As the impeachment of President Donald Trump moves to trial in the Senate, Cornell professors shared their views on the significance of the House charges –– and their predictions for how America’s historic impeachment trial will play out. On Tuesday afternoon, as the Senate began trial proceedings, bitter partisanship was on full display, with Senators sticking to party-lines in several key votes, The New York Times reported. By the end of Tuesday night, multiple attempts by Senate Democrats to subpoena documents from the White House had failed –– reflecting a so far intense battle on what process the impeachment trial will follow. While Democratic leaders in the chamber have insisted that additional witnesses and evidence be subpoenaed by the Senate, many Republicans have resisted such plans. “If witnesses are, in fact, called, they might have some very significant things to say, and the trial would be much longer,” Prof. Richard Bensel, government, said in an email to The Sun, who said that House Democrats’ decision to impeach Trump was the “one ethical choice.”
However, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-K.Y.) has thus far stuck to a limit on the time for arguments: three days.
Democrats were projected to seize the majority in the House with 33 new seats, while the Republicans were predicted to pick up three more seats to fortify their Senate majority according to polling site FiveThirtyEight.
Students watched as election coverage reported that Democrats seized control of the House of Representatives, the Republicans maintained control of the Senate on Tuesday night at various watch party locations throughout campus.
This election has been defined by the absurd. From Trump’s endless list of obscene comments, to Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables” claim, we find ourselves in the precarious position of trying to decide between the lesser of two great evils. Yet 2016 is not just a presidential year — we must also make the critical choice of who should take the reins of the Senate. In more ways than one, the battle for control of the Senate will be crucial to the future of our republic. No matter who the next commander-in-chief will be, we must face the reality that the Senate will have a crucial say over the Supreme Court, U.S. intervention in the Middle East, relations with China and Russia and the budget.
Ronald Ehrenberg, the Irving M. Ives Professor of industrial and labor relations and economics and member of the Cornell Board of Trustees, was nominated in May by Gov. David Paterson to serve on the Board of Trustees for the State University of New York (SUNY) school system.
Ehrenberg, a long-time professor at Cornell and author of the book Tuition Rising, which discusses the rapidly increasing price of tuition at many of America’s colleges, was nominated for the position because of his expertise on “public higher education.” Additionally, “both my wife and I, and lots of my relatives, are graduates of SUNY so I have a concern for the institution which is very, very deep,” Ehrenberg said.
Before trying to enact some of her major policy agendas in the Senate chamber in Washington, D.C., Kirsten Gillibrand, the junior senator from New York, has to listen to her constituents in order to determine what exactly her agenda should be. After holding economic development roundtables in Cortland and Elmira yesterday, Gillibrand also participated in a roundtable discussion at Cornell’s College of Veterinary Medicine.
“I’m here to help,” Gillibrand told the panelists and audience members. Focusing on what Gillibrand could do for the people and the region she represents in Congress, the roundtable gravitated towards how Gillibrand could help alleviate the economic and agricultural issues facing upstate New York.
Today the Senate passed its version of the stimulus bill. The House version of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has a price tag of about $820 billion while the Senate version stands at a total of $838 billion. Now the two versions will have to be reconciled and signed by President Obama. The ultimate goal of the stimulus legislation is to restore demand by replacing private spending with public spending and using tax cuts to hopefully restore consumers’ income enough to spur consumption. It is widely accepted that a stimulus bill is the proper means by which to improve the economy – it is perhaps the best of some bad options.