Browse Month

January 2020

Notes of the Senate impeachment trial -#2

Speeches over; questions next
By Dr. Larry Fedewa (January 29, 2020)
Some impressions as the trial completes phase one and prepares for phase two:
  1. The first take-away is the comparison between the two presentations. The House speakers were on a mission and they showed it. They were obviously playing to the television audience more than the senators. Their rhetoric was graphic, at times crude (particularly Mr. Naylor). Their tone was passionate, sometimes angry. Their body language was tense. Keep Reading

Notes of the Senate impeachment trial -#1

The rules for impeachment must be changed to save the Republic
By Dr. Larry Fedewa (January 22, 2020)
1. Definitions: “crime”, “evidence”
It appears that the most basic differences between the two sides in the impeachment trial revolve around the definitions of two terms: “crime” and “evidence”.
a.     The President’s team insists that the Constitution language “bribery, treason and other high crimes and misdemeanors” requires that impeachment can be carried forward only if there is an act which breaks a recognizable law, in other words, a “crime” as normally defined. This can be considered a technical definition of “crime”.

This must not stand! (continued)

The rules for impeachment must be changed to save the Republic
By Dr. Larry Fedewa (January 14, 2020)
In my last column of this topic, I urged the President to sue the House of Representatives for malfeasance on the basis of two unconstitutional actions with regard to the recent articles of impeachment passed by the House:
1) denial of due process as protected by the 5th and 14th Amendments in a procedure which, if upheld by the US Senate, would inflict irreparable harm on the plaintiff by depriving him of his livelihood, reputation and public office, and


We have a golden opportunity to accelerate our departure from the Middle East
By Dr. Larry Fedewa (January 8, 2010)
Federalist columnist Willis L. Krumholz, speaking for Middle America in an insightful article, asks, “The Fundamental Question is: Why is America Still in the Middle East?” (The Federalist Daily Briefing, January 6, 2020). His answer is; America’s newfound oil independence eliminates America’s interest in the Middle East. So, it is time to leave the Middle East.
American involvement in the Middle East formally began in 1928 with the Red Line Agreement, essentially splitting access to the oil properties of the northern Middle East (principally Iraq) between France, the United Kingdom and the United States. In 1933, the USA entered into an agreement with Saudi Arabia to form ARAMCO, a joint venture to exploit that country’s newly discovered oil fields. America’s relationship with Iran was solidified by the CIA-aided 1953 coup d’état which established the Shah of Iran as the country’s ruler. The Shah was overthrown by the current leadership of Iran in 1978, leading to the sacking of the American embassy and holding of American diplomats hostage until 1980. This was the first overtly anti-American incident in what became a long series of assaults against American interests in the Middle East, culminating in the 2001 attacks.