense? Is this a stake going to say, no, what happens next? I think these are issues that haven't been

fully resolved because it is literally on unprecedented ground. We have never had this happen before. It's really truly unprecedented ground, and it brings up a lot of legal ideas and really just issues of, you know, where power between states and where the power between federal government begins and ends. And really, you know, is this the kind of system we want? Is this this kind of system which if you are holding office, you have to be fearful that as soon as you leave office, that you could be prosecuted for whatever, you know, minor low-level offenses that some judge somewhere can find against you. And does that actually promote the idea of a politician saying, well, you know, I'm just never going to leave office. I'm going to make sure that I stay in law

office forever, which again is the death knell of republics. Yeah. Yeah. And one very important example that we do have to hit is Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton on his way out of office. One day, on his very last day in office, one day before George W. Bush was inaugurated. Bill Clinton basically copped a plea deal with independent counsel Robert Ray, and that was regarding the Monica Lewinsky case. He very likely could have faced a federal indictment over perjury or obstruction of justice in that case, which is why he was impeaching. for by the Congress. He avoided that.

And Robert Ray thought it was best for the country to move on past Clinton. It was in Clinton's best interest to avoid indictment. And the deal was struck that Clinton would admit to giving misleading testimony to under oath. And also he surrendered his law license. And that was something that was fairly unprecedented too for a president to strike. a deal. Yeah, it's very interesting that Clinton ultimately struck a deal in that case. Of course, one can see is a slap on the risk compared to a jail sentence that we're talking about with former President Donald Trump. But it does go to show. Again, there's a concerted interest

for the country in not putting presidents behind bars and not punishing for even if in some cases where it's possible that some inappropriate conduct has actually occurred. I think there's always been a hesitancy to go after, especially former presidents or generally, you could say politicians because of this image that you see far too often in countries where there isn't a stable line of succession, where there is this appeal to bullets over ballots. And that's something that has been established in our country, that we appeal to ballots, not bullets. I thought it was very interesting at the court that ultimately is going to be trying this case of Trump. There's an actual quote from Thomas Jefferson from his first inaugural, equal exact justice for all, no matter what state or persuasion.

And I thought that was very interesting, given the fact that many are calling this a political persecution of a former president. and that Jefferson upheld that standard, of course, in the 1800 election, which one party replaced another party, where Jefferson's Republicans, not the modern Republicans, but his party at the time, defeated the federalists and decided that even though the federalists had prosecuted some under the Alien Sedition Act, that Jefferson administration would not go after his opponents,

that we were all federalists, we were all Republicans, we're all Americans. And I think that that is something. that we have mostly maintained in this country and in the over 200 years of our existence. And unfortunately, it does feel like Rubicon has been crossed a bit as far as upholding that standard going forward.

And that sounds like a good note to end it on. And so that'll do it for today's episode. We do not have any show tomorrow and observance of Good Friday. We hope you all have a wonderful Easter weekend In the meantime, if you haven't gotten a chance, be sure to check out our evening show right here in the podcast feed where we bring you the top news of the day. Also, make sure you subscribe to the Daily Signal whenever you get podcasts and help us reach more listeners by leaving a five-star rating and review. We read all your feedback.

Thanks again for listening. Have a great day, and we'll be back with you at 5 p.m. for our top news edition. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation. Executive producers are Rob Luey and Kate Trinko. Producers are Virginia Allen and Samantha Asheris. Sound designed by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinney, and John Pop. To learn more, please visitdailySignal.com.