THANKS

Notes: 1. This read is a good, historical review of what impeachment in the past was, is now, and what some people want it to be in the future. As taxpayer USCs, we all need to know more about this term and its process. And we need to have popular input into how to navigate it. 2. Near the beginning of the read, we learn that Nadler’s view on what ‘impeachment’ was during WJC’s time in the hot seat has now done a 180 degree turn. This abrupt change is because of politics – a different party is now involved. Why is this fickleness allowed for something that should be immutable? 3. Besides parties, why doesn’t impeachment involve input from USC taxpayers, regardless of party? As it has been, only those in power can discuss it and craft how it can be used. 4. An important legal phrase ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ is often used to describe issues of a legal nature. Is this phrase immutable or can it be ‘fluid’ in how it is interpreted? 5. What were the names of the 2 groups in the1790s and the 1860s that seem to mirror the behavior of both the thinking and behavior of our current political parties: the Dems. and the GOP? 6. In short, these earlier time periods seem to mirror ‘the different views’ of what impeachment currently is between our current 2 major parties. However, the number of impeachments since Nixon’s time has dramatically increased. What does this say about our society? Our legal system? Our political system? 7. Can district court and Supreme Court judges be impeached? 8. A major point in this read is: “Nothing much changes about politics. Ultimately, as the leading political scientist Harold Lasswell once noted, it is about “who gets what, when, how.” Nor does the character of politicians change much. If they have power, they use it as much as they can. If they lack it, they try to restrict it, at least until they gain it back.” 9. Another paragraph, towards the end, quite nicely sums up what our 2 major parties espouse in terms of ‘impeachment’: “On one point, though, there’s a consensus. In both the Clinton and Trump episodes, the opposition party has viewed the president, on a personal level, as a morally contemptible human being who doesn’t deserve to hold office. That in itself is probably not an impeachable offense. The big question is how far such views will drive our politicians to find something—anything—they think they can use to justify impeachment and removal in the future, and what collateral damage this will inflict on our constitutional system.” Please take the time to read this article. This is Red Pill material.