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.
No comments:
Post a Comment