Social Problems Assignment – Issue Framing Analysis

Social Problems Assignment – Issue Framing Analysis

On 24 September 2019, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opened an investigation into the impeachment of Donald Trump, the incumbent President of the United States, after a whistleblower alleged that the POTUS had misused the power of the presidency. Trump was charged with withholding the military help to push the newly elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter and to investigate the conspiracy theory of Ukraine’s and not Russia’s intervention in the 2016 presidential election. In a call to the Ukrainian President on 25 July, more than a week after Trump had stopped the previously approved assistance, he made these demands, which he said were designed to help Trump reelection bidding. Zelensky intended to announce investigations of the Bidens on the 13 September incident of CNN Fareed Zakaria GPS, claiming that vital military aid would be withdrawn.

As stated by XXX, the Democrats began to talk about why the constitutional framers were mainly concerned with ‘abuse of power.’ They then showed methodically how Trump committed an abuse of power by using official acts to gain personal political support from Ukraine. Also, hundreds of emails, video clips, and text messages were presented, along with hours of narration. Once more, however, there was also evidence that the presentation did not land on the Republican side completely. On 11 September, after Trump was informed of the lawsuit by the whistleblower and the case elements started to leak, the assistance was released, and the scheduled interview was canceled. On 24 September, the day the investigation began, Trump declassified the call’s non-literal summary. The complaint from the whistleblower was made public and subsequently submitted to the Congress the following day. The White House denied several of the claims, including that an invitation record between Trump and Zelensky was kept for the classified information in a highly restricted network at the White House.

Three witnesses, including Laura Cooper (US top-level Pentagon official in the Ukrainian policy), Ukrainian ambassador Bill Taylor, and Fiona Hill, a former White House official, were deposed in October by three Congressional committees (Oversight, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs). Titles testified to Trump’s confidence in Zelensky’s request to make public inquiries into both Bidens and Burisma and election interference in 2016, a Ukrainian natural gas company sat on Hunter Biden’s Committee. The White House formally responded in a letter of 8 October from White House counsel Pat Cipollone to Pelosi, the House Speaker, that, due to concerns such as the fact that the House of Representatives has not yet voted entirely and that witness interviews take place privately, it would not co-operate with the investigation. On 17 October, Chief of Staff of the White House, Mick Mulvaney, addressed a reporter’s quid pro quo allegation, stating: “We do that with foreign affairs at all times, get over.” He reversed his comments, saying that “no quid pro quo” existed, and that Trump had withdrawn military aid from Ukraine in the event that Ukraine was compromised.

On 31 October, 232–196 was voted by the House of Representatives to establish public hearing procedures, which started on 13 November. As the hearings began, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff stated that Trump was listed as mistrust. Twelve government witnesses delivered private and public testimony in November 2019, revealing that in return for official acts, Trump demanded political favors. On 10 December the House Committee of Judiciaries presented its articles on the impeachment: one for power abuse and one for congressional obstruction. The Committee of the Judiciary, three days later, voted on both articles according to party lines (23-17). The House of Justice Committee published a report on 16 December, setting out the criminal charges of fraud and wire fraud for the abuse of power. On 18 December, the House voted in favor of both charges, mainly on the party lines. The vote in respect of Article 1 was 230–197, the abuse of power, with one vote present. All Republicans, with two Democrats, voted against the article.

Consistent with XXX, the vote on Article Two, Congressional obstruction, was 229-198. The Republicans, along with three Democrats, voted against this post. Recent Republican, Michigan-based five-day Congressman Amash Justin also voted to be impeached; in July, he became a frequent independent critic of Trump. The clear winner of the now-resolved Senate battle was President Donald Trump. In his impeachment trial, he was convicted by the Senate, and he even managed to persuade the Senate to avoid witnesses, ignore the strong public opinion and popular demands. To Trump, whose presidency’s ratings at this stage were lower than George W. Bush’s, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush’s at the same time, it was an unprecedented accomplishment. Even if the economy is strong and the nation does not suffer significant deaths or threats from abroad even if not exactly at peace.

In 1998 and 1999, Clinton, faced with a structurally similar situation, secured an apparent political triumph over his adversaries, not only in acquitting but also from a viral charge. However, his underlying behavior was at best sordid. In contrast, Trump truly skates with the submarine ratings and a reelection path, which is not popular but based on the Electoral College. But even though Trump’s position was ambiguous, a few clear winners and losers were created by the impeachment and acquittal process.

To grasp the 2020 drama of the trial, it must be seen from the viewpoint of the major decision-makers – Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the weak House democrats on whose behalf she acted. According to her, the dismissal had been an issue since last fall and not a chance. Special Adviser Robert Mueller’s report contained clear evidence of a judicial obstruction, but he questioned whether he had found that. This left an increasing number of seat-protected Democrats agitating for the impeachment, although polling showed that the public supported the impeachment. Most critics of the impeachment claim that, if Democrats were to unify behind the cause, they would support public sentiment. Clearly, Pelosi hasn’t purchased that. Then the history of Ukraine broke up, a key group of front lines came out for the impeachment, the polls increased to a small extent, and leadership became more popular. Nonetheless, lawmakers – and Pelosi – were concerned about the message from the Republicans that Democrats had been so consumed with the investigation that nothing was done about them.

The strategy of the House – this was focused on these political concerns, to impeach Trump, to do so on minimal grounds, and to carry out a rapid investigation rather than to proceed thoroughly with facts. And her strategy worked if you share Pelosi’s primary assumptions. She left a situation where the Senate republicans had to take some unpopular votes against hearing witnesses and then went on to do something controversial, where she and her Members did something popular. Most citizens have never shared Pelosi’s view of the issues, and the prosecution may seem like a failure in many of them. But she achieved her goals and confirmed that she was a master tactician whether or not her approach to broader strategic questions is in agreement.