20202 Impeachment Discussion: Context and Background on the Impeachment of President Donald Trump
10:22PM Feb 11, 2020
All right. Hello, everyone. Thank you so much for coming today. I'm Kevin, never tell I'm democracy commitment coordinator here at Moraine Valley. What we try to do is plan events to promote civic literacy. And we thought with current events, with the impeachment process that just ended this last week, we thought now would be a good time to talk not only about the most recent impeachment case with Donald Trump, but to provide a historical context to previous cases, provide some details of the more recent case, and then also talk about just implications of where we're at now after this impeachment process and the implications that could have on the 2020 election. But with that in mind, we really want to cater it to any of your interests, questions, reactions and thoughts that you may have. So feel free at any point, real informal, just raise your hand and we will answer any question or allow you to make any comment that you would wish
So today, in addition to myself, we have Merri Fefles, who I think she teaches everything on campus. She's a political science professor, sociology, Professor history professor. So she's going to start off by telling us a little bit about the historical context of impeachment. So thank you very much, Mary.
Thank you. Thanks.
Hi, everybody. Good to see you all here. And it as a Professor Navratil said, we're pretty informal, both of us if you want to just you know, we, my class, and I had a discussion last week that was about some of these topics that were that were coinciding with what we're talking about today. So please feel free to ask me questions anytime. So we're talking about impeachment today. And for my history to one students, we haven't gotten to the Constitution yet. We're close to getting there now. But I've pulled up a few sections and some of them are full quotes, but just some of it to give you an idea of where it is in the constitution and what it says about there's actually very little written constitution about impeachment. They kept a general on purpose. So if you notice, and the first article one, and there are two segments about the legislative branch, the House of Representatives and the Senate, so if you can read it for yourselves, but basically that the house has the sole power, and the Senate has the power to try impeachment. That's I think there's been a lot of confusion about people not knowing when they know they hear impeachment. What was he actually impeached was he not impeached? What's happening right now with President Trump? And the answer is that he was impeached in the House of Representatives, but in order to be actually removed from office, he would had to be removed by the Senate in the trial. Article two, which covers the executive branch talks about a few issues about how the President can issue pardons except in cases of impeachment, so he really can't park himself if he was removed from office, he will be able to do that. And then the second part about you will be removed from office on impeachment and other high crimes and misdemeanors. So again, there's there's a vagueness to this wording deliberately. And there's some codification of it in things like the federalist papers and things that were written around the time that the constitution was being was being written and edited to give some more clarification on it, but a lot of it is kind of based on like unprecedent. And there isn't all that much precedent because, you know, how many have there been? You know, we had the three that were impeached, and we've had the one almost impeachment. So that as you see the dates up there, you got the inner Johnson, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. Now everybody always thinks that that Richard Nixon is on this list. He's actually on the next list. He's the almost impeached, like the would have been impeached, Teddy not resigned from office. But basically these these three gentlemen were impeachment, the House of Representatives, but none of the three of them were actually removed in the trial in the Senate. So we'll get to all actually all of them. So this is Richard Nixon in the Watergate scandal. This is actually his picture of him saying goodbye, goodbye, America. I'm getting on my air my helicopter and making my way back to California after he resigned.
So let's talk first about Andrew Johnson. So this is a map here. It's not the greatest map, but it kind of gives you an idea of the 11 states that had seceded from the EU. During the Civil War, in order to understand Johnson's impeachment, you got to understand some of this context. So we have this divide, right? This this civil war that goes on far longer than anyone expected it to go on for for four years. The casualties now, you know, historians have amended the original number and they're saying it's close to a million possibly for people that died later that they just didn't account for, initially. And, you know, really literally the brother against brother or cousin against cousin friend against friend. So how do you bring a country back together again, 11 states that are basically legally they have, they have said, We are no longer in the Union we broken away, we formed our own separate country, our own separate laws, our own constitutions, each state had its own constitution, and we're gonna do things our way. How do you bring those people back into the fold when the Civil War was lost and in slavery was ended by the 13th amendment? So we get to Andrew Johnson. So Andrew Johnson, you know, really it was only for about one month had been Abraham Lincoln's vice president. Andrew Johnson was originally a Democrat, Lincoln chosen Lincoln was a Republican, he chose Johnson as his running mate to kind of send a signal to the border states into the southern states that he wanted to kind of you know, reunify the country. So when Lincoln's assassinated several days after the Civil War, Johnson assumes office. Now initially southerners were afraid of Andrew Johnson because his the rhetoric that he you know, he was kind of he resented that planter class like that, that Scarlett O'Hara kind of gone with the wind type class. He made a lot of comments about the idea of punishment. But once he actually got into office, his his antipathy and his lack of, let's say, feeling for the freed slaves, basically, Trump's his his desire to be to be a harsh Southern planter class. So his plan is to go lenient, like like President Lincoln would have been, and bring them back in as soon as they possibly could, with that by Johnson's plan, like by the end of like 1865, so the war ends in April right? This is December of 1865. All these Confederates We're just in uniform like just a few months before we're like going back into the into the Congress like nothing ever happened like hey, we're back again Great to see you. And they started basically doing business as usual. So all the different Southern States began passing laws that became the black codes. So that's sort of my old like Orange is the New Black but that didn't really work very well black holes have a new slavery they did these were these walls were essentially slavery light, you know, is everything but name. So in other words, if you were if you were freed slave, you had to have a job if you didn't have a job, you could basically be jailed. You could not own weapons, you could not drink of course, sexual relations between blacks and whites was totally not permitted illegal. So those laws begin basically restricting Freeman's rights the second David get them. So Congressman, is not that happy with with Johnson's actions, and every war you guys pretty much if you look throughout history, in the United States, at least, there's always this kind of this fight between the legislative branch and the executive branch, right. The Legislative Branch declares war. But the executive branch is, you know, he's the commander in chief. So essentially kind of runs the operation. So at when the wars are usually over, there's always that fight that that kind of that that toggle between them who's going to resume power. So Congress says, We don't really like the way Johnson's doing stuff. And so they start to do a series of things themselves. So one of the things they pass is called the Tenure of Office Act, the Tenure of Office that essentially says that President Johnson or any president could not fire people in his cabinet without their consent, that technically according to Constitution, the President can. But this was they were so basically angered at the fact that he was like, he was basically undermining every single reconstruction bill that was out there. So in other words, to give you an idea of bills that were to protect civil rights for freed slaves, anything that was going to extend or help people to reconstruct the south, he was vetoing those bills, Congress overrode those veals but it was there was a lot of animosity between them. Now this this, I'm making it seem like this is just four things. There's actually a lot more there's actually two or three Attempts to actually to go for impeachment. The first the first attempt failed it never got beyond the house. But after Andrew Johnson felt emboldened by the first time that he did not get impeached were did not make it past the House Judiciary Committee. He went ahead and fired Edwin Stanton, who was the Secretary of War. Now, Edwin Stanton was called a radical Republican, because he was a republican who actually believe that freed slaves deserved some rights, they essentially should have the right to be free, the right to vote, etc, etc. So if they were radical, own land, etc. So he fires Edwin Stanton. Well, when he does that, that's a clear violation. And Congress has eyes of the tenure of a violation of a 10 year office act, and house begins to start impeachment inquiries. And as I said, the republicans were not totally you know, together on this, there were some who felt that this was not a good idea. Others who felt it was and it took quite a while to kind of get this momentum going.
This is actually the Oh, sorry, the D got set in the second line, but it's This is the house impeachment. Part of the House Judiciary Committee. So Johnson was eventually impeached in the house 126 to 47. And then it from there it went to the Senate. Now in the Senate, this is what's so fascinating about history, I love this kind of stuff. People were issued, there was a huge, huge interest in this people, you had to get tickets in order to be able to go, the tickets were color coordinated. So depending on the day that you wanted to go, like if you were able to get tickets, it's almost like, you know, a show, everyone wanted to go see the impeachment. So people were going and this this went on for several months, and it's the trial in the Senate. And basically, at the end of the day, Andrew Johnson is acquitted is acquitted in the Senate by one vote, one vote shy of a two thirds majority. Now, what's so interesting is that enter Johnson did not have a vice president. So if he gotten impeached, and he was actually early, I'm sorry, if he got removed from office. The guy that would have been the next one in line was the President pro tempore a guy by the name of Benjamin Wade, Benjamin Wade was a another radical republican himself. So it's always really interesting to think of like what if, if he'd be President what would the United States look like? Maybe laws would have been passed it would have actually protected free people's rights. Maybe you know, you wouldn't have had had the violence in the south that began with you know, groups like the Ku Klux Klan, etc. and going into the Jim Crow South and lynchings it's a Who knows, maybe things could have turned out very, very differently. I'm not saying I've been a piece of cake, but it could have been it could have been different. But no matter what that one vote that one person who didn't vote to convict ended up quitting Andrew Johnson and he did not he was not removed from office. So he is That's him. He's kind of a angry looking fellow. Basically, so unpopular of it. His own party didn't even nominate him the next time around. I was like, see ya, you were acquitted. But this was this was a maybe 1868 in the next election was in November of 1868. So he didn't even make it past the next election. So let's Johnson. comments, thoughts? question on this one. Okay. So now we're going to skip ahead quite a bit. So this is this is Richard Nick. Richard Nixon, such an interesting kind of tortured guy, really, I mean, Richard Nixon, I, you know, he's one of the smartest presidents we've ever had one of the brightest presidents. He was brilliant in foreign policy. He had a lot going for him. Kind of a self made man. From quicker backgrounds. We were actually talked about the Quakers last time in class. But he had some definite some insecurities. He was very, very insecure about himself. He was very insecure about his position. He resented people that were kind of the upper class people like the Kennedys. You know, he because he went against john F. Kennedy in 1960 and lost. And so he had kind of a major kind of issue with people like that kind of not unlike Johnson Actually, it's interesting. I just thought of that parallel right now. But what happened with Nixon, what did he do? Okay, I'm gonna let me show you first I'm gonna do an escape here for a second. I'm going to pull this up before I'm going to open up your map, I want you to see
So in 1972, Nixon was now going for reelection. And I just want to show you the election results. These are, this is actually a really cool website, if those of you are interested for like political ads and things like that, but the red is Nixon. And the blue is George McGovern, his opponent.
You see that?
McGovern, like that one state, basically everything else went to Nixon. So when you put it in that you look at that you think, well, then he do what he did. And that kind of goes back to some of those insecurities. So let's get into what he actually did.
Or what you think he did.
And there's so much more to the story that I would love to like get into greater detail about and if you have questions about them, we can ask them. So in June 1972, while this election is going on the campaign for the for November, it's discovered that there's a break in at the democratic national headquarters at the Watergate complex. The Watergate was a new relatively new complex that had like apartments, a hotel etc. and Democrats had their headquarters base there, and it was discovered there was a break in The their headquarters. And then because story kind of like died, it wasn't really a big story. As you saw on that map, Nixon got overwhelmingly reelected. So there wasn't the issue of it, you know, he didn't win. But the story remain there. And they went on trial in early 1973. And the guy who the men were the burglars, in this case, the Watergate burglars were convicted. And it began to emerge kind of quietly that there were perhaps some links between them and the White House. So money was deposited in some of their bank accounts. And it was just this kind of vague story. But most people Americans weren't paying attention to this. They were like, whatever they were going about their daily lives, the Vietnam War was coming to an end. There are so many other things to be thinking about and worrying about. This was not on people's minds, but the story did not die. And you know, I didn't include this on here. But we had two reporters from the Washington Post Woodward and Bernstein, who got basically who had a non an anonymous source, who was giving them information, and the story just didn't die. They kept coming up with stories furthers that we're getting closer and closer and closer to incrementing the way house. And it came to the point where basically it became too loud to ignore. So you had both the, you know, the Senate in the house looking into these, these these investigations into Watergate special prosecutor is appointed by the Attorney General to investigate what happened. And in the process, Nixon kind of fires a few people who basically he thinks are kind of weighing him down, who are part of it. And it emerges as the senate continues to investigate, and they bring in witnesses to talk to them, that there are tapes. Now, every president since Kennedy was taping themselves in the White House, they would tape themselves because they thought that afterwards, they'd write their memoirs, Kennedy thought, well, when I'm done being president, I'll listen to all these tapes, and I will write my my autobiography that way. didn't work out for him very well. But Johnson continued it and then sort of Nixon. Well, when it merged that, you know, there were tapes, obviously, everyone wanted to get their hands on these tapes. The Nixon of course, is going to claim that most presidents would claim that he's got executive privilege that he does not have to turn them over which is privileged to have them and will not turn them over. Now at some point the pressure kind of gets so great that he releases like, basically like not audited edited versions of these tapes, but the taste themselves already emerged it you know, he says some like racist language and very bigoted language doesn't sound that great on tape. But it's still not some major evidence linking him to the Watergate break in. Well, by this point now the house has got its own in Impeachment Inquiry going. And basically, it's taking the cases taken to the Supreme Court to determine whether or not he's got to give up the tapes. And in July of 74, the Supreme Court says you cannot claim executive privilege, you must give up the unedited tapes. So he gives up the tapes and on the tapes. There's kind of that smoking gun that says that Nixon, not that Nixon necessarily. We don't know if you ordered the breaking, but we know that he ordered the cover up to the breaking. So he obstructed justice in that sense. We don't know that he I mean, there was all sorts of other stuff at one point. He was asking the CIA to tell them The FBI to call FBI investigation into Watergate I mean, like the CIA even for them, they're like not it's a little bit too much even for us because you're not supposed to have you know, the, you know, your your spies based on your central intelligence that deals with World matters to be dealing with your domestic situations. So there was some a lot of things that had been happening over the years. But once the tapes emerged that Nixon had ordered the break in to, to the the cover up of the break, and excuse me, basically, he lost all support. And so in 74, Nixon basically says that the Senate Republicans come to see him in the White House and they said, Listen, we're not we can't stop it. The house has already voted to move forward with an impeachment inquiry. And the senate the senator said, Listen, you're gonna get if you don't, if you don't resign, you're going to be removed from office in the Senate, we cannot stop it. So basically, the next day, he essentially resigned and became the very first president in US history to do so. I thought I had another another picture actually Batman but we I video I could also also pop of us if we've got time. Later on, we'll see. So that's the Nixon story. And and when he resigned, Gerald Ford, his vice president became president, but you have to think about it. So that was that was 1974, Vietnam was just ending, the Watergate thing happens. So people are really losing Americans are really losing their trust in government, their faith in their government leaders, and are becoming really cynical. And that is going to continue. so that by the time we get to the 1990s, to a different context altogether, it's a totally different ballgame. So the media before wouldn't usually like cover, you know, presidents have always been cheating on their wives. And there's like, this is like nothing new, right? There was always like some kind of a story that reporters would get quietly like Kennedy had like pretty much a revolving door, a women coming in and out of the White House. And I'm not even saying that facetiously. There were a lot of women coming out of the White House, but they didn't. They didn't cover that kind of stuff. But we get to the 80s a different form of journalism kind of takes take shape takes root and it's the journalism that's that's looking into ratings. Right, because before, you know, the ABC, NBC, CBS, their job was essentially to like, cover the news. And it was known that, you know, the news doesn't make any money. They're not there to make money. Well, in the 80s, things began to change. And the corporate owners of these of these media outlets wanted to make money. And so how do you make money? You got to get readings? How do you get readings? sex, sex always sells, right? So there was a guy named Gary Hart, who ran for president and was basically undone and 84 was like in your head, I think it was 84 by scandal emerged that he had a mistress and he was forced to suspend his campaign. And then Bill Clinton became president in 1992. And from the beginning, and even before he got elected president there was talk about you know, the he had sexual harassment cases against him. And he seemed to kind of be able to weather those and get through the election. I think if that happened now, I don't think you ever would have made it past the point that he made it but it was a different still kind of a different time.
All over here. He wouldn't make it past
Well, that's different different guy, different guy, the rules are different. That's what I would say. I mean, that's why would I know you're saying and it does seem like you want it like a normal person would say a reasonable person would say, Well, really? I mean, doesn't that change the ballgame for everybody? I still think it wouldn't, because the pressure would be on it. So unless he was bold enough to be like Trump and say, I'm not leaving, I don't care, you know, and bring out Trump's mistresses to the next debate the way that Trump brought cleanse mistresses to the debate against Hillary Clinton. That's a different story. Right. And most, most people don't act like that. So that that's why I'm saying, you know, and I don't know, I'd be curious to think what you think as well, Kevin, but I still think that that would not he wouldn't get away with it. It just seems like they The rules are different for for the current president. So Monica Lewinsky and I felt bad. You know, I really didn't want to include her name that much because so much of this got focused on her became known as like the Lewinsky scandal. One Why was it known as the clinton scandal, because he's the one who was you know, the president who was cheating on his wife and having sex with an intern like, but the This was on her. And so she was an intern at the White House and was having a relationship with the president for about a year I believe. Then she was given a job. She transferred from being an intern unpaid to being to a job at the Pentagon, and was working there. And she met this woman named linda tripp. They, she became her friend. And it told Linda trip when it happened about her affair with with President Clinton. And because of and there's so much going on here to the night even getting into in feel free, Kevin, if you want to jump in to find that there's something I'm missing. But basically, there was an ongoing sexual harassment case against President Clinton, amongst many other investigations that were going on by a woman by the name of Paul Jones, who incidentally, Trump brought Paul Jones to the debate, I believe, or had around like a had a press conference before the debate. And so Miss Lewinsky was was given a subpoena to come and testify as to what happened was her relationship with with President Clinton. So I'm fast forwarding through different things. It was emerged that That he that Clinton had told her not to say too much under under oath, not to basically the lie. But what happened. Again, whether that's precisely true or not, we don't we don't know. But Clinton himself and another investigation testified it's when he was asked that he did not have sexual relations with her. And it's very clear that I did not have sex relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. When indeed it came out like a couple years ago, indeed, I did have improper relations with her. But yeah, so but Linda trip, unbeknownst to miss Lewinsky had been taping everything. So like really good friend, right. She's like taping the whole entire story. And yeah, she was a bit sneaky. But again, you know, it was interesting, though, with the focus of this is all on what Linda trip did, all on what Monica Lewinsky did, and and yet President Clinton, you know that this is my own sort of interpretation. Again, please jump in if you think I'm wrong, but he kind of seemed to kind of skate through things, which I think had a lot to do with the economy to
Yeah, I would just add that. So he was testifying under About the paula jones case, right? So the special prosecutor kids
on here, I'm sorry,
they knew about winsky. So they've got him and talking to him about paula jones under oath. And while underoath he's basically the nine Lewinsky so in some kind of on that,
and that was connected to the whitewater investigation to some It was like a whole big he was being investigated pretty much the entire eight years that he was, again, things are starting to shift and resemble kind of what they are today, unfortunately. But yeah, so yes, thank you for clarifying that. So I'm skipping along details. Yes, sir. Go ahead.
And the Paul Jones matter No.
Money in the whitewater.
position to lose money. And then
there's a barbara walters interview with Monica
Lewinsky relations with
college instructors. History teacher. Mm
hmm. I don't know what relevance of that really has with with President Clinton, not least the least that part.
This was consensual
and the original investigations, which were long and very expensive were started
as president Mm hmm. Right.
Right. So just a couple of quick observations to that, that Yeah, there was significant investigations that ended up that meriting or coming with convictions. Yeah. And then secondly, that the amount of investigations into the personal life that was going on at that time, as far as like, you know, consensual, Yes, she's young. She's an intern. There's a significant power differential. But again, what's interesting, she when she's with linda tripp, this is all kind of in confidence when you're talking about a relationship. And linda tripp is a Republican, like, very strong republican anti Clinton is like, Oh, really, and it's recording this. Yeah. So, you know, she again, she's really taken advantage of in multiple, multiple ways.
And she kind of what happens ends up happening to her is almost like she's like the first person that like online bullied more than anybody else had ever been like, I mean, because that the internet was actually emerged on the Drudge Report online was just kind of a new first, right the way that the scandal emerged about I believe about the tapes and and whatnot and and that was, you know, from then on, she heard she was totally vilified. And what I was saying before is that it just I find it interesting, though that, you know, again, the the name of it was the Monica Lewinsky affair. One really is that the proper name for it. That's the go. That's a true interpretation, I suppose. But it got to the point where because Clinton had had violated his oath in the eyes of the house, because he had testified under oath that he did not have sexual relations with her and that emerged that he did that he perjured himself, therefore, and he was impeached in the house again. Now when it went to the Senate, he was acquitted. I don't have the margin on here, but I know it was a lot, a lot more Less than one it was with Johnson there was no like it was like one vote shy. It was like way, way less than it was for, for Johnson, because most Americans when they were polled, which is interesting, and he might be touching on this later, most americans believe that in terms of his private life, this was not his It was not their business, that most Americans felt like they were happy with what was going on in the country. The economy was great gas prices were like about $1 $50 $1 75 whatever with a very cheap dollar 25 and 1.9 cents and Indiana 89 cents, I think I found that one time, I could float my Nissan Sentra for 10 bucks, full thing gas. So people were happy with that. Right? And there's this you know, connection even to today, if people don't really are not really vested in it, are they going to care as much? And that's kind of what we saw there. So I think most people were like that. Yeah, I suppose I guess that lecherous, the lecherous guy you wouldn't want your daughter to hang out with but now you we like him as president so you know, we're the country was not in favor of his his removal from office and ends up ultimately backfiring for Republicans in the midterm elections in 1988. Because actually the house He that the Democrats, which is not the usual trend gained five seats, which is usually it's usually the opposite. Usually in the midterm between the two presidential elections, whoever is the president and power tends to lose their party tends to lose some seats. And his case they actually gained five seats. So, so yeah, so he was acquitted. And that was, and then the affair so this was be did not really end there. But but then his presidency then shortly thereafter, and then, meaning the story. Because this was, I mean, she's been on the news, it's been brought up multiple times. And when Hillary Clinton was running this, this story also kind of re emerged again. So questions about this about this part, or comments or anything? Most of you were born like after this happened. It was like crazy when I think about it. So you were one see where she alive, but you don't really remember it too much. Yeah. I was in in college and I was in in Washington, DC when this was going on. And I had a haircut at the time that kind of resembled Monica Lewinsky. So I used to get stopped on the street non stop, but people telling me that I look like Monica Lewinsky. You know, you look like it like Yes, I know. Thanks. I think we look that much alike. But okay, nice the hair, the hair does it so. So with that I will turn over to my colleague, I believe this is the next. Yeah, turn over to you. Thank you. Thank you.
Turn us off right now.
So, raise your hand if you think you have a pretty good idea of what the impeachment case with Donald Trump is about. If you if you think you know, raise your hand. Okay. Alright. So, just for the audio, recording, this just about four people raise their hand and, you know, everybody's in a different spot. As far as our understanding. I didn't plan on covering a lot of the details. We could sit we could get into those details based on your interest. I thought I'd Try to do a pretty quick overview, as well as show kind of some of the transcript of the phone call that really led to the impeachment case. But if you're not familiar, there was a phone call on July 25, between Donald Trump and the new president of Ukraine solinsky. And I just wanted to show that transcript before we go back to this process, so I highlighted a segment here. And solinsky is basically saying, Hey, we, you know, we we need your support. If you don't know. They're in a war with Russia, and there's about 13,000 people have been killed in this war. Russia is literally in Ukraine is like we need help on defense. We're ready to buy more javelins. These are missiles from the United States. Congress had already appropriated about $390 million for defense assistance to rain, but it hadn't been set. Yet, so Trump responds, well, I would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot. It's that I'd like you to do us a favor aspect that's really, really consequential. But there's a couple other parts are on your own if you want, but he's basically talking about, I would like to find out about what happened with that whole situation. Right. I guess you have one of your wealthy people, the server, they say Ukraine has it. So this is kind of getting at what is the source of the 2016 hacking of the Democratic servers by Russia, Trump suspects it's really Ukraine that that originates this Russia investigation. And he wants, he basically is starting to put the screws to that go ahead.
Again, we can get into all kinds weeds of the details. But yes, this is a rough transcript there that the White House released the summary. There's some portions that we did. So what I thought we could do first is just provide a brief overview and then kind of get down whatever details and questions you guys have. But basically, he's talking about how he wants Attorney General. In Rudy Giuliani are going to be in touch with you with you in a little bit of context to like literally the day before the Russia investigation. The molar Robert Mueller had issued the report the day before. So that's a little bit of the transcript, the rough transcript of the phone call on July 25. So whistleblower, there's there's a person, a CIA analyst who's, you know, decoding, you know, this transcript and it's raising red flags like wait a minute, your president was asking a nuclear light The President to basically help help with a domestic issue an issue with would be, you know, the upcoming presidential election because he's ultimately saying I want you to. I think I forgot that slide. The next part of the rough transcript is saying, talking about, you know, we want you to be in touch with Rudy Giuliani. And the other thing, there's a lot of talk about the Biden's son, that Biden stop the prosecution, this would be Joe but by Biden, and the concern to Trump is this is again the summertime that he thinks his biggest competition for the 2020 election is Joe Biden. So it would be beneficial to him if there's an announcement of an investigation into the Biden family and his son, who happened to be serving in a role in In a Ukrainian energy company, so that's a little bit of background about the phone call. But the CIA analyst is coming across this and it's raising red flags. So contacts, the Inspector General, and this information ends up getting into the house intelligence. They have testimonies, you know, initially closed doors, and then ultimately they have open testimonies, public hearings, they approved two articles of impeachment in mid December. And then more recently, the Senate took up the trial. In January, Democrats wanted witnesses. We could talk about comparisons to the clinton trial. In that case, the Senate voted 100 to zero on the rules for the trial and the Senate. So there was strong consensus between Democrats and Republicans. strong consensus. There's unanimous consent on the rules. This time around, you know, there was key dot there was key witnesses, some of which you may know, john bolton who is the National Security Council Advisor to President Trump. There's Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, there's his chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney in key people who would be firsthand witnesses to this phone call into the broader context behind it because it wasn't just a phone call. There was other pressure. Ukraine was wanting a visit with the White House. They wanted to be recognized by the Trump administration, and essentially that recognized recognition and the military aid was all predicated on them first saying that they were going to open up an investigation. See a hand up Yeah.
Say that again?
Yes, the broad part of the charges against them that we'll get to here in a moment, or based on the phone call, as well as other contexts related to the relationship between the United States you and you, Craig? Yeah. If he never answered the phone? Well, I think that's hard to say. I think. Let's, let me try to cover just a little bit more ground first. And we'll revisit that in just a moment. Because it is I think, more than just the one phone call. You know, if you were to really get into all the details, it was there was more pressure, both before and after this phone call as well.
And can I have a little bit of context and please jump in? I think I think you kind of touched on it. The reason I don't know if people realize what the situation is between the US in the Ukraine and Russia, right. So the Ukraine depends on us, for missiles essentially protect them from Russia, Russia is their largest threat their biggest enemy. And for a while, I mean, the from the American perspective, Russia was also our enemy as well. So that's all kind of part of this as well. The idea that this is this has more to do just simply with a just a simple phone call about, you know, doing us a favor, there's a lot more context to the implications of the US Russia relationship, and the relationship with Ukraine.
There's a lot of places that you could go to, to kind of provide arguments for and against this impeachment case. But since a couple hands were already raised about what this is about and kind of arguments for and against, I thought I'd just point you to one this is an overview it's called a guide to the case for Against removing Trump from the New York Times. And this is, you know, if you went through the formal charges, it's it's much lengthier than this. This is supposed to be an abbreviated list of the charges. So abuse of power that Trump used is the power of his office to solicit Ukraine to announce investigations into his political rivals. So you're talking about the phone call. There was pressure by Giuliani, Ambassador sunline, Sunland and others. There was basically a side foreign policy going on through the informal channels, his personal lawyer, Jew, Giuliani, the ambassador to the European Union sunlen to basically let Ukraine know like, hey, this aid isn't coming. And we're not having an official visit a White House visit and tell you announced the investigations. So if you're saying you didn't answer the phone call, whatever that day It's broader than that, as far as the charges are being made, so what what you can see here is it's trying to do kind of a point counterpoint, providing what the what the charges are. You know, Republicans would say, well, there's no explicit quid pro quo of this for that. And in in really, I think the defense's, ultimately the aid was released. There wasn't an investigation announced by Ukraine, so therefore, there wasn't a quid pro quo. So this site does a pretty good job of concisely making those those arguments kind of foreign against impeachment. So
The arguments against impeachment.
I'm saying that highlighted it for a reason to go and draw attention to
the arguments. Again, we just need your attention
and there is such a thing called conspiracy. And you know that when you
don't actually succeed in committing a crime that
okay, well first I didn't create I was trying to come up with one quick overview of arguments for and against. I didn't make these highlights kind of just finish. I didn't make these highlights. These are highlighted here for the summer. The arguments against and then there's a clarification here of basically explaining, okay, no quid pro quo, but 110 110. One witness testified that someone had told him, the President said that there would be a stalemate of Mr. solinsky did not make a public announcement. So those are simply highlighted, because they're showing that there's an explanation and more context of what's highlighted. I didn't highlight those. I'm trying to do a quick overview of of what this case is about. I'm not trying to, you know, just show the arguments against impeachment, but we can certainly do that once I cover the basics first. Good. Okay.
Okay, so that, you know, we can get into more of the details about really the nuts and bolts of arguments for and against Think what I was trying to before we got a little bit into the weeds there. I was trying to make a case about one of the key sticking points for Democrats is in the Senate has the sole power to try. According to the constitution that Professor fleece mentioned earlier. I think Democrats are question What kind of trial that really was, because there wasn't witnesses. And, you know, there wasn't documents that were subpoenaed, that was brought up in the trial. But regardless, after a couple weeks, there was the vote that took place. This last one was that Wednesday, this Wednesday. And you know, how the vote turned it out? I think I had that up there earlier, where it was basically 48 to 48 yeses, that he did abuse power. So this is essentially a party line vote with the exception of Mitt Romney on the abuse of power, and then all Republicans voting no, other than Mitt Romney, and then I'm the instruction I'll republican No, all Democrats, yes. And as you probably know, you would need two thirds. So you would need 67 yea votes. So they were really short of both of those. So, a couple points that I wanted to make before we just open it up. Some have said, you know, some of the arguments against impeachment, we're saying, you know, we this is a first term president, unlike some of the previous cases, with Nixon and and Clinton. You know, we have an upcoming election in nine months. So some Republicans said, Hey, we should let the voters decide. A couple of Republicans have said this isn't, you know, appropriate behavior, but we can let the voters decide. I was just kind of interested in what your guys's thoughts were on that argument. Yeah. Nine months is a long time. Other thoughts? There's really not a right or wrong answer. The reason I ask you is because Congress is basically saying they want you to this side, instead of them deciding, you know, the fate of the President, they would like you to decide. So does that seem more democratic? It's okay. So it's not really a democratic solution because we don't have a simple majority deciding the presidency, as you probably know, from 2016 or 2000, where the candidate with the most votes doesn't necessarily win. It's the Electoral College. A couple critiques of this, I do think at face value, it seems pretty appealing. Congress is polarized, as you saw with the vote, let's turn it over the American people, Professor for free, as mentioned how the economy is doing well and other things. One of the concerns with this, I guess there's a couple one of which this case is about potentially a president using the power of the office to pressure Warren government to interfere in that upcoming election, to get them to kind of tip the scales to make an announcement about the Biden family with the hopes of kind of, you know, bringing negative attention to potentially a key competitor. So one of the criticisms about that is simply that it's already you know, the democrat who's anxious Adam Schiff chef brought up how he's trying to cheat the next election. So you can't necessarily let the voters decide. A second argument against that is, you know, in the constitution says it's the Senate's job to try impeachment. And so they should have a trial. It's fair trial and make the chart make the case themselves to not Punnett to the citizens and make us decide. I mean, only a few of us raised our hands that we knew much about the details. And if we really want really wanted to get into the nuts and bolts of this. Myself and Professor fleece, we wouldn't know all the details either sort of put this completely on us makes it a little bit difficult. Some people would say it's those members of Senate that's their constitutional obligation to make this decision.
To me with regards to the election query me like, like, okay.
It's proven that it's
Have a lot of angry people that are angry
seasons not so much.
I agree. I agree. One of the things that I was one of the takeaways for me with this impeachment process is just how divided we are. I think that there's a certain segment of us that just don't know where it's so confusing. There's so many details. And then there's another camp of us that are our team Democrat. And we feel all along that this this President is is wrong for various reasons. And this finally proves it. And we need to impeach him. And then there's those of us that are team Republican, and we feel like this has been a you know, out to get you, by Democrats from the get go from his first election. They've always been, you know, investigating him and his taxes and Russia, in stormy Daniels, and the list goes on and on. And we're going to we're going to vote team republican when it gets to the election. So I think the point that I'm saying is, I don't know that you know, some of us are just unaware others of us are already decided strongly one way or the other. And that's basically this. You know, in case you didn't see the headline, do you do Americans support removing Trump from office? This goes back from October 2000.
Right. 2019 is when this started, so the first month of October of 2019, until just last week, or just yesterday, and we're completely split on this, which I also will point to as a takeaway. That, you know, I think we really have different media ecosystems in where we are, you know, we don't have a shared reality of this particular issue, and many others we just feel completely different. We have different facts, or we highlight different facts. Sometimes we don't have facts so it's just you know, team democrat and team, Republican our and just different planets like
In the context of the Federalist Papers, Washington's papers
foreign influence, yeah.
there were no term.
Yeah, that didn't come till FDR.
Yeah, limiting the presence. So the idea of wait for the next election or founders knew there was always another election. Yeah, he did something to jump in prior.
There could be
waiting was not enough?
Yeah, I think there's a lot of ways that it's important to go back to the framers the mindset, the arguments that they are the, what's stated in the Constitution, high crimes and misdemeanors. What does that really mean? arguably, if you look at the Federalist Papers, it means private against the state. It doesn't have to be an actual crime. It's a public official who's doing something that's hurting the state. And what is the state? The state is the government. So, you know, using public office to essentially hurt the government itself
was invented by America.
Oh, yeah, this is English common. You know, this goes back hundreds of years, and we could, you know, show cases of people who had impeachment charges brought against them for high crimes and misdemeanors. Yeah.
Well, it was also left deliberately vague as I think what I was alluding to is it this is more of a political, even if you look at the way it's been interpreted over the years, that this is not necessarily an issue of crime and sense of actual crime against the law. This is more of a of a of a political issue as well.
country's interest and
yeah, of course the spiritual process is political process. And that's why that's why they can make up. Yeah.
Yeah, yeah, one of the things
I really don't have all the facts, I'm not sure. Like and that's the reason to do
Yeah, if I could connect a couple comments for a moment. And also with what is on the screen, if we can put all three of these and juggle all three at the same time. I think to the Republican senators, they're saying, Look at this, look at how divided we are. This is just taking all Americans now Democrats and Republicans putting us together. And essentially, depending upon the time point we're pretty split. Now this, you know, if you take the margin of error plus or minus 3%, we don't know exactly. You know, it could be you know, a slight majority don't support slight majority support. Do you want to be one of those senators? I think one of the keep them I think there's a few things going on politically. Donald Trump is more popular in the States than any of these Republican senators are. So if they were to make a vote to remove him from office, your you know, a the public's divided on this be You're, you know, as a senator making a decision to remove the president who's really popular in your in your home state. And then to go back to kind of what the framers mindset when the Constitution was written. They didn't have this. They didn't envision that there was going to be these two major political parties that were so polarized two and only political, you know, two political parties, and that they were so polarized was not something that they would envision. So it gets a little tricky to kind of think of the remedies that they would have had. But certainly You're right. We I didn't make any claim that he violated a criminal statute. This you can be impeached doesn't have to be criminal. I'm saying it doesn't have to be criminal. I'm saying that. You know, to your point, it doesn't have to be criminal. That's what high crimes and misdemeanors Excuse me. Correct one The arguments that Republicans would make is that what was done by President Trump is not a criminal violation, and thus not impeachable. I'm not making that claim. I'm just saying that you know, I was on the screen was that there was there was that was one of the counterpoints Yes.
One of the major things that
yeah, right. Sure.
Right. I think that's absolutely the case. I think that that, you know, one of the points I was, might, you know, the implications for me that I wanted to highlight was just that one there is that, you know, we, we, you know, if I'm a strong republican and I go to my sites on the internet, or I go to my Fox News, I'm just getting a different narrative and a different story, different spin on things. And if I, if I'm a liberal, I'm going to my MSNBC and some of my liberal websites, or my Facebook feed or whatever it may be, I'm just getting different bits of information, where the friends that I hang out with the family that I have, we just have a completely different view on these things. So you're absolutely right. I think it makes it really hard. I think we're seeing this here. We didn't see any really talk about you know, the Clinton or Nixon discussions and here we are now it's like we're struggling to release I feel like I'm struggling to get anything out of my mouth before. I feel like I have to clarify it provide context, or backtrack a little bit because this this is like so wait a minute, what about this? What about that? And that's partly, you know, right here that I think we're really in a spot. Question too.
they do have the power to change
the constitution to clarify a little bit more. Why I think it was left deliberately vague on purpose, because with the idea that we don't really know kind of what's going to come our way anyway. And and, you know, but one of the things we did allude to in things at the Federalist Papers was that the idea of foreign interference was kind of one of the big ones. I mean, that was kind of specifically mentioned, but yeah, that's that's not a bad point. 100% amendment to make it clear, they could but I think maybe perhaps the worries that you'll get pigeonholed then by that If something else comes along that may be, you know, worse later, then are you then therefore, limited only to that? Does that make sense? You have to think we have two questions.
you're never going to agree on. Yeah. Especially when you
or just look at each other instead of listening and kind of rationalizing
If it makes you feel any better, I'm sorry, before we go over that. I mean, if you go back to Johnson's time, it was just as divided. I mean, I think that part of it is that you know, we tend to think that what happens to us is like the worst, you know, but it's it was just as bad that I mean, we went to went to war with one another over over This particular issue is that there was talking and in reconstruction about where the country once again go to war because they couldn't kind of hammer out some of these issues. So, yeah, I think that's, you know.
Sure. No, that's a fair statement though. It's fair though. Yeah.
I'm gonna see what I want to see. Yeah, I've just had her hand up and and sort of Mike to okay.
Yeah. legal rights amendment. Yeah.
People have to be educated in a court case. Yeah,
yeah, that's how it happens. Yeah. Right. outside.
Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
But you know, when we were growing up, you know, and some of you in this room, you had like just a few media outlets you had ABC, CBS, NBC, you know, and then eventually what WJW gn came along and but you had kind of a shared there sort of a shared collective understanding of what the news was was happening. And now because as Professor never mentioned, it was almost like 31 flavors, get whatever you want from every news outlet you want. If we can't even agree on the basic facts, how are we gonna be able to kind of move forward, so
I just I, you know, those are excellent points. I you know, if I could just some passing before I finished with what I was planning on talking about. I think it's possible. I in my first instinct is is I think at face value. Yeah, it's really difficult. We can't agree and I don't want to hear what you're having to say. But I do there is research if you want to look into deliberative dialogue, that if we take enough time, have some shared readings that provide context and facts. And if we structure discussion in a respectful way, that's moderated where each person feels like they have time to hear each other out. I can show you videos of the most ardent Trump supporters and liberal democrats hugging it out at the end of the year, and changing their views on political opinions. It's America in one room, you look do a video search on that and you can see what I'm talking about. So there is hope that just takes a lot of effort. These participants literally took a week off and spent time in small group sessions. So it's possible But it but it is really hard. So a couple of takeaways for me other than the first one we mentioned about the lack of shared reality. I'm concerned, my own perspective, as I'm concerned just about the broken institutional process that we may have now in more to that just political norms that are really kind of eroded to the Constitution. You're right. I think it'd be great if we spelled out exactly what impeachment is, it was intentionally vague, but then also realize I think on a spirit of just accepting certain boundaries and norms. And you know, I it's maybe a little bit, you know, part sociology professor, so help me out here, but, like in pickup basketball, we don't always have referees, right? You don't have referees and pickup basketball, by definition. And sometimes if you're not calling your fouls appropriately, things can get out of hand pretty pretty easily. So political norms, I think are also just as important. We can't rely on our constitution or statutes to spell everything out part of this is that just have a certain way of acting. I think there's been some clear violations of that. I just want to kind of highlight all of them on all sides. But I think one of the things that bothered me with this process I just wanted to play a video clip to highlight that. So Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell make a decision about the way forward. And everything I do during this. I'm coordinating with the White House Council, there will be no difference between the President's position and our position as to how to handle this to the extent that we can well I
don't care parents car insurance company.
That's not fair to Senator McConnell. But you know, he basically is saying He, the Senate tries it, but he's in total coordination with the White House. And I think if you were if you were on trial, and the judge and jury was in total coordination with the prosecutor, is that appropriate analogy? You wouldn't I don't know that you would feel that that was very fair. And just a couple of other quotes that I wanted to throw in here, one from Lindsey Graham. He basically said I've This is a quote, I've written the whole process off. I think this is a bunch of BS. And then lastly, Marco Rubio, just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it it is in the best interest of the country to remove a president from office. I will not remove I will not vote to remove the president because doing so would inflict an extraordinary and potentially irreparable damage to our already divided nation. So just that the Senate supposed to be this impartial Yeah. impartial the statesmen, the people really acting in the best interests of the nation. And I think that if you go back to the framers, I think that would really be divorced from their reality of just how partisan this and the Democrats and Republicans in the Senate currently are. Yeah.
What is this? I'm sorry.
I think what what Rubio is probably referring to is I don't think the President or his supporters would just say, oh, okay, that's great. We're, you know, we're impeached, and we're going to go in the helicopter like Nixon, and smile or goodbye and wave off into the sunset and let our successor take over I think they would feel that they legitimately want an election. They're poised to win another one. And they would, you know, I think he's called it a coup. You know, I'm gonna have a quick video of What he said last week in his post announcement, but I think the concern is that there would be chaos, and that there would be, you know, I don't want to say civil war, but I think that there would be potential a lot of unrest domestically might.
Yeah. That's the succession. Yeah. I'm just saying I don't think I can envision a scenario where he would just quietly walk away and say, Oh, yeah, it's not like Pelosi or the democrats are now president. Yeah, sure.
I want to say again, to the American people,
how profoundly sorry I am. So what I was talking about the norm
Clinton is just acquitted. He goes out onto the White House lawn, and things like a minute or two speech. They're going to do a couple cut ups. He doesn't say much, but this is what he says. And then they're going to contrast that with Trump speech, part of Trump's speech that was over an hour from last Wednesday.
For what I said and did.
I want to say again to the American people, how profoundly sorry I am. For what I said and did to trigger these events that worked out we went through hell, unfairly did nothing wrong, did nothing wrong. I believe any person who asked for forgiveness has to be prepared to give it they are vicious and mean vicious. These people are vicious. Adam Schiff is a vicious horrible person. Nancy Pelosi is a horrible person, this can be
This must be
a time of reconciliation and renewal for America. It was all President Clinton's
political norms, you know, outing the whistleblower, you know, you know, talking about Mitt Romney, who had been the one senator to vote against vote for impeachment and saying that he's using his religion as a crutch. I could go on, but my concern more is about that reconciliation and healing process. It wasn't all Kumbaya in the late 90s after Clinton's impeachment, of course, but I think that there was an at least an attempt to like heal. And I think right now, Democrats and Republicans, I think we're pretty far from that. And with that, I know that that's and I was just I think my last part was does this You know, what's the implication on the democrats professor for police mentioned, Republicans really kind of ended up, you know, being hurt by the impeachment process in the late 90s. Could that same scenario happen for Democrats? I think we've already seen Trump's approval rating go up to its highest level, since he's been president, still at 49%. But it's much higher than it was at the beginning of this processes around 40%. His campaign fundraising has increased significantly. So there's some similar momentum that I think he feels that his party feels pretty strong position up for the 2020 election. So we have about six minutes, seven minutes left, so completely turn it over to you. Any question comments or questions that you guys have?
Food like Johnny was called by like
You know, I kind of wonder you tell me what you think I kind of suspect that he truly didn't think he did anything wrong. I think in the short run, I really don't think that he felt that there's anything wrong with what he did. Unless you also want to wait against the internet. This is the day after the Muller investigation was like an ended and then you are more testified and then suddenly does this the next day. But there's a part of me that thinks that he truly thought there was nothing wrong with that's why he he pushed to release that edited transcripts to that he's the one who pushed for that release. So I think that he thought that that was gonna be the end of it. I'll release this transcript and it will be over and, you know, I'm great.
I think there's two two quick things that come to mind. In in. I would agree completely with what she's she just said. But I also think if you're if you're looking at the counter arguments or arguments that that the Trump team has made, they've really evolved. It hasn't. They haven't. They haven't stuck to the same story. If you go back through and it takes the Lot of metal time, you know, to read through all of the arguments, but they've changed. The second biggest contrast is, keep in mind, imagine if Trump was subpoenaed and had to testify under oath, in a similar situation, like clinton dead, like, okay, we're going to get you under oath. And we're going to talk to you about x. And then we're going to ask some other questions about Ukraine here. And if in any way your story and keep in mind what they got Clinton, you know, he's trying to protect his family, and that's his lie. But that can happen when you're under oath. If you lie about anything, then that's perjury. So they there hasn't been the equivalent scenario of getting him under oath of being and of course, Democrats have tried to subpoena and multiple, not just this investigation, but the rush investigation. So those have all been blocked. And so there's a concern by the democrats that this is obstruction of, of Congress. So there hasn't been that perfect scenario of people testifying and lying under oath has he misrepresented the scenario, perhaps. But I do think he's described it as a perfect phone call. Not all Republicans agree with that. But I do think to her point that that's, you know, he might just say, yeah, there's not there's nothing to see here.
Do you actually break the law law? No. I mean, that when he does the phone calls, I was far as we know it when it comes to the this specific issue. He didn't break the laws, because there's not a
there's not a criminal law, but Congress has the power to appropriate the funds for defense for Ukraine. And that was a violation that the not the Say that again, Gao had ruled badly. He did violate that act. So you know. Yeah. So if separation of powers Congress has the power of the purse, they appropriated that money. But for 49 days, I can't remember 50 days, the the aid was held up during this process of like, Hey, we would like you to announce the investigation.
And the day after the
whistle. Trump and his team are saying, well, we wanted to make sure that there wasn't corruption. And you know, we were, it wasn't because we wanted you to cut. So there's kind of a difference of opinion on that. But the point is, is Congress had appropriated that money and it hadn't been set. And Ukraine thought it was already being set. And they had no idea that this was not being said. Yeah, they read about it in the political. They saw a headline and learn that this is being held up because of those domestic purposes. And you know, my students have always asked like, Hey, don't we always have quid pro quos with foreign policy? foreign policy? Yes. Like hey, Ukraine, we're not going to give you money unless you fix corruption. that's appropriate. A Ukraine we're not gonna give you money unless you investigate my Upcoming opponent or, you know, a US citizen, that's different. That's how it violates not only the political norms, some people would argue campaign finance laws.
You know, go ahead.
Yeah, I would, I would argue it wasn't an a, you know, you could make a claim that it wasn't, I want you to give, I want you to announce this investigation of Biden by this day before I give you the money. That's not what he did. Yeah. I would like you to do us a favor, you know, and, of course, in the back. Yes. But through the back channels, Giuliani, sunlen and others. They're making it clear what needs to happen for them to get the money
when the broader context emerges. And all the other people that were testifying that were Ukraine experts that it becomes clear that that was what precisely was
intended the whistle. Lower comes out when that becomes a headline Trump explicitly tell someone no quid pro quo.
So at that tax wasn't in his hacks, attacks the silent resections attacks with somebody else, and it said, was a nice little there's no quicker focus. The text reveals there was no quid pro quo, but that was the day after the whistleblower. Josh mecha.
Personally, I think firsthand witnesses in the trial in the senate trial would have been helpful. If If, if Democrats, it's hard to say this if I'm trying to be objective. I don't think I personally would have had a problem with them exchanging people. I think it's a little weird and not necessarily to bring people who didn't have first hand testimony to offer their now I think what's important to say it's a it's a question book. The Biden's son Sorry, Hunter Biden, Hunter Biden working for burries ma in Ukraine for you know, $50 million hundred million dollars for not bringing a lot of expertise. Is that appropriate? No. Is it illegal? No. And it happens, essentially, during every presidential administration where family members benefit in some way because of their name. So I think that they could testify all day long about that. And there's not going to be a real there there because there has been investigations by Ukraine in our Department of Justice. So I don't think it would have been a distraction and added to a circus kind of atmosphere. But I think if if Republicans really wanted to play Okay, we get you get if you want to bring Bolton on to testify, then we get to 1400 Biden, then, you know, just as fairness I really
was more about Joe Biden, not really hundred Biden, but yeah,
and by the way, Joe Biden got fourth place in Iowa. Anyways, This all seems like a potential really close to get impeached over trying to dig up dirt on somebody who's not even maybe a front runner
personal I mean look at look at Nixon to I mean, he won one state the other guy got I mean, he's still though a bit that that paranoia that hubris that
ya know, no. You're right in the end. And by the way this the three states that matter are Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin and those states Joe looked really strong, especially in the summer if you look at the polling averages, so yeah, it's revisionist history but also pretty risky move if he really, you know, if we're making the claim that what you did was really wrong.
Actually, I time
but we are a couple more.
His son, his son, yes.
From a business that's located in Ukraine, yes. They're asking
you to open up investigate what happened there and and now?
Yeah, right. Yeah, I think that's pretty much a quick overview. Yeah. It's a good audience.
We got paid like 50,000 a month. I think it was. Yeah.
Yeah. It wasn't 50 to $100,000 a month
for not me. So I mean, was it was that's what I mean. And that kind of stuff happens all the time. That's totally inappropriate. people
sit on boards. You sit on a board.
Yeah. But But the issue is whether or not whether or not Joe Biden though was like interfering, interfering in creating domestic politics and going after a prosecutor and this was more just simply just hunter Biden working for Barry's mom.
Yeah, I think it's fair to say there's a whole series of conspiracy theories about the finances that are True, right? They're making all these accusations of throwing dirt again. Yes, yes, he did something that everyone else does. So like john kerry, former center for security state is on the board of like, US bank or Bank of America. He knows nothing about banking. Yeah, yeah, that's how it works. But they're throwing all the stuff at him. And there's nothing that he's doing different than anyone else. So
I was buying some of those conspiracy theories and wanting them to go after I was
like, look at the shiny penny over here,
paying attention to the curtain back to that media. You're right, that really is ecosystem, it just that you throw enough crap into the fan. And it's really hard to have any back. We don't have billion the old guys telling us that really anymore. It's just it's all too much information, most of which some of which isn't true. And it gets us really in a lot of different places. So it makes us confused.
One thing that I think is really sad.
This, there's really good journalism going on, and it was journalists that pulled a lot of this detail out. And there's good reporting. And there's a lot of reason that we should believe and trust in news outlets. Yeah, I think part of the challenge is navigating, who's doing the good stuff and who isn't right. And so when I hear comments, some of the comments I've heard is like, I don't know who to trust. Yeah, it's all crap. It's not all. It's not all crap. And so that's probably part of the things you should be exploring in college, looking at some of those sources, and helping them figure out how you'll be in the future.
Great. All right. Let's good audience. Yeah. Thanks,
thank you very much.