Sunday, December 22, 2019

The Takeaway: The Impeachment Report: The House Intelligence Committee's Report on Its Investigation

With the approved Articles of Impeachment from the House on hold by the Speaker of the House, the question lies on how long and why?  Pelosi indicated Thursday that she would delay sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate, seeking more clarity on the rules for President Trump’s trial and potentially pushing the proceedings well into the new year.

The-impeachment-report-the-house-intelligence



The official report from the House Intelligence Committee on Donald Trump’s secret pressure campaign against Ukraine, featuring an exclusive introduction by Pulitzer Prize–winning author and biographer Jon Meacham
 
For only the fourth time in American history, the House of Representatives has conducted an impeachment inquiry into a sitting United States president. This landmark document details the findings of the House Intelligence Committee’s historic investigation of whether President Donald J. Trump committed impeachable offenses when he sought to have Ukraine announce investigations of former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter.


This saga zero's in on the report's emphasis for the President asking for a political favor using his office.

 
On the morning of July 25, 2019, President Donald Trump settled in to the White House Executive Residence to join a telephone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. It had been more than three months since President Zelensky, a political neophyte, had been swept into office in a landslide victory on a platform of rooting out corruption and ending the war between his country and Russia. The day of his election, April 21, President Zelensky spoke briefly with President Trump, who had called to congratulate him and invite him to a visit at the White House. As of July 25, no White House meeting had materialized.


As is typical for telephone calls with other heads of state, staff members from the National Security Council (NSC) convened in the White House Situation Room to listen to the call and take notes, which would later be compiled into a memorandum that would constitute the U.S. government’s official record of the call. NSC staff had prepared a standard package of talking points for the President based on official U.S. policy. The talking points included recommendations to encourage President Zelensky to continue to promote anti-corruption reforms in Ukraine, a pillar of American foreign policy in the country as far back as its independence in the 1990s when Ukraine first rid itself of Kremlin control. 

The 300-page report lays out Democrats’ case that President Trump abused the power of his office to solicit political help from a foreign power and obstructed the inquiry into his actions. In summary, it lays the ground on 
Trump ‘ordered and implemented’ a campaign to conceal his conduct from the public and Congress.
The report accuses Mr. Trump of what it calls an “unprecedented campaign of obstruction of this impeachment inquiry,” saying he denied documents to Congress and tried to block State Department diplomats and White House officials from testifying.
Abuse of power: This is described throughout the report
Obstruction of Congress: This allegation is an entire section of the report
The democrats zero'd down on this two articles of impeachment in the final. 
The Democrats have faced some criticism for that, both inside and outside Congress. If they waited a few more months, could they connect the political quid pro quos to Trump without a shred of doubt? Instead, they are rushing to impeach Trump before it’s officially a presidential election year.  Meanwhile, the Speaker has delay the transmission of the Articles due to the fear quoting the Senate Majority Leader that he and the republican controlled Senate will be partial in depending the President.
In the end of this political process, will be public majorly be convinced of the President's actions warranting this impeachment saga or this is not a priority for the regular citizen.

Saturday, August 17, 2019

A President's General Moral Responsibility to the people

What is the President’s Greatest Responsibility?



The presidential oath of office that is prescribed by the U.S. Constitution (Art. II, sect. 1) makes it clear that the President’s supreme responsibility is to “…preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  

Moral Leadership has a different point of view in leading their followers. They take action by choosing the moral and the most ethical decisions to solve an issue. Moral Leaders take beliefs and moral as a personal matter. Moral Leaders follow their moral rather than the organization's value.

Do leaders as a President  have moral obligations? ... Morals do not have to be religious or stemming from a certain set of beliefs, they are just what makes a good or bad decision and if the decision is right or wrong. Leaders should know that they have to make decisions that benefit the greater community.

"The president is the very first symbol of American government that children comprehend," she says. "The president, especially in the modern era, comes into our homes — first by radio, then television, now through all sorts of electronic gadgetry — and so we think of him as part of our life. And that's why it's so important for him to model the proper behavior for us."

I find that again and again, no matter what the subject is, we return to the question of leadership. Moral leadership is in fact the central task of our presidents when it’s done correctly,” said Jon Meacham, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian who has written books about Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. He spoke at a luncheon in October kicking off a year-long series on Moral and Ethical Leadership in the American Presidency. 

The best presidents – including figures such as Abraham Lincoln and George Washington – are celebrated not only as good leaders, but as good men. They embody not simply political skill, but personal virtue.
Why, though, should anyone expect a president to demonstrate that sort of virtue? If someone is good at the difficult job of political leadership, must they demonstrate exceptional moral character as well?
In Nov. 7 2018 during a press briefing at the White House, President Trump defended his rhetoric and his status as a “moral leader” after a reporter asked him about the rise in anti-Semitic attacks during his presidency.
“I think I am a great moral leader and I love our country,” Trump said Wednesday at a White House news conference.
Today's modern era on American Presidency depicts a lot on the presence and influence a President makes to the country through our televisions, radio, online, social media and all channels we see the daily current events. The basics on this moral perspective starts right from the words uttered by a leader and the message he/she communicates to the people.
Unfortunately, each word and statement uttered to the executive actions no mater how significant and valuable they are is tied to a moral responsibility as leader of the free world and as protector of the US Constitution.
Moral responsibility without even looking at the political implications they have dictates the outcome it sends to the people. The daily actions affecting moral responsibility of a president eventually is a writing material for Presidential historians,

Wednesday, July 17, 2019

Racism and Implicit Racism

The events on the past few days starting with a twitter tweet to a House Resolution once again pen the debate on this topic.

Racism as define touches on prejudice, discrimination and or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior. The exact words go back to your country without even stating the restof the statements merely serves the definition.

Implicit racism on the other hand includes unconscious biases, expectations, or tendencies that exist within a person regardless of ill-will or any self aware prejudices. This is how someone thinks they don’t refer themselves as not being racist when they are making judgements on people from different racial or ethnic groups.

This is also why some observations and statements made in the past days arrived to be an automatic negative reaction to those referred to froma different race or ethnicity.

As this conversation goes through and once again spark a new on going debate 


Sunday, March 17, 2019

Overriding a Veto


veto (Latin for "I forbid") is the power (used by an officer of the state, for example) to unilaterally stop an official action, especially the enactment of legislation. A veto can be absolute, as for instance in the United Nations Security Council, whose permanent members (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and the United States of America) can block any resolution, or it can be limited, as in the legislative process of the United States, where a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate will override a Presidential veto of legislation.[1] A veto may give power only to stop changes (thus allowing its holder to protect the status quo), like the US legislative veto, or to also adopt them (an "amendatory veto"), like the legislative veto of the Indian President, which allows him to propose amendments to bills returned to the Parliament for reconsideration.


The power of the President to refuse to approve a bill or joint resolution and thus prevent its enactment into law is the veto. The president has ten days (excluding Sundays) to sign a bill passed by Congress. A regular veto occurs when the President returns the legislation to the house in which it originated, usually with a message explaining the rationale for the veto. This veto can be overridden only by a two-thirds vote in both the Senate and the House. If this occurs, the bill becomes law over the President's objections. A pocket veto occurs when Congress adjourns during the ten-day period. The president cannot return the bill to Congress. The president's decision not to sign the legislation is a pocket veto and Congress does not have the opportunity to override.


Hence, this is why the Speaker of the House has expressed her plans moving forward on March 26. 

Her bill is to re-introduced a bill or joint resolution that has been vetoed by the President can become law if two-thirds of the Members voting in the House and the Senate each agree to pass it over the President’s objection. The chambers act sequentially on vetoed measures: The House acts first on House-originated measures (H.R. and H.J. Res.), and the Senate acts first on Senate-originated measures (S. and S.J. Res.). If the first-acting chamber fails to override the veto, the other chamber cannot consider it. The House typically considers the question of overriding a presidential veto under the hour rule, with time customarily controlled and allocated by the chair and ranking Member of the committee with jurisdiction over the bill. The Senate usually considers the question of overriding a veto under the terms of a unanimous consent agreement.

Under the new democratic controlled congress, it will be an overwhelming yes to pass the re-introduction. The question lies now whether it goes pass beyond the United States Senate controlled by the Republicans. The recent developments of Republican senators who finally broke the ranks on challenging this President although compelling will still need a two-thirds vote.

Two-thirds of the Senators voting, a quorum being present, must agree to override the veto and repass the bill. The vote must be a roll call vote and not a voice vote, due to the constitutional requirement that the vote be by the “yeas and nays.” A motion to reconsider the vote on the question of overriding a veto is in order only if the Senate fails to override the veto. In other words, if two-thirds of the Senators agree to override the veto, a motion to reconsider that vote is not in order. If the Senate fails to override a veto of a Senate-originated bill (S. or S.J. Res.), then the question of override never reaches the House. The Senate simply informs the House that the override vote on a House or Senate bill was unsuccessful. If the override vote on a Senate-originated measure (S. or S.J. Res.) is successful in the Senate, the bill and veto message are sent to the House for action. If the override vote on a House-originated measure (H.R. or H.J. Res.) is successful, then the bill becomes law because two-thirds of both chambers have agreed to override the veto.

Only after this is successful with this veto be overridden. Hence, this is why is already expected this re-introduction will eventually not get the two-thirds senators to get a "yes". The speaker of the house known from her wits on negotiation for the record is perceive to answer why her next steps plans of re-introduction on March 26. We know, the Senate expected not to get the two-thirds to "yes" but the most important achievement that she and the democrats are aiming to get more Republicans in Congress to break their allegiance to this President.

Regardless, the ultimate goal of the partisan endeavor is the separation of powers between executive and legislative that could be a precedent for future Presidents to simply use a National Emergency without going through congress as a tool to abuse his/her executive authority to use discretionary funds that should been enacted through congress. This is also why the democrats is also considering going to the courts.

We will see what happens next on this actions.


Sunday, December 23, 2018

No One is Above The Law Yet is there a case of Impeachment amidst a New Congress

Impeaching the President

A few days before a new year 2019 before the Democrats takes over control of the House of Representatives again opens the case on the subject of Impeachment.

Reading through Alan Hirsch book validates the process of impeachment.  A process that has been improved yet raise on every President since 1994's Bill Clinton's case of impeachment. From George Bush to even Barack Obama's issue of being not born in the US and using an Executive Order for DACA, it seems to be now a trend that "Impeachment" has been always a discussion in Congress. Whether it does happen, discuss or even a bill created towards impeaching the current Commander In Chief is the real question. What's the main difference as the author noted in previous Presidents is that most of the impeachable cases came about on the previous Presidents second term in office. The main relevance on this case today is on April 2017, 3 months right on the start of the 45th President Donald J. Trump first term presidency solidified his impeachment case followed by the creation of the Special Counsel to investigate on the Russian intervention of the 2016 Presidential elections.

As of this writing, it is the 3rd government shutdown on this administration when no deal came about with Congress and the White House. The main issue tackled is a "Border Wall" between Mexico and the United States, the main requirement of President Trump. The democrats as known will never agree to this border wall. The President now trying to get more and more open to negotiations, says it may now be a "Steel Barrier Fence" instead of a "Concrete Wall". Whether this new nomenclature will be agreeable still raises the question. If you really want to end the shut down Mr. President, a simple grammar correction might be "Border Security". Your business acumen knows better by using corrected grammar then identifying the right necessary steps and tools you might need taking into consideration what are the allowable actions in such terms.

Hirsch did a good representation of the historical narratives, engravings, illustrations and documentations on the impeachment episodes dating from Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon to the last one of Bill Clinton. Clinton's case made the trend to start an impeachment discussion on every President that followed from Bush, Obama and now Trump. 

America as the greatest country is the epitome of democratic principles. Authoritarian rulers are commonly seen in history from third developing countries for example as their President, Prime Minister, General are above the law coupled with corruption and human rights violations. Hence is why Saddam Hussein is now history. Such authoritarians act and lead on their own choice and command, controls their Congress and titled as military ruler. This is why some of them were deposed by their own military by way of a Coup D Etta. 

As I see it, firing the AG, FBI Directors neither is obstruction on the case of President Trump is a long shot towards removal from office. Him holding the highest office of enforcing the law given to him sort of immunizes him being removed or sued right now. The campaign spending issues may or may not be legal cases but that will come after his presidency.

Congress is mainly focus on protecting the Special Counsel Mueller's from being removed or dictated. This is because this is the prime case that may lead to a case of impeachment if this President or his enforcers derails Mueller's investigation unless Mueller acted improperly. When a President prevents a Prosecutor to do his or her job because he feels threaten as signs shows in the past then this obstruction of justice for an impeachment case of the 45th President.

Richard Nixon as verified by the author in book made the strategy to change the Special Prosecutor and was not later impeached. It is agreeable that if Trump does replace Mueller it might or not reduced an impeachment case. However, today is very much a different case as this President has since already concluded on him being threaten by this Prosecutor's actions. Likewise, Nixon eventually resigned from office as a last resort. What happens to this President amidst a new Congress is there to see in 2019. It might turn things around for the better good by being non-partisan between Congress and the White House as seen in previous Presidents or whether a case of impeachment is doom, we will have to see.

May we enjoy the blessings of this Holiday Season and Hoping for the best of the New Year.

Alex Esguerra


Tuesday, October 30, 2018

The Promise, The Goal, The Enactment to Close The Borders, Stop Immigration and Rule Forever

The power the President has over “immigration” is limited to what is established by the Constitution.  The President cannot establish new rules of Naturalization.  He cannot issue waivers to overturn rules of Naturalization that are established in compliance with the Constitution.

From the issue of the ending DACA when this administration started by the Attorney General, building walls on the border of Mexico, the impending show of military might on a caravan fleeing persecution from a hostile country and now the ending of the constitutional birthright in the United States. It's kinda hard really to simply stay silent when all this adds to the divisions and the new way how people see America as a country.

The power over foreign immigration is delegated through Article 1 section 8 clause 4; “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.”   Because it is delegated under Article 1, we know this power is specifically vested in Congress.  Separation of powers dictates that since the power to establish this Rule is rests in Congress, it cannot be exercised by any other branch.  We can see that the executive branch cannot ESTABLISH the Rule of Naturalization, but what authority does the President have over the naturalization process?,   quoted from Presidential Power Over Immigration article.
Hence, President Obama during his 8 years also wanted Immigration reform tried several times through Congress but was not successful. Finally, he came up with an Executive Order which created the DACA which the Trump administration tried to stop. Thanks to the courts, DACA recipients  are still protected. It is an expected bombshell that right after hours when this so called new Executive Order to end the birthright of people born in the United States will immediately start the legal battle of lawsuits to challenge and stop this said order. Whether the US Congress will react on this Executive Order depends the outcome of the mid term US elections in two weeks.




Saturday, September 8, 2018

The "Fear " is now concluded "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump"



The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, release 12 months ago confirms

In THE DANGEROUS CASE OF DONALD TRUMP, twenty-seven psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental health experts argue that, in Mr. Trump’s case, their moral and civic “duty to warn” America supersedes professional neutrality.




This book upon release made sure this was not leading to a diagnosis. With all the dumbfounded and madness in Helsinki, regardless the fear concludes by itself. It's practically a brainwash analysis why this President's actions are.
Of course, regardless on the political resentments that will arise as I've stated in a sitting President can never be impeached bu virtue of the the reality of not creating a constitutional crisis. The persona and gestures while this impeccable speech was being given confirms the body language of someone needing mental intervention

.On Tuesday, September 11 as we commemorate 9/11, opens the realities of bestseller author Bob Woodward is the most compelling book on Trump's presidency. Fear-trump-in-the-white-house


Woodward's 448-page book, "Fear: Trump in the White House," provides an unprecedented inside-the-room look through the eyes of the President's inner circle. From the Oval Office to the Situation Room to the White House residence, Woodward uses confidential background interviews to illustrate how some of the President's top advisers view him as a danger to national security and have sought to circumvent the commander in chief. 


Part of the excerpts including the recent anonymous article by the New York Times touches on taking a confidential paper out of the desk of this President so he never gets to see or read it as it will affect national security. Remembering the days of the deposed dictators in history, this is was of the strategy when these dictators were either ill, incapacitated but has to be the mocked ruler head of state. Thus, it got to the point that the inner circle of these depose leaders were actually running the government. One case in remembrance was when Ferdinand Marcos in the 80's was severely ill with Lupus and then First Lady Imelda Marcos was giving marching orders together with then the newly elected Prime Minister.


Any circumvention to the effect like taking the said confidential paper from the actual view of the President is illegitimate. When such acts are started it thus continue and to what extent we do not know until the personalities are exposed. The fact of the matter is either we can prove there is an incapacity in performing the duties of the presidency due to mental health. Or is just a mere case of incapability to real act as the leader of the free world which is the long shot to prove.


Watching the 44th President Obama finally hit the campaign the last 2 days indeed opens the realities. The United States is the epitome of democracy. Although I've mentioned past dictators in history, as mentioned I do not foresee in my lifetime to see any US President to be indeed impeach unless they resign as President Nixon did. Obama shows the long way on the process if ever if it does happen or to the nearest it can be in history. It starts by "Voting". In any democratic country it starts from the local and mid term elections that continues to the the Senate and Presidential elections.


This new book is indeed expected to be much compelling than the series of books written about the dysfunctional state of this presidency. The author also has credibility all the way from the Nixon years and most of all as we all know, a lot written in this book we already know and it reinforces those events and knowledge.


In one revelatory anecdote, Woodward describes a scene in the White House residence. Trump's lawyer, convinced the President would perjure himself, put Trump through a test — a practice interview for the one he might have with Mueller. Trump failed, according to Dowd, but the President still insisted he should testify. This part again is a known fact as we see the daily appearances of TV, the use of words, the stories changing from what was said before and after. I remember back in the day being a young businessman who was so use to be direct and stick to the point, assessing if a buyer will buy or not, or another business person agreed with me or not. Then when I started to be involve on projects together with government leading the be a delegate and representative for young entrepreneurs, I started to hone my words, I learned the outcomes of business actions cannot be necessarily applicable to leadership involving society.


The best part then was I was young and it was easy for me to understand change. A 70 year old businessman well enriched himself through the years can never have the decorum I had as it's too late as the brain cells are too developed to even comprehend what's going on. 


60 days from now, after the New Congress has been elected, we can continue the discussions. This is the way democracy works in America as this is best legitimate way of approaching this as the people have spoken.







Saturday, August 18, 2018

Hacking, Spam and Phishing Emails/Text, Social Ads to Robocalls - The New Threat

As much as I'm avid techno follower with the first Trillion dollar company while looking forward to spending my retirement savings invested with technology, it bothers me on the downside effects to my daily living on the "New Threats".

The last few nights made me think about getting woken up with these app notifications. You turn them off, moreover even uninstall them, then as the sun goes up you check your emails. Low and behold as you check your emails as much as the email systems are getting better to moving junk, spam, promotional emails away from your inbox, you still have to mark some and delete them from your inbox. The next thing you do is browse your hundreds of spam and junk, block them and the domains. The next morning the same subjects you just blocked yesterday are back using different email address and domains. But in common sense you would wonder why these junk emails are using the same subjects and formats from those you had already blocked thinking they're gone. These scenario in itself is non ending daily routine. Then you go to this social and promotional emails or even those in your inbox, link to un-subscribed which even sometimes brings you to the home page website of the sender where you confirm you want to un-subscribed. Guess what, when you check in a few days and they are back. Prior to these heavy hacking on the elections, if you still get an email from a site you have already un-subscribed, you can file a complaint and these websites can be banned or penalized. It was that simple as reporting telemarketers continuously calling your phone after you have reported them and removed your number from the marketing numbers to be called. This is why I say there is a "New Threat" as there is no stopping on these attacks and annoyances. 

Worst case from your land line, to your cell phone, to even google voice and what's up phone numbers comes the daily VOIP robocalls. If you dare answer which at times you may as they've gone sophisticated using a number your familiar with then the more doom you are as the more calls your gonna get in addition. Robocalls are more commonly known as telemarketing calls but they were actually started being used by politicians making those electioneering calls. So yes, robocalls can be said to be also related to these on-going threats as for one they are non traceable so one has been caught yet. These callers are even using legitimate companies showing in your caller ID and also in there voice messages. They may be from a Consul General, Embassy, Apple.com, Discover.com etc..,

The phishing emails and text although have been in reality for a while, one can still be a victim as again they are now more individualized to a person that can be deceiving as it may use a name or topic familiar to us. There are even those so called emails with a subject on your generic password or a password you may use in the past saying you better pay their block mail amount or less see yourself online having sex etc..,

Although smart phones are really quite hard to infiltrate being a mobile device, guess what if you do click on a text link you just gave permission to hack your phone and your life.

I'm not going to elaborate much on Social Media accounts and advertisements as by now we all know about this in the past recent months. What I can say is that influencing psychological thinking and behaviors for the mere purpose of profit depicted the  very purpose of social media influence of connecting people. The hardest part of the challenges in here is that computers and algorithms running infrastructures just to approve a social media ad  due to the bulk quantities is not acceptable. Normal people being banned to a post they may have not even have posted themselves is another example of a platform managed by computers instead of humans. Hence, later on hundreds or even thousands of fake accounts to be discovered and removed together with fake ads. 

Not like in the old days, you either call the authorities, right a letter, file a complaint or even report unanimously. Today's world is very complicated and sad to say there's not really much help but to be personally vigilant and watch your own back.  Hopefully, as technology goes further towards the 22nd century more research and laws can be enacted as for sure these new threats are gonna get more sophisticated in time.

Alex Esguerra
ADLE International




Sunday, June 10, 2018

Yes We (Still) Can, a Preview


Yes We (Still) Can

As my writings are more link to current issues and events including current governments, I normally don't do a lot of reading and writing on the past.

For some reason, I was convince to preview the few parts of this book precisely due to the humble introduction made by the author, Dan Pfeiffer when clarified through his Reader Beware annotation saying that the book is not about the Obama years, continuing that he is not an historian but mostly a journal of how remembers his Obama affiliation, and Obama's last Pod Save interview with him. He wanted to connect the present state of politics and his thinking on the future is why I sort of said it may be relevant to the present.

This book is a side by side challenger to Trump's America authored by Former Speaker Newt Gingrich where he compared the anti-Trump Coalition and the Trump die hard. Contrary, Dan Pfeiffer navigates to Why and What happened to the election of the new president which leads to the Anti and Pro Trump coalition in Gingrich's book. The main relevance for me is that Pfeiffer tries to create an argument to young people that politics is worth engaging to. The very essence of why I continue on youth advocacy through my blogs and writings. I do credit the author Former President Obama as indeed it was in 2008 that change the scenario of US elections when the young people in that election was historic in votes making Obama President. 

As Pfeiffer explained, just on the Obama written book of Dreams of My Father, touch on being young, mixed cultural race towards a rising minority to the highest office in the most powerful country in the globe. The author himself cited his personal travails starting in 7th grade in Japan, his recollection of the politics and presidents from that time forward. Later towards Obama's presidency that he created his executive order on DACA and the Dreamers knowing the broken immigration system. Obama knew it was not going to be on watch even if some day there was indeed an overhaul on the immigration system.

His first year in office was spent on the Financial overhaul and modernization needed to come out of the deep recession. Any business person including the current commander in chief have a an understanding of what and why this crisis was. Of course how the statements of the current administration on this a deliberate attempt of mere discredit to a legacy.

The Affordable Care Act in another issue has been debated through this day at the start of the new administration. The goal of eradicating a legacy keeps popping up from all fronts including fake news and the democrats. As I end on this short commentary, another interesting piece I read while previewing this upcoming bestseller is on how President Trump has change the traditional ways of Presidential communications.

On this part regardless, I will have to agree on how Mr. Trump has revolutionized the structure of easy communications from a sitting president through constant daily tweets. This part I find President Trump also a businessman gains credit. The files of paper overloads and staff just to answer letters and communicate by previous presidential staffs  were tremendous. Not only had we reduce waste of paper etc.., The Office of the President has shown a better each to reality. I would end on what Dan Pfeiffer said that instead democrats should be looking on the history on how Obama won in 2008 using social media and the youth instead of looking at each tweet President Trump does everyday.




Wednesday, May 9, 2018

How Complicated is it "To End a Presidency" the Analytical Perspective

To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment


is 6 days away as of the writing of this blog. Written by two distinguish authors, Laurence Tribe and Joshua Matz.  Laurence Tribe is the Carl M. Loeb University Professor and a professor of constitutional law at Harvard. One of America's foremost constitutional scholars, he is the coauthor of Uncertain Justice (with Joshua Matz) and numerous other books and articles. He lives in Brookline, Massachusetts.

Joshua Matz, a graduate of Harvard Law School and a constitutional lawyer, is the publisher of Take Care, which provides legal analysis of the Trump presidency. He lives in Washington, DC.

I had a personal interest in this book as the topic of impeachment itself is very complicated. 'Impeachment is not like a magic Harry Potter spell or wand nor a doomsday as they say in fairy tales. It such in depth that notoriety in wiring books on this topic requires such expertise and familiarization not only of the process but also constitutional law. Added to that are the democratic ideologies and how it impacts the current administration and president hence is what this topic has been discussed since day 1 when this presidency took effect.

Hopefully, an overview of the process and facts on lay men's understanding can shed some light on the real significance of this topic today. The reality is that is such a hard process to impeach a president. Hence, two past presidents impeachment tries didn't really resonate. America's founding fathers did include this provision from the very start as weakest last resort as if in case of fire break the safety glass cabinet to get the fire extinguisher. While there are really no glass case to break nowadays in this age, that barrier in reference to impeachment is still the same meaning their still is a glass case with a lock.

I remember Psychology plays a big de facto on impeachment. In the past year we have seen the psychology books written about the President's mental health. The truth of the matter, a being disturbed, acting strange even like an idiot, saying different things and versions does not surpassed the test of getting impeached. The said person truly and definitely has to be mentally ill to pass the test. 

This is why of all the books written, I believe the closest case if ever if there would be one case for impeachment would be on Bribery and Collusion with a foreign in meddling the outcome of the presidential elections. And even then if the facts of the case gains a positive outcome, the hardest part would be the constitutional process. Both the United States Senate and House of Representatives has to be both having a majority vote to enact the impeachment. Regardless, of the lengthy process in developing the case, without both majority vote will either enact or if ever this case finally dies. One example is in the case of President Clinton in 1998, the vote pass the House of Representatives but failed in the US Senate.

The bigger question even to be ask is "Is it possible that a Congress in which the Republicans control both or even one chamber would consider impeaching Trump?".  This is why I'm hoping that this new book written by two notables on the subject will lay out the underling and tedious criteria s on what is really involved even to get a case for impeachment.

When you get to read this new bestseller, please share your comments and we together review not just this book bu the case of impeachment.