Mediaboss Marketing

After being accused of abusing his power and obstructing Congress, President Donald Trump was impeached on Wednesday by the House of Representatives. The Senate is set to hold a trial early next year to determine whether the president should be removed from office. Trump is the third U.S. president to be impeached.

"We gather today under the dome of this temple of democracy to exercise one of the most solemn powers that this body can take: The impeachment of the President of the United States," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday. "If we do not act now we would be derelict in our duty. It is tragic that the President's reckless actions make impeachment necessary. He gave us no choice."

Despite the House vote, Trump is still president, and it's unlikely that two-thirds of the Republican-controlled Senate will vote to convict and remove him from office. For that to happen, 20 Republican senators would need to defy party and vote against Trump.

Impeachment vote

The Washington Post

The road to impeachment has been controversial and polarized, to put it mildly. Democrats have generally framed the months-long impeachment inquiry as a necessary check on a clear abuse of presidential power and, subsequently, an obstruction of Congress.

Meanwhile, Trump has spearheaded the GOP's strategy, which has been to flatly deny the claim that Trump withheld aid to Ukraine in exchange for personal political favors, and to paint the inquiry as the latest in a series of bad-faith attempts (or, in Trumpian terms: "witch hunt," "scam," "hoax") by Democrats to bring down the president by any means necessary.

In short, it's a mess a sad mess. Both sides explicitly agreed on that much this week, though for different reasons, of course. To help make sense of it all, the Harvard Gazette asked some of the university's expert alumni about what impeachment means for Trump and the state of our politics and media. Here's what a few of them had to say.

David Gergen, J.D. Former White House adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton. Public Service Professor of Public Leadership, Harvard Kennedy School.

Alice Stewart. CNN political analyst, former communications director for presidential campaigns of Sen. Ted Cruz and Gov. Mike Huckabee.

"There are no winners or losers in impeachments, there are simply political consequences and collateral damage. The saga of the Democrat impeachment of President Donald Trump has been three years in the making: starting on election night in 2016, with the final chapter being written on Election Day of 2020.

The impeachment in the Democrat-led House of Representatives was predicted, an acquittal in the Republican-led Senate is expected, and the consequences for the 2020 election remain to be seen. If history is any guide, I expect the impeachment quest to ultimately be beneficial to President Trump and conservatives, and damaging to Democrats who sought to subvert the outcome of the 2016 election. The real damage will be in swing districts, congressional districts won by President Trump in 2016 that are currently held by Democrats. Their vote for impeachment is almost a certain first step to being voted out of office."

Nancy R. Gibbs. Former editor in chief, Time magazine. Lombard Director of the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School.

"The dramatic democratization of media since then has brought all kinds of benefits, but at a moment like this we are also weighing the costs. We are watching lawmakers talk past one another to distinct audiences who can't hear each other; we've seen partisan identity, fueled by partisan media, become the defining division of our time, quite apart from differences over issues or ideology.

For more and more people, team red and team blue have become their church; the mainstream media is no longer gospel. So we should differentiate between media, which is arguably more powerful than ever, and the press, which still has a crucial civic obligation to fulfill and yet faces economic, political, and cultural challenges unlike any we've ever seen before."

Joseph S. Nye Jr., Ph.D. '64. Author of "Do Morals Matter? Presidents and Foreign Policy from FDR to Trump" (2020). Harvard University Distinguished Service Professor, Emeritus, Harvard Kennedy School.

"In the role of commander in chief, presidents have a lot of leeway in foreign policy, but it is not unlimited. As Edward Corwin once wrote, the Constitution creates "an invitation to struggle" for control of foreign policy. President Trump had the right to define the American national interest in Ukraine as corruption rather than defense against Russia, but when he withheld, without explanation, funds that Congress had appropriated for the latter cause, Congress had the right to investigate, and Trump did not have the right to obstruct Congress.

President Trump also had the right to ask President [Volodymyr] Zelensky for a favor, but not one for personal gain that involved foreign involvement in our elections (which the Founders warned against). Corruption is the abuse of public power for personal gain, and that high immorality was at issue when Trump invited Zelensky to announce an investigation of a principal likely opponent in the 2020 election."

Leonard L. Glass. Contributing author, "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump" (2017). Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School.

"Mr. Trump, caught in the humiliating spotlight of impeachment, will react as he always does: Deny any responsibility for his predicament and seek to degrade and vilify his accusers.

His disparagement of the truth-tellers who testified before Congress reliably predicts his response to impeachment: claims of victimization and a thirst for revenge.

From a psychological perspective, Trump's impeachment has played out with the inevitability of a Greek tragedy. Arising from character flaws that were clearly evident at his inauguration, his impeachment inexorably has traced that classic arc. He remains blind to his offenses, insisting he wrote a "perfect" letter and has been subjected to a witch hunt. That is Mr. Trump's hallmark: externalizing all blame as though his inflated self-image would be irreparably punctured by any acknowledgment of his own imperfection."

To read the full questions and answers, head over to the Harvard Gazette.

Related Articles Around the Web

Originally posted here:
Trump's been impeached here's what Harvard scholars believe will happen next - Big Think

RICHMOND, Va. Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring issued an advisory opinion Friday saying that Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions passed by localities across Virginia ahead of possible new gun safety laws passed by the General Assembly will have no legal effect.

With new control of both the state House and Senate, the expectation is lawmakers will pass a number of gun control measures in 2020 for Democratic Governor Ralph Northam to sign.

In response to this expectation, Republican-leaning counties around Virginia havepassed resolutionsdeclaring themselvesto beSecond Amendment sanctuariesand voiced opposition to any future laws that may infringe upon Second Amendment rights.

Last week, Hanover County became the latest Virginia localityto pass a resolution supporting the right to bear arms.

In the advisory opinion, Herring says localities and local constitutional officers cannot nullify state laws and must follow potential gun violence prevention measures passed by the General Assembly.

When the General Assembly passes new gun safety laws they will be enforced, and they will be followed. These resolutions have no legal force, and theyre just part of an effort by the gun lobby to stoke fear, said Herring in a statement.

What were talking about are the kind of commonsense gun safety laws that Virginians voted for just a few weeks ago, like universal background checks to make sure that dangerous people arent buying guns. Too many Virginians have lost their lives to guns and it is well past time that we enact these gun safety measures that will save lives and make our communities safer.

House Majority Leader Todd Gilbert (R-Shenandoah) released a statement Friday afternoon calling Herrings opinion a contradiction of previous statements.

Attorney General Herrings opinion is interesting, as it directly contradicts his own statements and actions regarding the supremacy of state law over the preferences of the officials who must enforce them.

In 2014, Herring declined to defend Virginia law in state court, despite a statutory duty to do so. He told the Richmond Times Dispatch [delegatetoddgilbert.us16.list-manage.com] If I think the laws are adopted and constitutional, (then) I will defend them

His opinion today notes that it has long been the indisputable and clear function of the courts to pass upon the constitutionality of legislative acts. This not only conflicts with his previous statement about his own conduct, but also the position of a number of Democratic Commonwealths Attorneys regarding prosecution of marijuana possession.

Herrings advisory opinion comes after Del. Jay Jones (D 89th) wrote the Attorney General a letter requesting a definitive opinion heading into the 2020 General Assembly session.

37.540725-77.436048

Excerpt from:
Attorney General: Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions have no legal effect - WTVR CBS 6 News

On Dec. 11, Gun Owners of America argued before the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals that the governments recently enacted ban on bump stocks is illegal.

The organization's argument is by no means controversial. The government bureau that made them illegal, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, even admitted in a court filing that it lacks authority under the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act to issue the rule. In short, it violated the Second Amendment as a way of reaping more power for itself, and that should not be tolerated.

The GOA can and will continue fighting the illicit actions of gun regulators as they arise in court, and they will be penalized; however, this piecemeal approach can only go so far. It is high time for Second Amendment advocates in Congress and the White House to begin taking action to reform the rogue bureau.

After all, this isnt the first time the ATF has disregarded the law. Just two months ago, a judge similarly found the bureau to have been enforcing laws that dont exist against gun owners. The bureau has been pretending that receivers are bound by the same draconian D.C. regulations as entire put-together firearms and have been threatening their manufacturers with prosecution for not going through the full regulatory process.

The methods the bureau has used to generate firearm cases against the American people have always been questionable. In the 1970s and 1980s, Congress studied the issue closely, with a Senate subcommittee report ultimately concluding that it is apparent that ATF enforcement tactics made possible by current federal firearms laws are constitutionally, legally, and practically reprehensible."

Its cousin organization, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, is no better. The tax bureau used to be a part of the ATF, but in 2002, the Homeland Security Act divided the organization into two. The tax bureaus half is now responsible for tax collection, labeling regulations, and trade oversight, and it remains just as reckless as the ATF.

The tax bureau pointedly refuses to provide clarity to its obscure, complex mandates. As former Treasurer Bay Buchanan pointed out, Ever since its foundation, TTB has seemingly gone out of its way to ensure that firearms and ammo merchants remain out of compliance with the law.

Like the ATF, the tax bureau also has no problem violating the law. For example, it recently proposed Notice No. 176, a rule that it alleges will "eliminate unnecessary regulatory requirements and provide consumers broader purchasing options." Over a dozen conservative organizations have called out the illegality of this proposed rule, which they say will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. In a letter to the administration, they said it violates President Trumps Executive Order 13771, which calls for the elimination of two regulations for every new one proposed, as well as Executive Order 12866 from the Clinton years, which mandates the Office of Management and Budget review any regulatory action that will cost the economy $100 million or more.

Unelected government bureaucrats should not be allowed to continue increasing the size of the regulatory state and infringing on the peoples Second Amendment rights, not when Republicans control the Senate and the White House.

With the ATFs abuses are still being reported in the news and are fresh on the publics mind, now is the time for the Senate to begin holding hearings and getting to the bottom of the exploitation.

The Senate Judiciary Committee should call in ATF head Regina Lombardo to discuss the bureau's legal violations and what steps, if any, are being taken to correct them.

Meanwhile, Louisiana Sen. John Kennedys Senate appropriations subcommittee should call the tax bureaus leaders, Mary J. Ryan and Daniel Riordan, in to see if they accept the deregulatory and transparency orders currently on the books and what action, if any, they are taking to ensure compliance.

If the ATF or the tax bureau's leaders refuse to come before Congress or give lackluster answers to congressional questioning, the Trump administration can and should replace both. As luck would have it, Lombardo, Ryan, and Riordan are only serving in acting roles, so the White House has every right to replace them with permanent leadership officials at any time. In the case of the tax bureau, this would not even require Senate confirmation.

Gun Owners of America will continue to monitor the behavior of both bureaus and fight their illegal activity in court, but substantive change will never occur if we do not receive a helping hand from our friends in Congress and the White House.

Michael Hammond is legislative counsel for Gun Owners of America, a gun rights organization representing more than two million gun owners.

Continue reading here:
Gun regulators have admitted to violating the Second Amendment - Washington Examiner

As leftist politicians continue to threaten the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans, citizens are standing up for themselves.

Dozens of counties in California, Colorado, Illinois, Rhode Island, Texas and elsewhere have voted to become Second Amendment Sanctuaries, declaring that sheriffs in those counties will not enforce gun-control legislation that violates the Constitution.

In New Mexico, 29 of the states 33 county sheriffs signed a resolution earlier this year opposing sweeping gun-control bills proposed in the state legislature. Most recently, Virginia made headlines as more than 40 counties joined the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement that is sweeping the nation.

A February NPR article noted that professional discretion is a constant feature of policing, as law enforcement officers do not have the time nor the resources to enforce every single law every time one is broken. It is customary for police to decide which laws are a priority and whether pursuing lawbreakers to the full extent of the law is worthwhile. In the case of extreme gun laws, sheriffs have expressed several concerns: the laws are ineffective and unenforceable, they put police officers at increased risk, and they infringe on the Second Amendment rights enshrined by the Constitution.

(Senate Bill 8, a background check bill) does nothing to protect citizens and is unenforceable, the New Mexico Sheriffs Association wrote in a letter earlier this year. We also oppose House Bill 83 (a red flag gun-confiscation law), as it violates due process and puts law enforcement in a more dangerous situation and does nothing to protect citizens. This bill could disarm the very people trying to defend their lives and personal property.

There is concern that the sanctuaries undermine the will of the people (though such concern was notably not expressed when counties declared themselves sanctuaries for illegal immigrants); however, sheriffs are elected officials. Sheriff Bob Songer of Klickitat County, who has vowed not to enforce Washington states Initiative 1639 a package of gun-control laws told NPR, As an elected sheriff and a constitutional sheriff, I believe it violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and, more specifically, violates the Washington state Constitution.

In an interview with Reuters, Songer expressed the attitude prevailing among Second Amendment sanctuary sheriffs: Unfortunately for the governor and the attorney general, theyre not my boss, Songer said. My only boss is the people that elected me to office.

These sanctuary resolutions are the last resort for voters in rural areas whose lifestyles and views are not represented by urban voters and lawmakers. As Reuters reports, the sanctuary movement is exposing the rift between rural and urban America as much as the one between the Republican and Democratic parties, as small, conservative counties push back against statewide edicts passed by big-city politicians.

Zach Fort, president of the New Mexico Sport Shooting Association, told Gunpowder Magazine (of which, full disclosure, I am the editor), Theres a lot of pessimism shared by those who want to protect their gun rights right now. A lot of people think theyre being railroaded and not being listened to.

New Mexico Sheriffs Association President Tony Mace expressed a similar frustration, When this legislation is drafted every session, we are not invited to the table, he told Gunpowder Magazine. Our voices are falling on deaf ears. Theyre not giving our point of view any attention at all. If theyre not going to listen to us, then we are going to use their tactics against them. I, like the other sheriffs, was elected to protect our citizens constitutional rights. And thats exactly what we plan to do.

In sum, Second Amendment sanctuaries are sheriff-led movements. Sheriffs are elected by the people of the counties they oversee, and if the people agree with sheriffs that the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land, then Second Amendment Sanctuaries are the supreme fulfillment of the rights and freedoms the Constitution protects.

See more here:
Teresa Mull (Point): Second Amendment sanctuaries reflect the will of people who value the Constitution - NNY360

Lack of communication on guns, disregard of, first, rule of law. and then of a faith tradition

At the conclusion of reading this article, my reaction was one of sadness. I believe this sadness resulted from three thoughts. First, I can remember my elementary school days when we practiced protecting ourselves from enemy air raids with convention/nuclear weapons. We had to get under our desks and close our eyes.

Fortunately, before I moved on to high school, these drills were no longer necessary. Unfortunately, today all schools must have active shooter procedures, which must be practiced. Also, unfortunately, the occurrences of active shooter incidents in schools and in our communities continue to increase. I do not profess to have the wisdom to know what we should change, but I am convinced nothing will change until we learn to talk to each other and respect each others viewpoints.

My second sadness is that my neighbors appear to be taking the perspective that any law passed by our legislature and signed by our governor can be disregarded by us and our Frederick County government. I am proud to be an American and to have served our great country in our military.

Our long-standing commitment to free election and peaceful transition of power (as embodied in our Constitution and Amendments) is the foundation upon which our democracy rests. The rule of law is also central to our system of government. We should not be rebelling against laws that have been or may be passed by our state legislature. That is the purpose of the court system. Also, the rebellious tone sends the wrong message to our children.

Finally, my greatness sadness is there is never a faith component to thesediscussions. Our Founding Fathers were men of faith. Yet, when we discuss important issues, we conveniently omit our faith traditions. These traditions form a moral compass upon which we should live our lives and make decisions. While the Scriptures of our major faith traditions do not address guns, they do provide a framework for living a moral life.

In the Christian faith tradition, which I practice, a central theme of the Gospel is Gods love for us and the love we should have for each other. I suspect many citizens who have signed the petition have also been raised in a faith tradition. I also suspect the moral compass provided in their Scriptures was not considered when they signed. Perhaps in future discussions on the 2nd Amendment, we can establish a common basis for an informed discussion by sharing with each other the foundation of our moral compass.

At the conclusion of the 1990 movie Ghost, the last thing Sam says to Molly as he leaves this world is: Its amazing, Molly. The love inside, you take it with you. Love is the only thing we can take with us when we die. Lets include our love for each other in future discussions of the Second Amendment and all other contentious issues we must face.

Michael J. Conk is a resident of Frederick County.

Michael J. Conk is a resident

of Frederick County.

Read more:
Open Forum: Response to Second Amendment Sanctuary - The Winchester Star