BuzzFeed Wins Defamation Lawsuit Filed by Executive Named in Trump Dossier

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/business/media/buzzfeed-dossier-lawsuit-trump-steele-russia.html

In early 2017, shortly before President Trump’s inauguration, BuzzFeed decided to publish a 35-page dossier containing unverified reports of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. In response to this, Aleksej Gubarev, a Russian technology executive mentioned in the dossier, filed a defamation lawsuit against BuzzFeed. Gubarev claimed that BuzzFeed’s decision to publish a document that most other major media corporations resisted publishing was an extremely reckless act of journalism.

This past Wednesday, a federal judge in Miami ruled in favor of BuzzFeed. She cited BuzzFeed’s disclaimer that the dossier included “specific, unverified, and potentially unverifiable allegations” as a reason for not upholding the suit. In response to the ruling, Gubarev’s team stated that the ruling only implies that “BuzzFeed had a privilege to publish the information even if it was false.” In response to this, the editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed, Ben Smith stated that the judge “affirmed in her ruling a key principle underlying the First Amendment… that the public has a right to know about actions taken by its government… Moreover, its publication has contributed to the American people’s understanding of what is happening in their country and their government.” Following the ruling, Mr. Gubarev has decided to appeal.

1. How may have the Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan set precedent for this federal court case? Explain using the facts of the case when necessary.

2. Furthermore, how may have the Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. United States set precedent for this federal court case? Explain using the facts of the case when necessary.

3. These are tumultuous times for the media. On one hand, we have President Trump who is raising panic about “fake news,” and on the other hand, we have people crying out about the government potentially infringing upon the First Amendment right of freedom of the press. Why may the media’s role as the Fourth Estate be more important than ever? Do you believe that BuzzFeed is fulfilling this role by publishing the dossier, or are they overstepping their bounds?

Yemen War: Ceasefire takes effect in Hudaydah after skirmishes

Yemen war: Ceasefire takes effect in Hudaydah after skirmishes

The war in Yemen has been raging since 2015, with an estimated 85,000 children dying from famine, and 14 million people at the brink of starvation. In addition, 22.2 million (75% of Yemen population) needs humanitarian support. The war in Yemen is apart of the larger Middle Eastern conflict of Saudi Arabia vs. Iran, with Yemen civilians stuck in the middle of this proxy war.

1. Do you think the United States will stop selling military arms to Saudi Arabia, like countries around the world has begun? If so, do you think they would've stopped because of the war in Yemen, or because of the death of Jamal Khashogg?

2. Do you think this ceasefire will last? Do you think peace is obtainable?

3.  If you were the U.S. President, how would you deal with this crisis?

William Barr nominated to replace Sessions as AG

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/07/us/politics/william-barr-attorney-general.html

Summary: After firing Jeff Sessions the day after the midterms, Trump has finally settled on someone to be his permanent replacement. William Barr is a 68 year old Lawyer who has long been entrenched in the republican establishment. He served as AG from 1991-1993 under the H.W. Bush administration. He will very likely breeze past the now 53 member majority in the senate and will be confirmed. However while he is qualified for the job, some of his statements of current events are very concerning for people who want to protect the integrity of the Mueller investigation. He has criticized Muller for hiring too many Democratic Prosecutors and Lawyers, stated he does not believe the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government and has a broad view of executive power. Perhaps most concerning he has expressed support for a DOJ investigation into the Clinton uranium one deal, a baseless conspiracy theory that holds that Hillary Clinton accepted bribes in the form of donations to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for selling US uranium to Russians. These are statements are very concerning because they indicate Barr will not hold a line on some of Trump's worst and most dangerous impulses, prosecuting political rivals (which he unsuccessfully tried to do) and fire Robert Muller (which he also tried and failed at). All of these issues deal with things like executive power, Judicial independence and overall health of our democracy, which we have all studied in class.

Questions:

1- Do you think that trump chose Barr because he is considered by qualified by congress and unlikely to be a an embarrassment to the administration or is it because Barr may be willing to allow Trump to end the Mueller investigation? Both?

2- As Trump’s legal challenges grow larger and the public learns more every day, would an Anti-Mueller AG even be enough to save Trump from possible impeachment or a grand jury indictment?

3- Congressional republicans are caught in the tricky situation of (mostly) voicing support for Muller’s investigation but also refusing to take any action to try and reign in Trump's power to damage it. If Barr tries to limit the Muller investigation and Muller is still able to show criminal wrongdoing by the Trump campaign, how do you think history will view these congress members who were complicit in the efforts to stop an independent investigation?

The Politics of Climate Change

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-time-to-look-at-the-political-science-behind-climate-change/2018/12/10/f1787070-fc96-11e8-862a-b6a6f3ce8199_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3b56fce2d582

Climate Change has become an increasingly prominent issue in the world. Temperatures are fluctuating beyond control and destroying habitats, ecosystems, and altering numerous environments. While many people acknowledge the issue, there haven't been significant enough strides to attempt to change the course of the future.

While it may seem like a sole environmental issue, politics are necessary to alter climate change. Politicians are hesitant to make any drastic legislation due to constituent views and the potentially high costs. There have been some attempts in legislation, but not many have been passed. Arizona's effort to require a minimum of energy to come from renewable sources was vastly voted against even though the majority of voters were Democrats, a political party that has accepted climate change. In California, there was a measure passed a 12 cent-per-gallon tax. However, it was presented as a way to benefit the highways, not the environment.

Another main reason why there hasn't been action against climate change is the rhetoric by the president and others that it isn't a real issue.  Many have the misconception that it isn't as bad as it really is, but in reality, at the rate we are going with pollution and energy expenditure our planet is in grave danger. In order to not have to deal with it now, the administration has taken the denial route and it will have serious implications in the future.

Why are politicians hesitant to create any legislation to solve this huge problem?

How long until there is large political action for climate change? Are politicians being influenced more from personal views or their constituents?

Are people being influenced by their President explicitly stated that Climate Change isn't real? Is this a big reason for people being against any legislation or is it from other factors?

'Dirty Deeds': Ex-Trump Lawyer Cohen Gets 3 Years in Prison

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2018-12-12/ex-trump-lawyer-michael-cohen-faces-possible-jail-sentence

Summary:
The article explains the sentencing of Michael Cohen, Trump's previous lawyer. He was sentenced for 3 years for evading taxes, lying about Trump's involvement with Russia, and violating campaign finance laws in regards to paying off some of Trump's previous sexual partners, including Stormy Daniels. Cohen is allegedly fully cooperating, and Trump is denying that this reflects bad on him in any way, whatsoever. Trump has continually bad-mouthed Cohen and deemed his own involvement in the issue a "witch hunt." The article is concluded by revealing the reasoning of the judge: he gave credit to Cohen for cooperating, but still assured everyone that he deserves "everyday of the 36 month sentence."

Questions:

• Can Trump pardon Cohen? What would be the implications of this? Do YOU believe he will do it?
• How does Cohen’s sentencing affect the momentum for Trump’s impeachment… if at all? Respond in the form of a claim and BRIEFLY support it with evidence.
• Recently we’ve been learning about the judiciary. In what kind of court was Cohen trialed in? If Cohen is the defendant, who is the plaintiff?

Senate Resolution To War In Yemen

https://www.vox.com/2018/12/13/18139585/senate-yemen-saudi-arabia-resolution-khashoggi

December 13, 2018 - The Senate has passed a resolution to the war in Yemen that will supposedly progress towards ending this war in Yemen at a quicker pace. The discussion pertaining to this resolution had failed previously in the Senate but in light of recent events of the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, as well as long-time dissatisfaction about the progress being made in Yemen, the Senate led by Bernie Sanders, Mike Lee, and Chris Murphy passed a resolution to stop US involvement in Yemen. The resolution proposed was bipartisan and passed in the Senate 56 to 41. However, president Trump doesn't appear to agree with this resolution, and it seems to clash with his initial plan of moving US troops closer to Saudi Arabia. While the president isn't too happy with these decisions, Congress wants to expedite getting the troops out of Yemen.

1. How significant was the death of Jamal Khashoggi to the decision of this resolution?


2. How does the War Powers Act complicate the dynamic between Congress and the President? How does either side benefit? Why?

3. What power does President Trump have over this legislation?

Trump’s Options Regarding the Mueller Investigation

It has long been discussed how Trump could end the ongoing Mueller investigation into whether the
president’s campaign colluded with Russian efforts to intervene in the 2016 election. It is highly
unlikely that Trump will be indicted by Mueller, since the Department of Justice has long held that
sitting presidents are immune to criminal indictment. However, as the Mueller investigation develops,
it becomes increasingly plausible that one of Trump’s actions will be deemed an impeachable offense.
Only congress has the power to prosecute Trump, and with the recent sentence of Michael Cohen to
three years in jail for election crimes, new avenues have opened for further actions against Trump.

Considering the possible implications of the Mueller investigation on Trump’s presidency: what are his
options? Trump could order Matthew G. Whitaker, the acting attorney general, to fire Robert Mueller,
or replace him with someone who would. Furthermore, Trump could order the attorney general to
re-frame the mandate of the investigation, limit its budget, and even bury the report once it lands.
However, doing so would no doubt result in a tremendous increase in disapproval rates and almost
certainly start the impeachment process. Moreover, it would require more than that to halt the
investigation.
“You’d almost have to fire everyone in the FBI and the Justice Department to derail the relevant
investigations,” said former FBI director, James B. Comey. So, it seems unlikely that Trump will
intervene. Not only would it likely destroy any hope for a reelection, it could mean that he wouldn’t
even make it to the end of his first term. In the end, guilty or not, Trump is forced to watch this
investigation play out.

1. If an attempt to impeach Trump by House Democrats failed, which party would stand to lose more?
2. What is your opinion on the president’s criminal immunity? (Should the president be burdened by criminal
   investigations while leading the nation, or is the current impeachment system fine and the president should remain above the law?)
3. What effect has the Mueller investigation had on the electorate? How might this change, and how significant will the change be, if Trump actively works against the investigation?