In-Class Write

     Robert Redford’s Quiz Show provides a look into the importance and influence of television in American history. By watching this movie, one could learn about what is perhaps one of the most intriguing scandals to grace the small screen: the “Twenty-One” scandal. The information discussed in this film is very important and relevant because it encapsulates the consumer-producer relationship. By that I mean that it seems as though Americans don’t care if what they are watching is accurate or true, as the contestants on “Twenty-One” were cheaters, but are just looking to be entertained. This film begs the question of if it is okay to lie to a collective of people as the television executives did, and (spoiler alert) it comes to the conclusion that it is. This should be very important to all people because we should know if what we are being told every day is false.

     Of course, this is slightly ironic because historical films have a reputation for not being completely true or for leaving things out, and this one is no exception. What one may not realize while watching this film is that there were many other quiz shows at the time that did similar things to “Twenty-One.” What is also not discussed is the fact that these quiz shows became a political issue, with an Arkansas Democrat named Oren Harris announcing that he would be investigating these crooked game shows. Also, the whole ordeal went on for at least three years, which is much longer than was portrayed in the film.

     I think that if Robert Redford had added another twenty minutes to Quiz Show, he should have covered similar game shows of the time because it would have added some really great context of just how far over the line “Twenty-One” stepped comparatively.  Other shows of the time asked “favored contestants” easier questions than unfavored ones, but “Twenty-One” went even further by giving contestants the answers! In my mind, I am envisioning a montage of actual clips from game shows like “The $64,000 Question”. Quiz Show has a very elegant feel to it so this would have to be done with some poise, but I think this would have made for some very informative scenes. It would have been neat to see the television executives from the other shows justifying their crazy ways because “look at what Twenty-One is doing, we aren’t as bad as them!” Again, I’m sure that Redford could have found a way to do this and still have kept the lavish charm in his film.

     Quiz Show is a fascinating film and is actually pretty on the money with a lot of historical details, and I applaud that. However, it definitely would have been nice to have seen a bit more context given.

Exhibit

From Amazon.com, this is a board game based around the television program, Twenty-One, which is the subject of the film Quiz Show. I would include this in my exhibit because it is a very tangible example of American consumerism that is also deeply ingrained in the theme/topic of the film.

From Oakridge Stores, this is a small replica of a bottle of Geritol, which was the sponsor of Twenty-One. This bottle is made for a dollhouse, and is not an actual bottle of Geritol. I would include this also for the fact that it represents American consumerism, but also because it is very closely related to the film, and I think that the "dollhouse" factor is pretty neat.

From Ebay, this is a jacket similar to the one that Charles Van Doren wore in Quiz Show. I would include this because it provides some insight into class in the 1950s. One can imagine that somebody who didn't have Van Doren's seemingly affluent life wouldn't have worn this. However, I do hope the one in my gallery is a bit higher resolution than the one above.

From History for Sale, this is a signed photograph of Robert Redford, who directed Quiz Show. He is also an actor, known for films such as Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, which is what the picture above is from. I would put this is my gallery because I think that it is important to not only acknowledge the actor in a film, but the director, producer, and other crew members.

From mlahart.com, this is a diploma frame from Columbia University. I would include this in my exhibit because this is the university where Charles Van Doren received his education and also was a professor at. I would probably put a fake diploma with Van Doren's name in it to clarify its presence in my exhibit.

"Quiz Show" Menu

Soup- Cream of Cheat

• A delicious blend of 100% real cream and dishonesty, this soup is sure to be a crowd-pleaser.

Starter- Scorsese Salad

• A tribute to Scorsese's extra small part in Quiz Show, this salad is an extra small part of your meal, but for some reason you still feel obligated to eat it because... you've gotta have the salad.

Entree- Quiznos Subs

• Do I even need to explain? Here: QUIZnos subs. They can't all be winners.

Dessert- Sugar Free Twenty-One Flavor Ice Cream Sundae

• I mean, it's sugar free so it can't be bad, right? Nope, it's still cheating. I'm looking at you, Stempel. And of course, twenty-one flavors for our favorite and most honest game show. 

Drinks- Tumult '94

• A tribute to the year in which Quiz Show was released, this non-alcoholic cocktail contains some of the most powerful, sense-overloading ingredients imaginable. It's pretty much half cinnamon and half lemon juice.

GUESTLIST

Robert Redford- Not only would I like to ask Redford about his fantastic direction of this film, but I would also like to ask him about his involvement in other projects such as A River Runs Through It, which I was not so big on.


Hank Azaria- Not only would I love to grill this man on The Simpsons, but I would love to talk to him about his versatility as an actor, from more vile roles such as his in Quiz Show to his many wacky roles in the aforementioned The Simpsons.

John Turturro- I would like to invite John Turturro and Herbie Stempel so that I could talk to them both about if Turturro's performance is accurate to how Stempel was. It's a great performance and I would be interested to know if Stempel was truly as odd as he is portrayed.

Herbie Stempel- See above.

Jack Barry- I think it would be fascinating to know Jack Barry's thoughts on the Twenty-One scandal, as I'm sure he was forced to comply with the madness. Specifically, I would like to question him about the scene where he mistakenly says that one of the contestants on the show gave an incorrect answer because that's what was supposed to happen.

Michael Ballhaus- The cinematography in Quiz Show was great, and he has been the cinematographer in many other films such as Goodfellas, and it would be cool to get to talk about the profession of cinematographer with somebody who knows it very well. I also noticed that Ballhaus started out doing only German films, and a lot of them too, so I think it would be neat to talk about how one gets from German films to only American films, and very prominent ones at that.

Sources

American Heritage, "The Quiz Show Scandal"

HISTORY, "The Rigged Quiz Shows That Gave Birth to 'Jeopardy'"

The Guardian, "Quiz Show: Robert Redford's film gets all the answers right"

LA Times, "COUNTERPUNCH LETTER : The Historical Facts About ‘Quiz Show’"

Choice Film, "Quiz Show"

I have decided to watch Quiz Show for a few reasons. First of all, I've never heard of this film and I like giving lesser-known things a try. Secondly, I'm fascinated by film and television, as well as scandals, and this seems to be the perfect mixture.

Experiencing WWII and Cold War Era Research topics.

I did a quick study on fascism during the World War 2 era and how it relates to modern times. I think it's fascinating that the definition of fascism is so vague and unknown to most people.

A Block Slides

I watched a clip from Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), which was mentioned on Mary Ellis' slide. I have a deep appreciation of movies and entertainment in general, and I love allegories, which is exactly what that movie is. After only watching one scene, it's clear that the film has an agenda, and one which I won't complain about. It's an anti-communist message, although certainly it could be interpreted other ways, which is the beauty of metaphors. I definitely want to go watch the whole movie now.

Wikipedia

                                                         

Influenza pandemic 1918-1919

From reading the text, I learned that around 63,000 soldiers dies of diseases during World War I, most of which were from the influenza pandemic. I also read that over two years, the flu killed nearly 50 million people worldwide. Around 500,000 of those deaths can be attributed to American civilians.

It is extremely disturbing to think that an epidemic like the flu took out three times more people than a whole war did, but thus is the case. This helps me to understand just how important modern medicine is, as well as how important it is to try and mitigate the consequences of such pandemics. This makes me wonder whether people in that time were told to do some of the things that we are currently being told to do during this current pandemic.(The Greeneville daily sun. (Greeneville, Tenn.), November 20, 1918, Image 1)

This one is fascinating. It's very funny to me that anybody can pretty much find a way to profit off of a pandemic, from toilet paper and hand sanitizer companies this year, to a laxative company in the 1900s! This makes me wonder about all the different companies who were advertising their miracle solutions to fight the flu.(The Chattanooga news. [volume], October 21, 1918, Page 5, Image 5)

Chapter 20 Study Guide Corrections and Evidence

Added to #4: I added information regarding the superiority of the "Anglo-Saxon" race as well as the fact that new outlets for US civilization were needed.

Added to #7: I added that Britain agreed to settle the dispute with the U.S.

Added to #8: I added the specific thing that yellow journalists focused on, which was atrocities in Cuba.

Added to #14: I added that there were no plans for transport to Cuba.

Added to #15: I added that Spain probably wasn't expecting a war to start in the Philippines.

Added to #17: I added that the annexation of Hawaii was rationalized by Hawaii not actually being a country.

Added to #19: America's Cuban allies also won.

Added to #20: Added Puerto Rico to the list.

Added to #21: Added that there was fear of competition from Filipino workers.

Corrected #22: Corrected my answer to "The fight to suppress Filipino independence fighters involved burning crops and villages, rounding up civilians, atrocities, dislocated civilians, malnutrition, disease – the brutality of the war."

William Randolph Hearst, a prominent figure in the realm of yellow journalism. (Encyclopedia Britannica)

According to LOC, the Spanish-American War started when the battleship Maine was supposedly sunk by Spain.

According to BIOGRAPHY, "McKinley is is best known for being president when the United States acquired Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines."

How do you analyze a political cartoon?

To analyze a political cartoon, one must first understand the political climate of the time when the cartoon was written. One must also know from what perspective the cartoonist is coming. Next, it is important to analyze not only the picture as a whole, but to also inspect the little details which might not come through upon first glance. Finally, piece together what you know and what you think, and you might just understand what's going on.

After looking at a guide on how to analyze a political cartoon, I will be a little more thorough with how I analyze these cartoons. For example, I will write lists of words to describe what is being portrayed rather than purely making sense out of it in my head. For analyzing these cartoons, I will be using a guide from the National Archives.

PBS

After scanning the cartoon, I first noticed the text "Weyler the Butcher" and a large man in ball-and-chain. There is text which says "HE MAY SERVE HIS COUNTRY STILL FURTHER." This man seems to be chiseling at a rock. I have a feeling that the shape of the rock is significant but I can't find any actual evidence to indicate that. Butcher is a name which yellow journalists gave Weyler in order to, I assume, garner hatred toward him and fuel the fire in Americans. Based on all of this, I would say that the cartoonist is trying to instill fear in Americans, thereby garnering support for conquering Cuba and the Philippines.

PBS

Upon first glace, the obviously overdone caricatures of Hawaii, Cuba, and possibly Africa (?) are apparent. They are all holding American flags and seem to be running toward something. The caption along with it says that they are coming to celebrate American independence day as well. Based on all of this, I think that the cartoonist was trying to make Americans feel hatred toward these places as well as the people in them. This is apparent because of the very stereotypical way these people are drawn. After seeing this, I can imagine that Americans had no desire for foreigners to partake in any American culture.


National Archives "Analyze a Cartoon" Guide

H.R.35 Research

I just learned that lynching has finally been made a federal crime. It was a unanimous decision by the House. Apparently the maximum sentencing for those who conspire in the process of lynching is 10 years, which seems much too lenient for such a heinous crime. Or, as I'm rereading it, it seems to be using 10 as an example and saying that co-conspirators may not serve a sentence longer than someone who completed the act of lynching. The main question that this prompted from me is this. Why the heck did it take so long to make lynching a federal crime? Also, who are the people who are in favor of lynching (or don't like the bill in general) and why?

Naval Recruitment Primary Source Analysis

1. As a group, these broadsides could be characterized as excited and pushy. Each of them have very large bold text to show only the most appealing and urgent aspects of Navy recruitment. For example, slide 1 and slide 2 are almost identical, with the aforementioned bold text and smaller text shoved in between. The major differences between the two are that slide 1 has an image on it and is much shorter than slide 2. Slide 3 is a bit different, with a drawing taking up a fair portion. However, it still takes the same bold text approach as the first two slides.
2. If I were creating these broadsides, I would likely assume that my audience is mostly able-bodied men or has a close connection to such a man. I would also assume that they are not in the Army, but might be struggling to choose between the Army and the Navy, as evidenced by the shade thrown by broadsides such as the one on slide 3. 
3. As a group, the PM advertisements are more informative, more appealing, and less pushy than the earlier group of broadsides. Every ad here has a black box surrounding it, which really gives the idea that they are somewhat connected. Ad 1 is very to the point, with no pictures, as opposed to 2 and 3, which both have drawings. They also all have BUREAU OF NAVIGATION in large letters at the bottom.
4. If I were creating these advertisements, I would clearly be under the assumption that my audience wants to quickly know how much they'll be paid, as it is one of the first things mentioned in nearly every advertisements. The opportunity for promotions also must have been appealing to the young men that PM was advertising to.
5. These items seem to convey that the Navy needed to move to more visual advertising than in the past, as evidenced by slides 7-9. Slide 10 seems to indicate that the Navy is trying to spread their ads through word of mouth, as it says to pass the card to someone you know. Slides 7 and 8 look like very standard postcards with information scattered throughout the images in entertaining text. Slide 9 is almost purely an image, with very little text. Slide 10 takes a completely different approach, with two columns of comparative text, which I would have to say might be my favorite of their tactics because it seems very efficient.
6. Slides 7 and 8 indicate that heroic imagery might entice the young men in the audience, while slide 9 suggests that some people out there might enjoy seeing an accurate depiction of their future work. If I were creating slide 10, I would probably think that young men are struggling between civil life and the Navy, possibly not considering the Army. Slide 10 also might appeal to parents more than some of the other ones because it shows a precise comparison between civilian life and the Navy which might put family at ease. 
7. These posters are all very idealistic and portray the heroic side of the Navy. Slides 11 and 12 appeal to men by using women, which was most likely very effective. Almost all of thee posters seem to have something to do with doing your duty to your country or your fellow man. Slide 15 stands out among the rest because it has a lot of information in the form of text on it, while the others mostly utilize images and much less text. 
8. Based on slides 11 and 12, the majority of the audience is clearly thought to be men. It also seems that the creators of the posters assumed that their audience was very patriotic, as evidenced by the type of language used in them. These images are, of course, a lot brighter and more colorful than past images, and also use some different tactics, such as the use of women, as I mentioned before. They still share the same love for large, bold text as previous posters, however.
9. Some of these tactics would still work today, especially the women on posters, you know... because men. The patriotic ones might be a bit hit or miss, however, because patriotism sometimes seems to be at a low point right now. Of course it should be mentioned that the posters with women would almost certainly be protested.

Great White Fleet

On December 16, 1907, 14,000 sailors on 16 ships set out on a voyage. These 16 ships were collectively called the Great White Fleet, for the fairly obvious reason that the boats were painted white. President Roosevelt sent these ships to sail across the world in order to showcase America's naval capacity. And boy did they. According to the Theodore Roosevelt Center, the Great White Fleet "covered 43,000 miles and made twenty port calls on six different continents." The journey was split into two parts, with the first departing from Virginia and stopping at "Trinidad, British West Indies, Brazil, Chile, Peru, and Mexico." (TR Center) When some ships had to leave in order to report elsewhere, the Fleet made a port call in San Francisco. The Fleet set sail about two months later, stopping in "Hawaii, New Zealand, Australia, the Philippines, Japan, Ceylon, and Egypt." (TR Center) After hearing of an earthquake in Italy, they changed course to assist in damage control. The final stop before reaching Virginia was Gibraltar, and on February 22, 1909, the Fleet found itself right back where it started, in Hampton Roads. This voyage was an amazing naval achievement, and it wasn't such a bad thing for Roosevelt's reputation either! In fact, it only heightened public perception of him.

                                             USS Connecticut, leading the Atlantic Fleet to Sea                                 

Theodore Roosevelt Center, "Great White Fleet"

Naval History and Heritage Command, "Cruise of the Great White Fleet", JO2 Mike McKinley, September 5, 2017

Immigration Research

QUESTIONS:

• (Research Topic): Do illegal immigrants substantially contribute to crimes and arrests more than the average American? (I am interested in this topic because I find crime statistics intriguing, and I am also very curious about the role that illegal immigration plays in those crimes.)
• Do any of the various studies on this topic take into consideration the fact that the population of undocumented immigrants is significantly less than the population of the general public?
• Why is it rarely acknowledged that coming to America illegally is... against the law?
• What counts as a substantial contribution?

Over the past few weeks, I have been researching immigration to the United States. More specifically, I have been looking into whether or not illegal immigrants actually contribute to crimes in our country. Now, immigration generally creates emotional and heated debates among people, which generally comes from a lack of knowledge or research into the topic, or sometimes just an absence of basic human kindness. Naturally, for every "fact", there is an equal and opposite "fact". While researching, I did the best that I could to find opposing arguments and use my judgement to determine what I believed to be true. Through my research and reasoning, I have concluded that illegal immigrants are arrested for more federal crimes than native-born Americans are, and, accounting for immigration crimes, commit more crimes than the average American.

Before we get to the grand finale of why I believe my thesis statement to be true (I have to keep you in suspense for a few minutes), it is important to first understand a brief history of immigration in the United States. According to History, it wasn’t a crime to enter the U.S.A. without authorization until after the early 20th century. After all, the border patrol was created less than a century ago, in 1924. Additionally, it was concerned with more than just people coming from Mexico. The longest-lasting impact on Mexican migrants has been made by Section 1325 of Title 8 in the U.S. Code. Section 1325 states that unlawful entry into the country is a federal misdemeanor on the first violation, and a felony on the second. Fool me once, right? To this day, the debate over section 1325 continues, with related causes becoming major topics in the upcoming presidential race.

But enough of the history side of things, there isn’t much I can do about it at the moment. What I can control, however, is my opinion on the matter at hand. The first major source I came by during my research was by one Alex Nowrasteh. According to CATO, Nowrasteh is the director of immigration for one of their branches. He is also a published author many times over, has appeared on many podcasts, and has been on the news a lot. Nowrasteh conducted a study late last year which analyzed Texas’ records of various crimes committed by illegal immigrants per 100,000 compared to native-born Americans and legal immigrants, the latter of whom I am not too concerned about. I won’t bore you with every detail, so long story short, illegal immigrants were significantly less likely to be convicted of homicides, sex crimes, and larceny than native-born Americans. They were also less likely to be arrested than native-born Americans. One obvious issue with this is that Texas is only one out of fifty states, but the data here seems to support the idea that illegal immigrants don't commit crimes at nearly the same rate that native-born Americans do.

Matt Palumbo, a writer over at The Dan Bongino Show, disagrees with Mr. Nowrasteh's point. Keep in mind that Palumbo and Nowrasteh are writing for two very different types of organizations, with Palumbo being a political commentator and entertainer, and Nowrasteh writing for CATO, a prominent libertarian think tank. Now this doesn't mean that Palumbo can't be right, but what he says should be taken with more grains of salt than what Nowrasteh says. I won’t bore you with all of the details here either, but here’s the gist. Palumbo argues that illegal immigrants have trouble committing a crime in the U.S. more than once because they are generally deported at the end of their sentence. Native-born Americans, however, can essentially commit a crime as many times as they are released from jail. Also, Texas is among only one other state, Florida, where illegals have committed less crimes than natives. (Keep in mind that this is only out of five states, the others being Arizona, California, and New York.) Simply put, Texas does not represent the country as a whole when it comes to illegal immigrants’ crime rates. Like I already stated, however, anything that Palumbo says should be taken with the fact that he is somewhat of an entertainer in mind.

When looking at smaller subsections of the crime world, it seems that illegal immigrants do, in fact, commit less than native-born Americans. However, more illegal immigrants are arrested overall at a federal level than native-born Americans. According to BJS, illegal immigrants only accounted for 37% of federal arrests in 1998, but now account for around 64% of federal arrests. Why the drastic increase? It appears that around 95% of these arrests are for immigration crimes, which says a whole lot about the insane number of people coming into the country illegally. If one wants to get technical, which I do, 100% of illegal immigrants have a crime under their belt: coming into our country illegally. This may not matter to a lot of people but it really does to me. Our country is practically built on immigration, but not just immigration, legal immigration, and I could not be more thankful to those people who pioneered the United States as we know it. But when people completely disregard the system that we have set in place to protect our country, it's a crime, plain and simple. Sure, it isn't murder, theft, or rape, but in some cases it leads to those things. As we've seen, it doesn't lead to them as often as you might think, but if any murderers, thieves, or rapists who crossed illegally hadn't been able to do so, their victims would still be alive, still have their possessions, or wouldn't have suffered awful mental/physical trauma. So that's why I'm still going to hold onto the idea that illegal immigrants commit more crimes than the average American, because I think that it matters whether or not those victims could have been protected, or whether future victims can still be saved.

Big Bend, a Section of the U.S.-Mexico Border 

Section of Border Fence in La Joya, Texas

A Member of the U.S. Border Patrol

CATO Institute, "Criminal Immigrants in Texas in 2017: Illegal Immigrant Conviction Rates and Arrest Rates for Homicide, Sex Crimes, Larceny, and Other Crimes", Alex Nowrasteh, August 27, 2019

Snopes, "Were 10,150 Americans Killed by 'Illegal Immigrants' in 2018?", Dan Evon, December 26, 2019

History, "How Border-Crossing Became a Crime in the United States", Becky Little, July 1, 2019

The Dan Bongino Show, "Do Illegal Aliens Really Commit Fewer Crimes?", Matt Palumbo, September 10, 2018

CATO Institute, Alex Nowrasteh Bio

Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Immigration, Citizenship, and the Federal Justice System, 1998-2018", Mark Motivans, August 2019

Thinking About Success

1. Hard Work

2. Skill

3. Opportunity
4. Luck

In my opinion, people who say that luck does not exist aren't completely right, but they're close. I don't believe that luck has a very strong influence in the world, thus it's place at the bottom of my ranking. Luck is more of a perception than a reality. By that I mean that luck is life's subtle way of combining the first three words on the list, which manifests itself to those with low self confidence, who don't believe they have those attributes. This is why I say that the others are more important than luck. 

Without the right opportunities, very little can be done. The way I see it, opportunities are not provided by any sort of system, but by other people who've received the same opportunity that they wish to give. I feel that opportunity is more often confused with luck than these others are, and for good reason. When someone comes along and gives you the 'big break' that you've been searching for, it's not luck. It's more than likely because you have the skill or have put in the hard work to earn it.

While skill is extremely important, I feel that the concept is too often misinterpreted. Skills are not always dealt at birth, but can be learned throughout your entire life. And how do you learn a skill? With hard work. I rest my case.

Lastly, I think that hard work is the most important factor to success. Anyone can put in work, but what really matters is if those people are willing to. That's what hard work is: a test of will, which I would argue is one of the most important things to have when searching for success. Success has never come to anybody without somebody's hard work, nor will it ever. Hard work is recognizable by anybody who has the ability to give opportunities or teach skills, and it pays off enormously to be willing to do it.

Impeachment Post 3

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.

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?

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.

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.”

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.

Mahatma Gandhi