After my research into the process of impeachment, specifically in regards to the impeachment of Donald Trump, I would say that on a scale of "impeachability" from 0-5, he rests at 1. First off, I do not believe that what Donald Trump has been accused of is of enough substance to be impeachable. I am a believer that context is important, and considering that Bill Clinton was not removed from office under articles of impeachment for lying under oath and obstruction of justice, neither does it make sense for Trump to be. Also, it seems as though this trial is a last-ditch effort for Trump to not have a chance at winning 2020, as numerous things have been tried in the last few years. The difference here is that our entire justice system and country as a whole is too busy focused on this to work toward anything else. Before accusations were even made against Trump in regards to Ukraine, this was bound to happen.
I believe that history books in the future will not speak fondly of the impeachment trial of Donald Trump. First of all, he will likely not be removed from office, which will automatically infuriate half of the country and cause bitterness to seep through the words in some "unbiased" history books. Secondly, I think that in the near future, many will realize, or admit, that this trial was a substantial waste of our government's time, and I strongly hope that history books will take time to touch upon that. This trial will likely be treated no differently in history books than the others, though that doesn't seem to be the route that we're going down for the moment.
Throughout this process, I sure did ask some questions. While not an extremely lengthy list, I feel that I conjured up some questions that I actually cared about. Most of the questions that I found myself asking were less about the legal side of impeachment and more about the common sense and ethics of it. I found answers to most of my questions in articles that I came across later on, and was able to answer most of them. Of course, because of the nature of some of the questions, nobody can currently answer them.
We all think we understand our own opinions. I mean, of course we do. They're ours, so we must know why... Right? Well, not exactly. Generally, without any form of research-based knowledge, we resort to emotions or the opinions of other people to do our talking for us. But when we stop for just a minute and research a topic we think we understand, it can open up a new world of ideas regarding the topic. This can allow for more peaceful conversations with people that we disagree with because we can present what we know as facts, and not argue based purely off of emotions. When we research, we develop and empower ourselves as thinkers by activating that part of us that always wants to know more, that seeks out information, and if we constantly do that, we'll find that we can talk more peacefully with more opposing people than we ever imagined we could.
Friday, January 17, 2020
Impeachment Post 2- Questions
Did Adam Schiff really need that long to say the same thing over and over in different ways?
What "previous invitations of foreign interference in United States elections" are there? (Articles of Impeachment against Donald Trump, Page 4, Lines 23-24)
Is it illegal for the President to appoint new ambassadors?
Is it illegal for the President to withhold foreign aid?
Will the Senate understand the difference between immoral and illegal?
Why won't witnesses be called and documents be released?
Will Trump be acquitted? If so, does this secure a 2020 win for him?
Why is Trump being impeached?
What does summarily mean?
Is it legal for chief justice to refuse to read a question?
What "previous invitations of foreign interference in United States elections" are there? (Articles of Impeachment against Donald Trump, Page 4, Lines 23-24)
Is it illegal for the President to appoint new ambassadors?
Is it illegal for the President to withhold foreign aid?
Will the Senate understand the difference between immoral and illegal?
Why won't witnesses be called and documents be released?
Will Trump be acquitted? If so, does this secure a 2020 win for him?
Why is Trump being impeached?
What does summarily mean?
Is it legal for chief justice to refuse to read a question?
Impeachment Post 1- Sources
Source 1: Live-Streamed Impeachment Trial on Day 1 (ABC) This source was useful to get a base idea of what an impeachment trial- or really any federal trial- is like. Adam Schiff's unnecessarily long speech was extremely irritating and made his statement seem silly and somewhat invalid.
Source 2: Articles of Impeachment against Trump issued by the House of Representatives It doesn't get more to-the-point than this. The actual articles of impeachment against Trump were useful to understand what he has been accused of and the entire reason for this trial.
Source 3: "Day 2 of the impeachment hearings, and what we learned from Amb. Yovanovitch", Daniel Bush, PBS This source was used to understand what went on during day 2 of the impeachment trial, which was close to nothing. However, the whole Yovanovitch thing is really interesting. I'm not sure whether Trump dislikes her because of her dislike for him or if she knows something we don't. However, it is his right to appoint and dismiss any ambassador he so chooses to.
Source 4: "Trump continues to attack Marie Yovanovitch, saying she was 'not an angel'", Lauren Lantry, ABC More of the same Yovanovitch stuff from source 3, although I do think that it's interesting that Lewis Lukens said that the White House took close to 15 months to send official pictures of Trump...
Source 5: "President Clinton impeached", History.com Editors, HISTORY I wanted give myself some context for the current impeachment by looking into a past trial. I imagine that the outcome of this trial will be the same, with the president receiving an acquittal.
Source 6: January 30, 2020 Tweet from Rep. Mike Johnson Very basic and to the point, and OF COURSE a GOP Representative would think the GOP is doing well, as that's kinda his job. In fact, the most interesting thing here were the comments on the tweet, almost all of which were liberal, and quite inflammatory.
Source 7: Joe Biden's Letter to the Democratic Caucus regarding a "full blown" trial, January 5, 1999 I happened to stumble across this lovely letter written by Joe Biden during the whole Clinton debacle in the '90s. Of course, he said that witnesses didn't need to be called, because why would anybody want their party's guy to go through more crap than he needs to? Of course, Republicans were for witnesses for Clinton, but are against it for Trump. Democrats, obviously, are for witnesses against Trump, but were againsts witnesses for Clinton... Ay ay ay.
Source 8: "See the moment Roberts refuses Paul's question", CNN I just wanted to see how this moment went down and remembered I could use it as a source. I'm not sure how to feel about it. If, as Chief Justice Roberts implied, Senator Paul's question outed a supposed whistleblower, I don't think it should have been read. However, if what Rand Paul says is true, and the question was about previous impeachment conspiring, then it upsets me to think that it wasn't read out.
Source 2: Articles of Impeachment against Trump issued by the House of Representatives It doesn't get more to-the-point than this. The actual articles of impeachment against Trump were useful to understand what he has been accused of and the entire reason for this trial.
Source 3: "Day 2 of the impeachment hearings, and what we learned from Amb. Yovanovitch", Daniel Bush, PBS This source was used to understand what went on during day 2 of the impeachment trial, which was close to nothing. However, the whole Yovanovitch thing is really interesting. I'm not sure whether Trump dislikes her because of her dislike for him or if she knows something we don't. However, it is his right to appoint and dismiss any ambassador he so chooses to.
Source 4: "Trump continues to attack Marie Yovanovitch, saying she was 'not an angel'", Lauren Lantry, ABC More of the same Yovanovitch stuff from source 3, although I do think that it's interesting that Lewis Lukens said that the White House took close to 15 months to send official pictures of Trump...
Source 5: "President Clinton impeached", History.com Editors, HISTORY I wanted give myself some context for the current impeachment by looking into a past trial. I imagine that the outcome of this trial will be the same, with the president receiving an acquittal.
Source 6: January 30, 2020 Tweet from Rep. Mike Johnson Very basic and to the point, and OF COURSE a GOP Representative would think the GOP is doing well, as that's kinda his job. In fact, the most interesting thing here were the comments on the tweet, almost all of which were liberal, and quite inflammatory.
Source 7: Joe Biden's Letter to the Democratic Caucus regarding a "full blown" trial, January 5, 1999 I happened to stumble across this lovely letter written by Joe Biden during the whole Clinton debacle in the '90s. Of course, he said that witnesses didn't need to be called, because why would anybody want their party's guy to go through more crap than he needs to? Of course, Republicans were for witnesses for Clinton, but are against it for Trump. Democrats, obviously, are for witnesses against Trump, but were againsts witnesses for Clinton... Ay ay ay.
Source 8: "See the moment Roberts refuses Paul's question", CNN I just wanted to see how this moment went down and remembered I could use it as a source. I'm not sure how to feel about it. If, as Chief Justice Roberts implied, Senator Paul's question outed a supposed whistleblower, I don't think it should have been read. However, if what Rand Paul says is true, and the question was about previous impeachment conspiring, then it upsets me to think that it wasn't read out.
Wednesday, January 8, 2020
Impeachment
Article II, Section 4, says that, “The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Tuesday, January 7, 2020
Leadership
To be a leader, you must first know yourself to understand the needs of the people you lead. Few people exemplify that better than Mahatma Gandhi, who is most popular for his employment of non-violence in solving conflict. One major conflict he helped to solve in this manner was the independence of India from British rule. Gandhi was quoted as saying, "Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man." Although most would agree with that, Nathuram Godse would probably not. In 1948, he shot Gandhi three times in the chest, killing him almost instantly. Despite this, Gandhi's legacy lives on in the memory of peaceful fighters everywhere.
